Federal Register Vol. 81, No.166,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 166 (August 26, 2016)

Page Range58807-59119
FR Document

81_FR_166
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 58849 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur DioxidePDF
81 FR 58807 - Amendment to Executive Order 13673PDF
81 FR 58982 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 58831 - Administrative Exemption on Value Increased for Certain ArticlesPDF
81 FR 59038 - Withdrawal of Amendments to Highway Safety Program GuidelinesPDF
81 FR 58951 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 58960 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Issuance of PermitsPDF
81 FR 58952 - Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program and Other Programs Fiscal Year 2017PDF
81 FR 58961 - 2016 Second Call for Nominations for Utah Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 58925 - Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals; Establishment of a Federal Advisory Committee; Request for NominationsPDF
81 FR 59039 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1024PDF
81 FR 58877 - Extension of Comment Period for Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining RegistrantsPDF
81 FR 59040 - Request for Applications for the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government EntitiesPDF
81 FR 59041 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request on Information Collection Tools Relating to Wage and Investment Behavioral Laboratory Customer Surveys and SupportPDF
81 FR 59041 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Veterans Rural Health Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 58902 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 58924 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 58911 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 58913 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 58926 - Mercury Compounds; Prohibition of ExportPDF
81 FR 58945 - National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 58939 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 58939 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 58846 - Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HIPDF
81 FR 59029 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Corporate Family Merger Exemption-The Three Rivers Railway CompanyPDF
81 FR 58947 - Solicitation of Written Comments on the Maternal Immunizations Working Group Phase II's Draft Report and Draft Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers and Identifying Opportunities for Developing Maternal Immunizations for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 58946 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 59029 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of Jemaah Islamiya (and Other Aliases)PDF
81 FR 59028 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: U.S. Passport Renewal Application for Eligible IndividualsPDF
81 FR 58929 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 58944 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 58932 - Supervisory Rating System for Financial Market InfrastructuresPDF
81 FR 58928 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 58930 - Privacy Act System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 58981 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 58981 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 58946 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: MeetingPDF
81 FR 59042 - Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 58980 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Registered Apprenticeship College ConsortiumPDF
81 FR 58960 - Second Call for Nominations to the Alaska Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 58870 - Importation of Fresh Persimmons From New Zealand Into the United StatesPDF
81 FR 58867 - Importation of Fresh Raspberry Fruit From Morocco Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 58873 - Importation of Lemons From Chile Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 58858 - Television Broadcasting Services; Seaford, DelawarePDF
81 FR 58982 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 58919 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Announce Public Scoping Meetings for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization: Expansion of Land Ranges, Airspace Modifications, and Public Land Withdrawal RenewalPDF
81 FR 58921 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated From DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium HexafluoridePDF
81 FR 58920 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) SonarPDF
81 FR 59033 - Household Goods Consumer Protection: Application for Exemption; La Rosa Del Monte Express Inc. (LRDM)PDF
81 FR 59034 - Amended Pre-Trip Safety Information for Motorcoach PassengersPDF
81 FR 59038 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments; Clearance of a New Information Collection(s): U.S. Department of Transportation Accessibility Concern FormPDF
81 FR 58917 - Army Education Advisory Subcommittee Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 58917 - Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned PatentsPDF
81 FR 58910 - Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest; Okanogan, Chelan and Skagit Counties, Washington; Pack Stock Outfitter Guide Special Use Permits Supplemental Environmental Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 58840 - Military Lending Act Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and DependentsPDF
81 FR 58959 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan, Orange County, FLPDF
81 FR 58859 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 9PDF
81 FR 58846 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MDPDF
81 FR 59036 - Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Bridge Project in Washington, DCPDF
81 FR 58846 - Safety Zone; Portland Dragon Boat Races, Portland, ORPDF
81 FR 59043 - Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 58895 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Chambered Nautilus as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 58941 - Microbiology Data for Systemic Antibacterial Drugs-Development, Analysis, and Presentation; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 58942 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; User Account Management Function for the Import Trade Auxiliary Communication SystemPDF
81 FR 58911 - MeetingsPDF
81 FR 58964 - Proposed Renewal of the Approval of Information Collection Requirements; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 59028 - Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00065PDF
81 FR 58878 - Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Maximum and Minimum Compensation RatesPDF
81 FR 59027 - Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00065PDF
81 FR 59028 - Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 58834 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Thiafentanil Into Schedule IIPDF
81 FR 59020 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 13.8, EDGA Book Feeds, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as EDGA Summary DepthPDF
81 FR 58987 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 13.8, EDGX Book Feeds, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as EDGX Summary DepthPDF
81 FR 59025 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and Charges To Eliminate the Listing Fee in Connection With Exchange Listing of Certain Exchange Traded ProductsPDF
81 FR 59014 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as BZX Summary DepthPDF
81 FR 59018 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as BYX Summary DepthPDF
81 FR 59016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 21.8, Order Display and Book ProcessingPDF
81 FR 58992 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Change Amending the Co-Location Services Offered by the Exchange To Add Certain Access and Connectivity FeesPDF
81 FR 59004 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Co-location Services Offered by the Exchange To Add Certain Access and Connectivity FeesPDF
81 FR 59002 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 3, To List and Trade Shares of the Natixis Seeyond International Minimum Volatility ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 58983 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, As Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Amplify Dow Theory Forecasts Buy List ETF of Amplify ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 58989 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Due Date for Certain Submissions Under Rule G-45 and Provide Guidance on the Application of Rules G-42 and G-44 to Municipal Advisors to Sponsors or Trustees of Municipal Fund SecuritiesPDF
81 FR 59023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Options PricingPDF
81 FR 58963 - Notice of Intent To Establish a Campground Fee on Public Land in Gunnison County, ColoradoPDF
81 FR 58962 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, WyomingPDF
81 FR 58964 - Cancellation of September 7, 2016, Meeting of the Wekiva River System Advisory Management CommitteePDF
81 FR 58951 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 58948 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 58949 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 58940 - Information Collection; Rights in Data and CopyrightsPDF
81 FR 58951 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 58950 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 58952 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 58950 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 58950 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 58960 - Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota)PDF
81 FR 58923 - Hartree Partners, LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 58923 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 59030 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 58918 - Submission for OMB Review; Anti-Kickback ProceduresPDF
81 FR 59030 - Government/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum MeetingPDF
81 FR 59031 - Availability of Noise Compatibility Program for Akron-Canton Airport, North Canton, OhioPDF
81 FR 58849 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Interstate Transport Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQSPDF
81 FR 58927 - Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
81 FR 58909 - Inyo, Plumas, and Stanislaus National Forests; Mono, Inyo, Plumas, and Tuolumne Counties, California; Mammoth Base Land ExchangePDF
81 FR 58823 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58874 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58827 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58818 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58821 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 59045 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite ToadPDF
81 FR 58855 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From the Reynolds Consumer Products LLC-Bellwood Printing PlantPDF
81 FR 58894 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Operating Permit Conditions for the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Reynolds Consumer Products LLC-Bellwood Printing PlantPDF
81 FR 58908 - Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)PDF
81 FR 58905 - Adjustment of Appendices for Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing for the 2016 Tariff-Rate Quota YearPDF
81 FR 59032 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in IllinoisPDF
81 FR 58903 - Notice of Request To Renew an Approved Information Collection (Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products)PDF
81 FR 58952 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 58816 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58811 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58813 - Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58829 - Airworthiness Directives; RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH AirplanesPDF
81 FR 58890 - Privacy Act ProceduresPDF
81 FR 58859 - Notice of Adoption of the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulations (HHSAR) and OIG Class DeviationsPDF
81 FR 58809 - Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program-General Administration ProvisionsPDF

Issue

81 166 Friday, August 26, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Foreign Agricultural Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

See

Office of Advocacy and Outreach

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Imports: Fresh Persimmons From New Zealand, 58870-58873 2016-20508 Fresh Raspberry Fruit From Morocco, 58867-58869 2016-20507 Lemons from Chile, 58873-58874 2016-20506 Architectural Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board NOTICES Meetings: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 58911 2016-20470 Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 58917 2016-20489 Meetings: Army Education Advisory Subcommittee, 58917-58918 2016-20490 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Chester River, Chestertown, MD, 58846 2016-20482 Safety Zones: Portland Dragon Boat Races, Portland, OR, 58846 2016-20480 Security Zones: Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI, 58846-58849 2016-20530 Commerce Commerce Department 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, 58911-58917 2016-20535 2016-20536 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

RULES Military Lending Act Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and Dependents, 58840-58846 2016-20486 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 58918-58919 2016-20431 Rights in Data and Copyrights, 58940-58941 2016-20443
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Thiafentanil into Schedule II, 58834-58840 2016-20463 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, 58921-58923 2016-20501
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Virginia; Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC—Bellwood Printing Plant, 58855-58858 2016-20299 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New York; Interstate Transport Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 58849-58855 2016-20411 Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide, 58849 C1--2016--08913 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Virginia; State Operating Permit Conditions for the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC—Bellwood Printing Plant, 58894-58895 2016-20297 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 58924-58925 2016-20537 Export Prohibitions: Mercury Compounds, 58926-58927 2016-20534 Proposed Settlement Agreements: Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 58927-58928 2016-20403 Request for Nominations: Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, 58925-58926 2016-20550 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58902-58903 2016-20542 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 58823-58826 2016-20381 Boeing Company Airplanes, 58816-58818 2016-20075 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 58827-58829 2016-20376 PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes, 58811-58813 2016-20074 RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Airplanes, 58829-58831 2016-20072 Textron Aviation, Inc. Airplanes, 58813-58816 2016-20073 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 58818-58823 2016-20374 2016-20375 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 58874-58877 2016-20378 NOTICES Meetings: Aeronautical Charting Forum, 59030 2016-20430 Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 59030-59031 2016-20433 Noise Compatibility Programs: Akron-Canton Airport, North Canton, OH, 59031-59032 2016-20425 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Television Broadcasting Services: Seaford, DE, 58858-58859 2016-20504 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58928-58930 2016-20516 2016-20520 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 58930-58932 2016-20515 Federal Contract Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58964-58980 2016-20469 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 58923-58924 2016-20434 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Hartree Partners, LP, 58923 2016-20435 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: Illinois; Proposed Highway, 59032-59033 2016-20229 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Amended Pre-Trip Safety Information for Motorcoach Passengers, 59034-59036 2016-20493 Exemption Applications: Household Goods Consumer Protection; La Rosa Del Monte Express Inc., 59033-59034 2016-20498 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Long Bridge Project in Washington, DC, 59036-59038 2016-20481 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 58939 2016-20531 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 58939-58940 2016-20532 Supervisory Rating System for Financial Market Infrastructures, 58932-58939 2016-20517 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad, 59046-59119 2016-20352 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permits, 58960 2016-20554 Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Low-effect Habitat Conservation Plan, Orange County, FL, 58959-58960 2016-20484 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: User Account Management Function for the Import Trade Auxiliary Communication System, 58942-58944 2016-20472 Guidance: Microbiology Data for Systemic Antibacterial Drugs—Development, Analysis, and Presentation, 58941-58942 2016-20473 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products, 58903-58905 2016-20225 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing: 2016 Tariff-Rate Quota Year Appendices, 58905-58908 2016-20248 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Inyo, Plumas, and Stanislaus National Forests; Mono, Inyo, Plumas, and Tuolumne Counties, CA; Mammoth Base Land Exchange, 58909-58910 2016-20383 Pack Stock Outfitter Guide Special Use Permits, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Okanogan, Chelan and Skagit Counties, WA, 58910-58911 2016-20487 New Fee Sites, 58908-58909 2016-20291 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 58918-58919 2016-20431 Rights in Data and Copyrights, 58940-58941 2016-20443 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Adoption of the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulations and OIG Class Deviations, 58859 2016-18790 NOTICES Maternal Immunizations Working Group Phase II's Draft Report and Draft Recommendations: Overcoming Barriers and Identifying Opportunities for Developing Maternal Immunizations for Consideration by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 58947-58948 2016-20525 Meetings: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, 58946 2016-20512 Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; Correction, 58946 2016-20524
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, 58945-58946 2016-20533 Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 58944-58945 2016-20519 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program and Other Programs Fiscal Year 2017, 58952-58959 2016-20552 Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 58952 2016-20138 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming: Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota, 58960 2016-20436 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Indian Gaming Commission

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 59039-59040 2016-20521 2016-20549 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Wage and Investment Behavioral Laboratory Customer Surveys and Support, 59041 2016-20544 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities, 59040 2016-20545 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Registered Apprenticeship College Consortium, 58980-58981 2016-20510
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES 2016 Second Call for Nominations: Utah Resource Advisory Council, 58961-58962 2016-20551 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, WY, 58962-58963 2016-20449 New Fee Sites: Campground on Public Land in Gunnison County, CO, 58963-58964 2016-20450 Requests for Nominations: Alaska Resource Advisory Council, 58960-58961 2016-20509 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Anti-Kickback Procedures, 58918-58919 2016-20431 Rights in Data and Copyrights, 58940-58941 2016-20443 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Highway Safety Program Guidelines; Amendments, 59038 2016-20578 National Indian National Indian Gaming Commission PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act Procedures, 58890-58894 2016-19749 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture RULES Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program, 58809-58811 2016-18422 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 58949-58950 2016-20444 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 58951-58952 2016-20557 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 58950 2016-20438 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 2016-20439 58950-58952 2016-20440 2016-20441 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 58950-58951 2016-20437 2016-20447 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 58948-58949 2016-20445 2016-20446 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 9, 58859-58866 2016-20483 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife: Finding on a Petition to List Chambered Nautilus as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 58895-58901 2016-20478 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Meetings: Wekiva River System Advisory Management Committee; Cancellation, 58964 2016-20448 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Permit Applications: Antarctic Conservation Act, 58981 2016-20513 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization; Expansion of Land Ranges, Airspace Modifications, and Public Land Withdrawal, 58919-58920 2016-20502 Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar, 58920-58921 2016-20500 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 58981-58982 2016-20514 Advocacy Outreach Office of Advocacy and Outreach NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 58902 2016-20518 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 58982 2016-20585 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 58982-58983 2016-20503 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Amending Executive Order 13673 (EO 13738), 58807-58808 2016-20713 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission PROPOSED RULES Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants; Extension of Comment Period, 58877-58878 2016-20548 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 59018-59020 2016-20458 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 59014-59016 2016-20459 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 59020-59023 2016-20462 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 58987-58989, 59016-59018 2016-20457 2016-20461 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 58989-58992 2016-20452 NYSE Arca, Inc., 59002-590014, 59025-59027 2016-20454 2016-20455 2016-20460 NYSE MKT LLC, 58992-59002 2016-20456 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 58983-58987, 59023-59025 2016-20451 2016-20453 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Louisiana, 59028 2016-20468 Louisiana, Amendment 2, 59027-59028 2016-20465 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs, 59028 2016-20464 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: U.S. Passport Renewal Application for Eligible Individuals, 59028-59029 2016-20522 Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations: Jemaah Islamiya and Other Aliases, 59029 2016-20523 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Corporate Family Merger Exemption: CSX Transportation, Inc. from The Three Rivers Railway Co., 59029-59030 2016-20528 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accessibility Concern Form, 59038-59039 2016-20491
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

RULES Administrative Exemption on Value Increased for Certain Articles, 58831-58834 2016-20581
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Administrative Exemption on Value Increased for Certain Articles, 58831-58834 2016-20581 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, 59043 2016-20479 Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation, 59042-59043 2016-20511 Requests for Nominations: Veterans Rural Health Advisory Committee, 59041-59042 2016-20543 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office PROPOSED RULES Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act: Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates, 58878-58890 2016-20467 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 59046-59119 2016-20352 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.

81 166 Friday, August 26, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture 7 CFR Part 3430 RIN 0524-AA67 Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program—General Administration Provisions AGENCY:

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is publishing as a final rule a revision to the general administrative guidelines applicable to the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) competitive grant program. The purpose of this final rule is to implement the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative commodity board provision added by section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 making it necessary to modify the AFRI regulations.

DATES:

This final rule becomes effective on August 26, 2016. NIFA is requesting comments for 30 days until September 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program—General Administration Provisions, by any of the following methods:

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

Email: [email protected] Include Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program—General Administration Provisions in the subject line of the message.

Instructions: All comments received must include the agency name and reference to Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Federal Grants Program—General Administration Provisions. All comments received will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Koszalka, Division Director, Policy and Oversight Division, Phone: 202-401-4325, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Summary Authority

This rulemaking is authorized by section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Faculties Research Grant Act 7 U.S.C. 450i(b).

Organization of 7 CFR Part 3430

A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural research, education, and extension programs. The awards made under the above authority are subject to the NIFA assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions. NIFA's development and publication of this regulation for its non-formula Federal assistance programs enhances its accountability and standardizes procedures across the Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through F as a final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752]. These regulations apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except for the formula grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business Innovation Research programs with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3403, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program (VMLRP), with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.

NIFA organized the regulation as follows: Subparts A through E provide administrative provisions for all competitive and noncompetitive non-formula Federal assistance programs. Subparts F and thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.

NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations, (2) purpose, (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from § 3430.2), (4) eligibility, (5) project types and priorities, (6) funding restrictions, (7) matching requirements, and (8) duration of grant. Subparts F and thereafter contain the above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need for additional rules for the program (e.g., additional reporting requirements).

Through this rulemaking, NIFA is making minor additions to Subpart G—Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) in order to implement the AFRI commodity board provision from section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).

Subpart G of 7 CFR 3430

Subpart G contains the administrative provisions for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). The purpose of AFRI is to make competitive grants for fundamental and applied research, extension, and education to address food and agricultural sciences, as defined under section 1404 of the National Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3103).

II. Revisions Included in the Final Rule Subpart G

Section 7404 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amended the general administration, special considerations, and eligible entities subsections for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) program, and added a special contributions requirement making it necessary to modify the program's administrative provisions.

With this rule, NIFA makes clear that it will solicit funding ideas under this subpart from statutorily defined national and state commodity boards for research topics that the commodity boards are willing to co-fund equally with NIFA under the AFRI competitive grant program. If the ideas are evaluated and found to be consistent with the AFRI statutory priorities and priorities noted in the President's budget request related to NIFA, the topics will be incorporated in existing program areas in the relevant AFRI Request for Applications (RFA(s)). Researchers wishing to submit a proposal on a topic suggested by a commodity board will be required to obtain a letter of support from the co-funding commodity board. The applications submitted in response to a commodity board co-funded topic will compete against all proposals submitted in the same RFA program area. Supported applications will receive no preference regarding the evaluation of their scientific merit. Letters of commodity board support will be used by NIFA solely to determine that the application fits within the commodity board co-funded topic and the commodity board is willing to co-fund that application, if it is evaluated by the review panel as being meritorious and recommended for award.

III. Administrative Requirements for the Rulemaking

While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), specifically exempts rules that involve public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts from notice-and-comment requirements, NIFA is issuing this rule as final with request for comments. Accordingly, NIFA is allowing 30 days for the submission of comments.

If upon consideration of the comments received in response to this notice NIFA decides to amend the AFRI final rule, NIFA will issue a subsequent final rule that includes an explanation of any changes made in response to the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Director certifies that this final regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final regulation will affect institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under this program. The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards define institutions as “small entities” if they are for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions controlled by governmental entities with populations below 50,000. The rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA). The Department concludes that this final rule does not impose any new information requirements or increase the burden hours. In addition to the SF-424 form families (i.e., Research and Related and Mandatory) and the SF-425 Federal Financial Report (FFR) No. 0348-0061, NIFA has three currently approved OMB information collections associated with this rulemaking: OMB Information Collection No. 0524-0042, NIFA REEport; No. 0524-0041, NIFA Application Review Process; and No. 0524-0026, Organizational Information.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

This final regulation applies to the following Federal financial assistance programs administered by NIFA including CFDA No. 10.310, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 13132

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential or 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. As there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to understand.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3430

Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural research, Education, Extension, Federal assistance.

Accordingly, the Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, adopts the final rule amending 7 CFR part 3430 which was published at 75 FR 54759 on September 9, 2010, and amends 7 CFR part 3430 as set forth below:

PART 3430—COMPETITIVE AND NONCOMPETITIVE NON-FORMULA FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS—GENERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 3430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 3316; Pub. L. 106-107 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

Subpart G—Agriculture and Food Research Initiative 2. Add § 3430.313 to read as follows:
§ 3430.313 Inclusion of research topics proposed by national and state commodity boards in request for applications.

NIFA will solicit funding ideas under this subpart from statutorily defined national and state commodity boards for research topics that the commodity boards are willing to co-fund equally with NIFA under the AFRI competitive grant program. If the ideas are evaluated and found to be consistent with the AFRI statutory priorities and priorities noted in the President's budget request related to NIFA, the topics will be incorporated in existing program areas in the relevant AFRI Request for Applications (RFA(s)). Researchers wishing to submit a proposal on a topic suggested by a commodity board will be required to obtain a letter of support from the co-funding commodity board. The applications submitted in response to a commodity board co-funded topic will compete against all proposals submitted in the same RFA program area. Supported applications will receive no preference regarding the evaluation of their scientific merit. Letters of commodity board support will be used by NIFA solely to determine that the application fits within the commodity board co-funded topic and the commodity board is willing to co-fund that application, if it is evaluated by the review panel as being meritorious and recommended for award.

Done at Washington, DC, this 29 day of July, 2016. Robert E. Holland, Associate Director for Operations, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2016-18422 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-016-AD; Amendment 39-18620; AD 2016-17-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; or in person at Document 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 service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-7026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016 (81 FR 37166). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to a report of Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) on the Main Frame on Frame (FR) 11 left fitting Part Number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490.

Such a condition, if left uncorrected, could lead to potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer.

In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires a one-time check to identify the material specification and inspect the affected areas of the airframe that are made of aluminum alloy AA2024-T351. Any structural parts of the aircraft structure found to be cracked must be reported to Pilatus prior to further flight.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-7026-0002. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (81 FR 37166, June 9, 2016) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the 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 (81 FR 37166, June 9, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 37166, June 9, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, both dated February 25, 2016. PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for initial and repetitive inspection of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings for stress corrosion cracking; and PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, dated February 25, 2016, describes procedures for replacement of the main frame FR11 left and right fittings when necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 19 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to check the material specification of the fittings and 11 work-hours per product to inspect the 2014-T351 fittings as required in order 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 $17,765, or $935 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000 for a cost of $6,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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.

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-2016-7026; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 AD: 2016-17-07 PILATUS Aircraft Ltd.: Amendment 39-18620; Docket No. FAA-2016-7026; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-016-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSN) 101 through 618, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as stress corrosion cracking on the main frame on frame 11 left and right fittings, which can cause potential loss of the horizontal stabilizer. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect and correct stress corrosion cracking on the frame 11 left and right fittings.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD:

(1) Within the next 120 days after September 30, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), check the material specification of the Frame (FR) 11 left fitting part number (P/N) 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting P/N 112.35.07.490 following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.B. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

(2) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2124-T851 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 30 days after the inspection or within the next 30 days after September 30, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, report the inspection results following the reporting requirements in paragraph 3.D. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

(3) If fittings made of aluminum alloy AA2024-T351 are found during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect FR 11 left fitting, P/N 112.35.07.489 and the FR 11 right fitting, P/N 112.35.07.490, for cracks following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3.C. of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013, dated February 25, 2016.

(4) If cracks are found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fittings following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 3 of PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, dated February 25, 2016.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

Refer to Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-2016-001, dated May 17, 2016, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-7026-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-013; dated February 25, 2016; and

(ii) PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 53-014, dated February 25, 2016.

(3) For PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

(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 Kansas City, Missouri, on August 17, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20074 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8992; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-021-AD; Amendment 39-18621; AD 2016-17-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-24 for all Textron Aviation, Inc. Models 310 through 310R, E310H, E310J, T310P through T310R, 310J-1, 320 through 320F, 320-1, 335, 340, 340A, 401 through 401B, 402 through 402C, 411, 411A, 414, 414A, and 421 through 421C airplanes (type certificates 3A10, 3A25, and A7CE previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company). AD 2016-07-24 required replacement and repetitive inspections of the hardware securing the elevator trim tab push-pull rod. This AD retains the actions for AD 2016-07-24 but revises the repetitive inspection intervals and allows for a longer bolt for the attachment of the elevator trim tab actuator rod end to the push-pull tube connection and/or for the elevator trim tab horn end to the push-pull tube connection. This AD was prompted by comments indicating difficulties with bolt installation and requesting a revision to repetitive inspection intervals to coincide with established inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming of the elevator trim tab in a position outside the normal limits of travel due to the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, which could result in loss of control.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 12, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 12, 2016.

We must receive any comments on this AD by October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 517-7271; email: [email protected]; Internet: https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/newlogin.jsp. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8992.

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-2016-8992; 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 (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adam Hein, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4116; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

On March 30, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-24, Amendment 39-18469 (81 FR 21250, April 11, 2016), (“AD 2016-07-24”), for all Textron Aviation, Inc. Models 310 through 310R, E310H, E310J, T310P through T310R, 310J-1, 320 through 320F, 320-1, 335, 340, 340A, 401 through 401B, 402 through 402C, 411, 411A, 414, 414A, and 421 through 421C airplanes (type certificates 3A10, 3A25, and A7CE previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company). AD 2016-07-24 required replacing the hardware connecting the elevator trim tab push-pull rod to the elevator trim tab actuator and elevator trim tab. AD 2016-07-24 resulted from accident reports on Textron Aviation, Inc. Models T310Q, 310Q, and 402B airplanes; lessons learned in accident investigation support; and analysis of past accidents. The analysis of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determination of probable cause indicated that following the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, the elevator trim tab may jam in a position outside the normal limits of travel. We issued AD 2016-07-24 to require replacement and repetitive inspections of the hardware securing the elevator trim tab push-pull rod.

Actions Since AD 2016-07-24 Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2016-07-24, we have received reports of difficulties in installing the required bolt, part number (P/N) NAS464P3-8, because it was found in some cases to be too short to properly fasten with a cotter pin as required by the AD. It was also determined beneficial to revise the repetitive inspection intervals to better coincide with the standard established inspection intervals for these airplanes. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna Aircraft Company) Multi-engine Service Bulletin No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the hardware connecting the elevator trim tab push-pull rod to the elevator trim tab actuator and elevator trim tab. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

AD Requirements

This AD requires replacement and repetitive inspection of the elevator trim tab push-pull rod connecting hardware.

Differences Between the AD and the Service Information

Due to the immediate safety of flight condition of this AD action, we are requiring replacement of the hardware within 90 days after the effective date of this AD rather than the potential of up to a year as allowed in the service information.

The kit referenced in the service bulletin contains only standard parts that may be procured from other sources.

FAA's Justification and 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 the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod may result in jamming of the elevator trim tab beyond normal limits, which could result in loss of ability to control the airplane. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-8992 and directorate identifier 2016-CE-021-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 5,066 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Elevator trim tab push-pull rod hardware replacement 5 work-hour × $85 per hour = $425 $42 $467 $2,365,822 Repetitive Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 Not applicable 85 430,610

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. This is the same replacement that is initially required by this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repetitive on-condition replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Elevator trim tab push-pull rod hardware replacement 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $42 $467
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-24, Amendment 39-18469 (81 FR 21250, April 11, 2016) and adding the following new AD: 2016-17-08 Textron Aviation, Inc.: Amendment 39-18621; Docket No. FAA-2016-8992; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-021-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-07-24, Amendment 39-18469 (81 FR 21250, April 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-24”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation, Inc. Models 310 through 310R, E310H, E310J, T310P through T310R, 310J-1, 320 through 320F, 320-1, 335, 340, 340A, 401 through 401B, 402 through 402C, 411, 411A, 414, 414A, and 421 through 421C airplanes (type certificates 3A10, 3A25, and A7CE previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company), all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2731, Elevator Tab Control System.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD supersedes AD 2016-07-24, which required replacement and repetitive inspections of the hardware securing the elevator trim tab push-pull rod. This AD retains the actions for AD 2016-07-24 but revises the repetitive inspection intervals and allows for a longer bolt for the attachment of the elevator trim tab actuator rod end to the push-pull tube connection and/or for the elevator trim tab horn end to the push-pull tube connection. This AD was prompted by comments indicating difficulties with bolt installation and requesting a revision to repetitive inspection intervals to coincide with established inspection intervals. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming of the elevator trim tab in a position outside the normal limits of travel due to the loss of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod, which could result in loss of control.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD. If paragraph (f)(1) of this AD has already been done before September 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) following either Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, dated February 29, 2016 (see paragraph (g) of this AD) or Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016, then credit can be taken and the only required actions are the repetitive actions of paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this AD.

    (1) Within the next 90 days after September 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), replace the elevator trim tab push-pull rod attachment hardware on the elevator trim tab actuator and the trim tab ends of the push-pull rod following steps 3 through 6 of the accomplishment instructions in Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016.

    (2) Following the replacement required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or the replacement or previous repetitive general visual inspection done per AD 2016-07-24, whichever occurs later, repetitively conduct general visual inspections of the elevator trim tab push-pull rod attachment hardware on the elevator trim tab actuator and the trim tab ends of the push-pull rod at intervals not to exceed 110 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first. Before further flight, replace the hardware if necessary following the Compliance NOTE on page 1 of Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f)(2) of this AD:

    The intent is to require these repetitive inspections during your regular maintenance schedule.

    (3) After September 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), any time the elevator trim tab push-pull rod attachment hardware on the elevator trim tab actuator and/or trim tab ends of the push-pull rod is removed for any reason, discard the old hardware (bolt, nut, washer and cotter pin) and replace with new hardware following steps 4 and/or step 6 of Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016.

    (g) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

    This AD allows credit for the actions required in paragraphs (f)(1) of this AD if done before September 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) following the instructions of Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, dated February 29, 2016.

    (h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are allowed for this AD per 14 CFR 39.23 with the following limitation: Before flight a pre-flight visual inspection is required of the attachment hardware connecting the elevator trim tab actuator to the elevator trim tab push-pull rod. Confirmation of the presence of a castellated nut and cotter pin is required.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

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

    (3) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-07-24 are valid as AMOCs for this AD.

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Adam Hein, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 S. Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: (316) 946-4116; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (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 the AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 12, 2016 (the effective date of this AD).

    (i). Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) Multi-engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. MEB-27-02, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For Textron Aviation, Inc. (Cessna) service information identified in this AD, contact Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; fax: (316) 517-7271; email: [email protected]; Internet: https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/newlogin.jsp.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8992.

    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on August 17, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20073 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4221; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-167-AD; Amendment 39-18619; AD 2016-17-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead web to pressure chord joint is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web at fasteners common to the bulkhead web and pressure chord, around the entire circumference of the pressure chord, for any crack, and repair of cracks. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web. Such cracking could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4221.

    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-2016-4221; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12047) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead web to pressure chord joint is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web at fasteners common to the bulkhead web and pressure chord, around the entire circumference of the pressure chord, for any crack, and repair of cracks. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web. Such cracking could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response. Boeing and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1), and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015. The service information describes procedures for HFEC inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web at fasteners common to the bulkhead web and pressure chord, around the entire circumference of the pressure chord, for any crack, and repair of cracks. 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 296 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 57 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,845 $0 $4,845 $1,434,120

    The size of any repair area needs to be determined before material and work-hour costs can be calculated, so we cannot provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-17-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18619; Docket No. FAA-2016-4221; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-167-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/$FILE/ST01920SE_AML.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead web to pressure chord joint is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web. Such cracking could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015, perform a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web at fasteners common to the bulkhead web and pressure chord, around the entire circumference of the pressure chord, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015. For this AD, Group 2, Configuration 2, as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015, includes airplanes with the aft pressure bulkhead replaced as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0267. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015.

    (h) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Crack Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph. Installation of a repair terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD in the area covered by the repair only.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6447; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0268, dated April 1, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

    (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 16, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20075 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0463; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-155-AD;Amendment 39-18623; AD 2016-17-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an incident involving a landing in which the pilots needed to input corrections due to airplane yaw and roll to the right; the main landing gear (MLG) aft trunnion pin was later found to be fractured. This AD requires identification and replacement of certain MLG aft trunnion pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured MLG aft trunnion pin, which could result in collapse of the MLG and consequent loss of control of the airplane during landing.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0463.

    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-2016-0463; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 415-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2016 (81 FR 8164) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an incident involving a landing in which the pilots needed to input corrections due to airplane yaw and roll to the right; the MLG aft trunnion pin was later found to be fractured. The NPRM proposed to require identification and replacement of certain MLG aft trunnion pins. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured MLG aft trunnion pin, which could result in collapse of the MLG and consequent loss of control of the airplane during landing.

    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.

    Support for the NPRM

    Three commenters indicated their support for the NPRM.

    Request To Update the Cost Section

    One commenter, Gilles Oriot, asked that we update the cost estimate to reflect the costs shown in Boeing Information Notice 777-32A0103 IN 03, dated February 2, 2015.

    We agree with the commenter and have updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect the updated information.

    Request To Add to Credit Information

    The Boeing Company, American Airlines, Air France, Korean Air, Etihad Airways, and All Nippon Airways requested that we allow installation of pins with serial numbers beginning with “EGL” or “MAL” that have been inspected previously but were not marked “BASE METAL INSPECTED” to fulfill the requirements of the proposed AD. The commenters stated that the previous inspection may have been done as part of a previous overhaul or required inspection using other service information that did not specify to mark “BASE METAL INSPECTED.” The commenters also stated that the actions specified in the service information are consistent with the requirements of the proposed AD. The commenters suggested various changes in order to allow installation of these parts.

    We acknowledge that previous inspections may have been done as part of an overhaul or previous service requests, but we do not agree with the suggested changes. We disagree because providing credit for the inspections required by this AD undermines the level of record review required by this AD for compliance, cannot ensure that the various actions taken for each pin are the same actions required by this AD, and may not provide an acceptable level of safety equivalent to this AD. Operators that would like credit for the actions performed before the effective date of this AD may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). The request should include a list of affected pin serial numbers, the airplane on which each pin is currently installed (if applicable), and the actions that were performed for each pin with applicable service information. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

    Request To Allow Alternative Part Marking

    FedEx requested that we allow the suffix “BMI” to be allowed for marking the pins. FedEx stated that its record keeping system can only track unique part number and serial number combinations; it is not capable of tracking the additional “BASE METAL INSPECTED” marking.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. We disagree because pins can be rotated among other airplanes and operators. Operators need to be consistent with how the pins are identified to comply with this AD and ensure the safety of passengers and crew. We recommend that the commenter work with the manufacturer to identify a suitable method of compliance for future revision of the service information. We have not changed this final rule regarding this issue.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-32A0103, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2015. The service information describes procedures for identifying and replacing certain MLG aft trunnion pins. 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 123 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $20,910

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replacement of aft trunnion pin 211 work-hours × $85 per hour = $17,935 $5,291 $23,226
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-17-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18623; Docket No. FAA-2016-0463; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-155-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an incident involving a landing in which the pilots needed to input corrections due to airplane yaw and roll to the right; the main landing gear (MLG) aft trunnion pin was later found to be fractured. We are issuing this AD to prevent a fractured MLG aft trunnion pin, which could result in collapse of the MLG and consequent loss of control of the airplane during landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Aft Trunnion Pin Identification

    For airplanes on which the original airworthiness certificate or the original export certificate of airworthiness was issued on or before the effective date of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the serial number and marking of the MLG aft trunnion pins, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-32A0103, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2015.

    (h) MLG Aft Trunnion Pin Replacement

    For any MLG aft trunnion pin that begins with serial number “EGL” or “MAL,” on which no “BASE METAL INSPECTED” marking is found, replace with a new or serviceable MLG aft trunnion pin within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-32A0103, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2015.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, any MLG aft trunnion pin that begins with serial number “EGL” or “MAL” and is not marked “BASE METAL INSPECTED.”

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Multi-Operator Message (MOM) MOM-MOM-15-0303-01B, dated May 13, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-32A0103, dated September 11, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 415-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-32A0103, Revision 1, dated December 10, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20375 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8846; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-046-AD; Amendment 39-18624; AD 2016-17-11] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD requires a one-time inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket on the left wing for the presence of an existing corner relief fillet, and corrective action if necessary. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the engine pylon wiring bracket on certain airplanes was missing a corner relief fillet, which could result in stress concentration and cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. Such cracking could result in damage to adjacent power feeders, subsequent electrical arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and consequent uncontrollable fire.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 12, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 12, 2016.

    We must receive comments on this AD by October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8846.

    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-2016-8846; 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 (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We received a report indicating that the engine pylon wiring bracket on certain airplanes is missing a corner relief fillet, because the engineering graphics for the engine pylon wiring bracket located on the left wing did not contain the corner relief fillet. A missing corner relief fillet could result in stress concentration and cracking in the bracket. The engineering graphics were subsequently revised to add the corner relief fillet, but the engine pylon wiring bracket part number was not changed. Therefore, brackets with and without an existing corner relief fillet have the same bracket part number. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. Such cracking could result in damage to adjacent power feeders, subsequent electrical arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and consequent uncontrollable fire.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket on the left wing for the presence of existing corner relief fillets, re-identification of any bracket with an existing corner relief fillet, and replacement of any bracket without an existing corner relief fillet. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Currently, there are no domestic operators of the affected airplanes on the U.S. Register. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number and Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-046-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected airplanes on the U.S. Register. However, if an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, we estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $0 $255 $255

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary re-identification or replacement that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need re-identification or replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Re-identification of bracket 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 Replacement of bracket 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 1,173 1,853

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-17-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18624; Docket No. FAA-2016-8846; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-046-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the engine pylon wiring bracket on certain airplanes was missing a corner relief fillet, which could lead to stress concentration and cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the engine pylon wiring bracket. Such cracking could result in damage to adjacent power feeders, subsequent electrical arcing in a flammable leakage zone, and consequent uncontrollable fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions

    Within 88 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time general visual inspection of the engine pylon wiring bracket on the left wing for the presence of an existing corner relief fillet, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013. Within 88 months after the effective date of this AD, do all applicable corrective actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes on which the engine pylon wiring bracket has a corner relief fillet, re-identify the part number of the engine pylon wiring bracket, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

    (2) For airplanes on which the engine pylon wiring bracket does not have a corner relief fillet, replace the engine pylon wiring bracket with a new bracket, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6659; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570012-00, Issue 001, dated March 14, 2013.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 16, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20374 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3696; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-113-AD; Amendment 39-18625; AD 2016-17-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency during endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). This AD requires inspecting certain THSAs to determine the number of total flight cycles the THSA has accumulated, and replacing the THSA if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA, which could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions, and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2016.

    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-2016-3696.

    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-2016-3696; 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:

    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 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 17, 2016 (81 FR 8023) (“the NPRM”).

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0080, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During endurance qualification tests on A380 Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced. Investigation results concluded that this particular malfunction was due to an ageing/endurance issue of the surfaces of the NBB carbon friction disks, leading to a partial loss of braking efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions.

    Due to design similarity on A320 family fleet, the same tests were initiated by the THSA manufacturer on certain SA [single-aisle] type THSA, sampled from the field. Subject tests confirmed that THSA Part Number (P/N) 47145 series, as installed on A320 family aeroplanes, are also affected by this partial loss of NBB efficiency.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in conjunction with the power gear train not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the THS, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires [inspecting certain THSAs to determine the number of total flight cycles the THSA has accumulated and replacing THSAs having certain total flight cycles] . . . .

    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-2016-3696.

    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 Refer to the Latest Service Information

    Airbus requested that we refer to the latest service information: Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016 (we referred to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, dated February 9, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the replacement specified in the NPRM). Airbus also requested that we provide credit for previous actions done per Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, dated February 9, 2015.

    We agree with the request to refer to the latest service information. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016, includes updated information and specifies that no additional work is necessary for airplanes modified by the previous issue. We have revised paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016. We have also added new paragraph (k) to this AD (and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly) to provide credit for actions done as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, dated February 9, 2015.

    Request To Extend the Compliance Times

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that we extend the compliance times proposed in the NPRM. UAL stated that U.S. operators receive less time to prepare and plan compared to their counterparts in Europe who follow EASA AD 2015-0080, dated May 7, 2015. UAL noted that the large amount of THSAs that need to be replaced will cause cancellations, spare shortages, and interruptions to its operation. UAL recommended a later compliance time than proposed in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD.

    We disagree with the request to extend the compliance time. UAL did not provide data to substantiate that an extension to the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We determine AD compliance times primarily on our assessment of the safety risk. Some safety issues are more time-sensitive than others, so we consider the overall risk to the fleet, including the severity of the failure and the likelihood of the failure's occurrence.

    We and our colleagues in the foreign civil airworthiness authorities (in this case, EASA) work closely with manufacturers to ensure that all appropriate actions are taken at appropriate times to mitigate risks to the fleet and address identified unsafe conditions. In addition, U.S. operators have the same opportunity as their European counterparts to prepare and plan by reviewing and providing comments to EASA's proposed airworthiness directives (PADs). An EASA PAD is a rulemaking document similar to the FAA's NPRM. In most cases, the FAA follows the intent of the AD issued by the state of design; therefore, we encourage U.S. operators to provide feedback to EASA PADs, which are accessible at the following link: http://ad.easa.europa.eu.

    For this AD, we determined that accomplishing the replacements before specific dates, as stated in the MCAI, are necessary in order to address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.

    Request To Remove Replacement Requirement

    UAL requested that we remove the replacement requirement specified by paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. UAL stated that the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of the proposed AD are contradictory. UAL noted that operators will not be able to predict the future number of flight cycles. UAL stated, as an example, that a THSA having accumulated 38,000 total flight cycles on the effective date would be out of compliance with paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD when the AD becomes effective, since the THSA has exceeded 36,000 total flight cycles.

    We disagree with the request to remove paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. However, we do find it necessary to clarify the requirements. After accomplishing each inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, operators must comply with paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, which mandates the first requirement for THSA replacement after each inspection of the THSAs if any part number 47145-(XXX) is found and the THSA has exceeded the corresponding flight-cycle limits specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD.

    Paragraph (h)(2) of this AD establishes the life limit of the THSA as of each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD and mandates replacement before the corresponding flight-cycle limit. The flight-cycle limit varies on each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. Paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD are separate requirements that do not conflict.

    For example, if the THSA has accumulated 38,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD, then paragraph (h)(1) of this AD does not require replacement immediately (on the effective date of this AD) since the THSA has fewer than 40,000 total flight cycles (which is the flight-cycle limit specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD). That THSA would be subject to the compliance time of paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, which requires that, as of the effective date of this AD, the THSA must be replaced before exceeding 40,000 total flight cycles until the next inspection is done before December 31, 2016. The new flight-cycle limit as of that date is 36,000 total flight cycles (which is the flight-cycle limit specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD).

    Each U.S. operator has unique fleet utilization data that can assist in predicting the number of flight cycles accumulated on the THSA and therefore can estimate when a THSA must be replaced. However, under the provisions of paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, we may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time for replacing the THSA if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Change to Paragraph (j) of This AD

    We made minor changes to the language in paragraph (j) of this AD to clarify the parts installation limitation.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the THSA with a serviceable THSA. 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 959 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would 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 $81,515, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 21 work-hours and require parts costing $26,500, for a cost of $28,285 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

    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): 2016-17-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-18625; Docket No. FAA-2016-3696; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-113-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

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

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

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

    (4) 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 report of a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency during endurance qualification tests on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to prevent premature wear of the carbon friction disks on the NBB of the THSA, which could lead to reduced braking efficiency in certain load conditions, and, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear train to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could result in uncommanded movements of the trimmable horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection To Determine THSA Part Number and Accumulated Total Flight Cycles

    No later than each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD: Inspect the THSA to determine if it has a part number (P/N) 47145-(XXX), and, if any THSA P/N 47145-(XXX) is found, determine the total number of flight cycles accumulated since the THSA's first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later. A review of airplane delivery or maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the THSA can be conclusively determined from that review. In case maintenance records concerning the most recent NBB disk replacement are unavailable or incomplete, the total flight cycles accumulated since first installation of the THSA on an airplane apply.

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 40,000 total flight cycles.

    (2) As of December 31, 2016: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 36,000 total flight cycles.

    (3) As of December 31, 2017: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 33,600 total flight cycles.

    (4) As of December 31, 2018: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 31,600 total flight cycles.

    (5) As of December 31, 2019: The THSA flight-cycle limit (since first installation on an airplane, or since the most recent NBB replacement, whichever is later) is 30,000 total flight cycles.

    (h) Replacements

    For airplanes with any THSA P/N 47145-(XXX): Do the replacements required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) No later than each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, replace all THSA that have reached or exceeded on each date the corresponding number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. Do the replacement in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016. Affected THSAs must be replaced with serviceable THSAs.

    (2) As of each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, and before exceeding the flight cycle limit corresponding to each date, as applicable: Replace each THSA with a serviceable THSA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016.

    (i) Definition of Serviceable THSA

    For the purposes of this AD: A serviceable THSA is a THSA that has not exceeded the applicable flight-cycle limits, as specified paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, since first installation of the THSA on an airplane or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD:

    Guidance for NBB disc replacement can be found in UTC Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 47145-27-17, Revision 1, dated July 21, 2015.

    (j) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of each date specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, as applicable, only installation of a serviceable THSA P/N 47145-(XXX) is allowed on an airplane.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, dated February 9, 2015.

    (l) 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] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, 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.

    (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.

    (m) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0080, dated May 7, 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-2016-3696.

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

    (o) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1242, Revision 01, dated February 4, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) 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.

    (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 18, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20381 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-153-AD; Amendment 39-18622; AD 2016-17-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This AD was prompted by two in-service incidents reported on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. This AD requires revision of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of air data information that may affect continued safe flight.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3990.

    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-2016-3990; 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; 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 all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 4, 2016 (81 FR 11467) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by two in-service incidents reported on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. The NPRM proposed to require revision of the airplane flight manual (AFM) to provide procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of air data information that may affect continued safe flight.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2015-08, dated April 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on CL-600-2C10 aeroplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the cockpit. The air data information was recovered as the aeroplane descended to lower altitudes. An investigation determined that the root cause in both events was high altitude icing (ice crystal contamination). If not addressed, this condition may affect continued safe flight.

    Due to similarities in the air data systems, such events could happen on all Bombardier CRJ models, CL-600-2B19, CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25. Therefore, the corrective actions for these models will be mandated once their respective Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) revisions become available.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of AFM procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the aeroplanes airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight.

    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-2016-3990.

    Comments

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

    Request for Further Investigation

    The Air Line Pilots Association stated that the AFM revision will not address the root cause of the high-altitude icing (ice crystal contamination), and requested that further investigation be done for the ice crystal contamination issue and remedies be provided in addition to the AFM amendments.

    We agree that the AFM revision will not address the root cause of the high-altitude icing (ice crystal contamination). The manufacturer is investigating the issue, but there is no timetable for a final resolution. Should the manufacturer develop modifications to prevent this problem, the FAA will consider further rulemaking. The incorporation of the AFM procedures is meant to be used to guide the crew on how to stabilize the airplane airspeed and altitude for continued safe flight in icing conditions. However, further investigation into this matter extends beyond the scope of this AD.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Emergency Procedure 1., Unreliable Airspeed, of Section 03-19, Emergency Procedures—Unreliable Airspeed, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in Volume 1 of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Airplane Flight Manual CSP C-012, Revision 11A, dated May 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures to guide the crew to stabilize the airplane's airspeed and attitude for continued safe flight. 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.

    Interim Action

    Required actions in this AD apply only to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. We may consider issuing further rulemaking on the other Bombardier airplane models identified previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 230 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • AFM revision 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $85 $19,550
    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): 2016-17-09 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18622; Docket No. FAA-2016-3990; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-153-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service incidents on Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes regarding a loss of all air data information in the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent air data information loss that may affect continued safe flight.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Emergency Procedures section of the AFM to include the information in Emergency Procedure 1., Unreliable Airspeed, of Section 03-19, Emergency Procedures—Unreliable Airspeed, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in Volume 1 of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 AFM CSP C-012, Revision 11A, dated May 25, 2015.

    (h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE 172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7301; fax: 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2015-08, dated 28 April, 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-2016-3990.

    (j) 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) Section 03-19, Emergency Procedures—Unreliable Airspeed, of Chapter 3, Emergency Procedures, in Volume 1 of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-2D24 Airplane Flight Manual CSP C-012, Revision 11A, dated May 25, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 17, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20376 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6983; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-012-AD; Amendment 39-18618; AD 2016-17-05] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-13-04 for RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive wear on the guide pin of the power lever or condition lever, which could cause functional loss of the flight idle stop. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 30, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6983; or in person at the 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 service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany, telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30-2280; fax: +49 (0) 8153-30-3030; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.ruag.com/. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-6983.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 34927), and proposed to supersede AD 2009-13-04, Amendment 39-15943 (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009) (“AD 2009-13-04”).

    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI (EASA AD No.: 2009-0031R1) states that:

    Excessive wear on a guide pin of a power lever was detected during inspections. The failure of a power lever or condition lever guide pin could cause functional loss of the flight idle stop.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to inadvertent activation of the beta mode in flight, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    Prompted by this finding, RUAG issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-228-279 to provide inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2009-0031 to require repetitive detailed inspections of the guide pins of the power levers and condition levers, and replacement of any pin that exceeds the allowable wear-limits.

    Since that AD was issued, further analysis has determined that the inspection interval, in case of no pin replacement, can be extended and RUAG published Revision 1 of ASB-228-279, which also included landings (expressed in this AD as flight cycles—FC) as a determining factor.

    For the reason described above, this AD revises EASA AD 2009-0031, amending the compliance times without changing the technical requirements, and also introducing some editorial changes for standardization.

    EASA revised the MCAI (EASA AD No.: 2009-0031R2) to incorporate changes to the applicability. The FAA had already incorporated these changes in the NPRM so no changes to the final rule are necessary.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6983.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the 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 (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the guide pins of the power and condition levers and replacement of those pins if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 18 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $30,780, or $1,710 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 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.

    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-2016-6983; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    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 Amendment 39-15943 (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009), and adding the following new AD: 2016-17-05 RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH: Amendment 39-18618; Docket No. FAA-2016-6983; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-012-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 30, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2009-13-04, Amendment 39-15943 (74 FR 29116; June 19, 2009) (“AD 2009-13-04”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Models 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 76: Engine Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive wear on the guide pin of the power lever or condition lever, which could cause functional loss of the flight idle stop. We are issuing this proposed AD to amend the compliance times of the guide pin inspections.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this AD based on a compliance time of hours time-in-service (TIS) or flight cycles, whichever occurs first. If the flight cycles or hours TIS of the throttle box assembly is unknown, use the hours TIS of the airplane to determine the compliance time for the inspection.

    (1) For throttle box assemblies with less than 9,600 hours TIS or 9,600 flight cycles since installed: Inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 2 of RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015, at the following times:

    (i) Initially, unless already done within the last 1,200 hours TIS or 1,200 flight cycles as of July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009-13-04), before or upon accumulating 9,600 hours TIS or 9,600 flight cycles, or within the next 100 hours TIS or 100 flight cycles after July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009-13-04), whichever occurs later, inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear; and

    (ii) Repetitively thereafter within 4,800 hours TIS or 4,800 flight cycles since any previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were not replaced or within 9,600 hours TIS or 9,600 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, since the previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were replaced.

    (2) For throttle box assemblies with 9,600 hours TIS or more or 9,600 flight cycles or more but less than 13,200 hours TIS or 13,200 flight cycles since installed: Inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear within the next 1,200 hours TIS or 1,200 flight cycles after July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009-13-04) following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 2 of RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015; and

    (i) Repetitively inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear thereafter within 4,800 hours TIS or 4,800 flight cycles since any previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were not replaced; or

    (ii) Repetitively inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear within 9,600 hours TIS or 9,600 flight cycles since the previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were replaced.

    (3) For throttle box assemblies with 13,200 hours TIS or more or 13,200 flight cycles or more since installed: Within 100 hours TIS or 100 flight cycles after July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009-13-04) inspect the guide pins of the power and condition levers for excessive wear following the Accomplishment Instructions in paragraph 2 of RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015, at the following times:

    (i) Initially within the next 100 hours TIS or 100 flight cycles after July 24, 2009 (the effective date retained from AD 2009-13-04); and

    (ii) Repetitively thereafter within 4,800 hours TIS or 4,800 flight cycles since any previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were not replaced or within 9,600 hours TIS or 9,600 flight cycles since the previous inspection in which the power and condition levers guide pins were replaced.

    (4) For all throttle box assemblies: Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD, replace any guide pin that exceeds the acceptable wear-limits as defined in paragraph 4.1 of RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4123; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2009-0031R1, dated March 29, 2016, and EASA AD No.: 2009-0031R2, dated June 28, 2016, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6983.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-228-279, revision 1, dated September 22, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling, Federal Republic of Germany, telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30-2280; fax: +49 (0) 8153-30-3030; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.ruag.com/.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6983.

    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on August 17, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20072 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Parts 10, 128, 143, and 145 [CBP Dec. No. 16-13; USCBP-2016-0057] RIN 1515-AE09 Administrative Exemption on Value Increased for Certain Articles AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of the Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; solicitation of comments.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations to implement section 901 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 by raising from $200 to $800 the value of certain articles that may be imported by one person on one day free of duty and tax. This document also makes clarifying and conforming amendments to the regulations.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This interim final rule is effective on August 26, 2016.

    Comment date: Written comments must be submitted on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number USCBP-2016-0057, by one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Trade and Commercial Regulations Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket title for this rulemaking, and must reference docket number USCBP-2016-0057. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the document.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Mitchell, Director, Commercial Operation, Revenue and Entry, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 863-6532.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this interim rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP in finalizing these regulations will reference a specific portion of the interim rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. CBP is also interested in receiving comments regarding the collection of data on behalf of Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) for shipments valued below $800. See ADDRESSES above for information on how to submit comments.

    I. Background A. Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

    On February 24, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) (Pub. L. 114-125). Prior to enactment of the TFTEA, section 321(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C)) authorized CBP to provide an administrative exemption to admit free from duty and tax shipments of merchandise (other than bona fide gifts and certain personal and household goods) imported by one person on one day having an aggregate fair retail value in the country of shipment not less than $200. Section 901(c) of the TFTEA amended section 1321(a)(2)(C) by increasing the value of this administrative exemption from $200 to $800. Pursuant to section 901(d) of TFTEA, the effective date of this amendment was the 15th day after the date of enactment, i.e., effective as of March 10, 2016. Section 901 did not change the administrative exemption for bona fide gifts and personal or household articles accompanying travelers under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(A) and 1321(a)(2)(B).

    B. Amendments to Regulations To Reflect New Statutory Amount

    CBP implements the administrative exemption provided for in 19 U.S.C. 1321 in its regulations at 19 CFR 10.151 and 10.153. The administrative exemption amount is also referenced in various other sections in the CBP regulations: §§ 128.21(a)(4)(ii); 128.24(d) and (e); 143.21(l)(1); 143.23(j); 143.26; and 145.31. In all of the previously listed sections that currently provide that the 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) administrative exemption amount is $200, CBP is amending the regulations to reflect that the new amount is $800.

    C. Other Amendments to Administrative Exemption Regulations

    Under 19 U.S.C. 1321(b), the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is authorized to promulgate regulations to prescribe exceptions to any exemption provided for in section 1321(a) whenever the Secretary finds that such action is necessary for any reason to protect the revenue or to prevent unlawful importations.

    This rule also amends the scope of alcohol and tobacco products covered by the limitation in paragraph (e) of section 10.153, to conform to other past statutory changes. Perfume is removed from the list of products excluded from the administrative exemption because the excise tax on such products was eliminated in 1995 pursuant to section 136 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Public Law 103-465. Paragraph (e) of section 10.153 is also amended pursuant to amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, Section 5701, which increased excise taxes for smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and cigarette tubes and papers. 26 U.S.C. 5701, as amended by the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-3).

    This rule also adds a new paragraph (h) in section 10.153 to clarify that regarding shipments that qualify for the 19 U.S.C. 1321 administrative exemption, the importing party is not exempt from having to pay any applicable excise taxes collected by other agencies on imported goods. It is also noted that pursuant to 19 CFR 24.24(d)(3), the harbor maintenance tax will not be assessed on loadings or unloadings of cargo in which the shipment would be entitled to be entered under informal entry procedures.

    This document also revises paragraph (j) of § 143.23 to clarify that different dollar amounts apply to articles that are bona fide gifts and articles that are shipped from the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. This document also revises paragraph (j) of § 143.23 to reflect that the increase in the value of shipments from $200 to $800 only applies to shipments that qualify for the administrative exemption under sections 10.151 and 128.24(e).

    D. Comments

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the interim rule. In particular, CBP is seeking comments on how CBP can maintain the collection of data required by Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) for imported merchandise to prevent unlawful importations when shipments of merchandise valued below $800 that qualify for an administrative exemption are admitted through “release from manifest.” (Generally, such shipments are entered by the carrier and released by CBP based on information contained on the manifest or bill of lading provided by the carrier.) CBP is aware that the manifest information may not contain all the necessary information required by PGAs for admissibility purposes.

    II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553 govern agency rulemaking procedures. Section 553(b) of the APA generally requires notice and public comment before issuance of a final rule. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA requires that a final rule have a 30-day delayed effective date. The APA, however, provides exceptions from the prior notice and public comment requirement and the delayed effective date requirements, when an agency for good cause finds that such procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

    Treasury and CBP find that prior notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and that good cause exists to issue these regulations effective upon publication. By immediately effectuating this interim rule, CBP can avoid inconsistent application of the exemption and eliminate confusion that may arise among importers with regard to the scope of the exemption and with regard to payment of excise taxes.

    Pursuant to section 901(d) of the TFTEA, Congress established March 10, 2016, as the effective date of the increase in the administrative exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C). The clear intent of Congress is that this amendment be rapidly implemented; therefore the regulations must be changed to conform to TFTEA's statutory amendment.

    In addition, pursuant to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury under 26 U.S.C. 7805(b)(3), regulations implementing the internal revenue laws can be made immediately effective to prevent abuse. Under that authority, these regulations reflect intervening statutory changes to section 5701 of the Internal Revenue Code, which increased excise taxes for smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and cigarette tubes and papers.

    Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d) and the Secretary of the Treasury's authority under 19 U.S.C. 1321(b) and 26 U.S.C. 7805, the requirements for prior notice and comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable; however, CBP is soliciting comments on this interim rule and will consider all comments received before issuing a final rule.

    B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (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 is not a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    C. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This section examines the impact of the rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996. A small entity may be a small business (defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act); a small not-for-profit organization; or a small governmental jurisdiction (locality with fewer than 50,000 people). The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies when agencies are required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a proposed rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary in this rulemaking, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As there is no new collection of information required in this document, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.

    Signing Authority

    This document is being issued in accordance with § 0.1(a)(1) of the CBP Regulations (19 CFR 0.1(a)(1)) pertaining to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (or his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to certain customs revenue functions.

    List of Subjects 19 CFR Part 10

    Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    19 CFR Part 12

    Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    19 CFR Part 128

    Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Entry, Express consignments, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    19 CFR Part 143

    Customs duties and inspection, Entry of merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    19 CFR Part 145

    Customs duties and inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the CBP Regulations

    For the reasons stated above in the preamble, CBP amends parts 10, 12, 128, 143, and 145 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR parts 10, 12, 128, 143, and 145) as follows:

    PART 10—ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE, ETC. 1. The general authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508, 1623, 1624, 3314.

    § 10.151 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 10.151 by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800” in the section heading and the first sentence.
    3. Amend § 10.153 by revising paragraph (e) and by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 10.153 Conditions for exemption.

    (e) No alcoholic beverage, cigars (including cheroots and cigarillos) and cigarettes containing tobacco, cigarette tubes, cigarette papers, smoking tobacco (including water pipe tobacco, pipe tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco), snuff, or chewing tobacco, shall be exempted from the payment of duty and tax under § 10.151 or § 10.152.

    (h) The exemption provided for in § 10.151 is not to be allowed with respect to any tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code collected by other agencies on imported goods.

    PART 128—EXPRESS CONSIGNMENTS 4. The general authority citation for part 128 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1484, 1498, 1551, 1555, 1556, 1565, 1624.

    § 128.21 [Amended]
    6. Amend § 128.21 in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800”.
    § 128.24 [Amended]
    7. Amend § 128.24 in paragraphs (d) and (e) by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800” in paragraph (d) and in three places in paragraph (e) introductory text.
    PART 143—SPECIAL ENTRY PROCEDURES 8. The general authority citation for part 143 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1321, 1414, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1624, 1641.

    § 143.21 [Amended]
    9. Amend § 143.21 in paragraph (l)(1) by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800”.
    10. Amend § 143.23 by revising paragraph (j) and adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
    § 143.23 Form of entry.

    (j) Except for mail importations (see §§ 145.31 and 145.32 of this chapter), or in the case of personal written or oral declarations (see §§ 148.12, 148.13, and 148.62 of this chapter), a shipment of merchandise that qualifies for informal entry under 19 U.S.C. 1498 may be entered, including the information listed in paragraph (k) of this section, by presenting the bill of lading or a manifest listing each bill of lading when:

    (1) The value of the shipment does not exceed $100 in the case of a bona fide gift from a person in a foreign country to a person in the United States and the shipment meets the requirements in § 10.152 of this chapter (see § 10.152 of this chapter);

    (2) The value of the shipment does not exceed $200 in the case of articles (including bona fide gifts) from the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and the shipment meets the requirements in § 10.152 of this chapter (see § 10.152 of this chapter); or

    (3) The value of the shipment does not exceed $800 and the shipment satisfies the requirements in § 10.151 of this chapter (see §§ 10.151 and 128.24(e) of this chapter).

    (k) The following information is required to be filed as a part of entry made under paragraph (j) of this section:

    (1) Country of origin of the merchandise;

    (2) Shipper name, address and country;

    (3) Ultimate consignee name and address;

    (4) Specific description of the merchandise;

    (5) Quantity;

    (6) Shipping weight; and

    (7) Value.

    11. Amend § 143.26 by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800” in two places each in paragraphs (a) and (b). PART 145—MAIL IMPORTATIONS 12. The general authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624.

    § 145.31 [Amended]
    13. Amend § 145.31 by removing the figure “$200” and adding in its place “$800” in the section heading and text.
    R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: August 23, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20581 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Parts 1301, 1305, and 1308 [Docket No. DEA-375] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Thiafentanil Into Schedule II AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration is placing the substance thiafentanil (4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(thienyl)ethyl]piperidine), including its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers as possible, into schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. This scheduling action is pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, as revised by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act which was signed into law on November 25, 2015.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this rule is August 26, 2016. Interested persons may file written comments on this rule in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(j)(3) and 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before September 26, 2016. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.

    Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-375” on all correspondence, including any attachments.

    Electronic comments: The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon completion of your submission, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on Regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

    Paper comments: Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary and are discouraged. Should you wish to mail a paper comment in lieu of an electronic comment, it should be sent via regular or express mail to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    Hearing requests: All requests for hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing and waivers of participation should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Lewis, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

    Comments containing personal identifying information and confidential business information identified as directed above will generally be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

    An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information, including the complete Department of Health and Human Services and Drug Enforcement Administration eight-factor analyses, to this interim final rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

    Request for Hearing, Notice of Appearance at Hearing, or Waiver of Participation in Hearing

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44(a)-(c), requests for a hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Requests for a hearing and notices of participation must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), as applicable, and include a statement of the interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver of an opportunity for a hearing must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c), including a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.

    Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of the hearing are restricted to “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed . . . .” Requests for a hearing and waivers of participation in the hearing should be submitted to the DEA on or before the deadline specified above, using the address information provided therein.

    Background, Legal Authority, and Basis for This Scheduling Action

    Thiafentanil, known chemically as 4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]piperidine, a potent opioid, is an analogue of fentanyl. The product Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate, a salt form of thiafentanil) was reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether it meets the requirements for addition to the Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species (the Index) (21 U.S.C. 360ccc-1) as set forth by the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 (MUMS Act, 2004). The MUMS Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to allow for the legal marketing of unapproved new animal drugs intended for use in minor species. In a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) dated June 20, 2016, the DEA received notification that HHS/FDA added Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) to the Index under section 572 of the FDCA. In this same notification, HHS/FDA stated that on June 16, 2016, HHS/FDA granted the request for the addition of Thianil to the Index under Minor Species Index File (MIF) 900000. Thianil is indicated for use in the immobilization of non-domestic, non-food-producing minor species hoofstock.

    Thiafentanil will be marketed as thiafentanil oxalate, 4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]piperidinium oxalate. Thiafentanil should not be confused with thiofentanyl (N-phenyl-N-(1-(2-(thiophen-2-yl)ethyl)piperidin-4-yl)propionamide), which is currently listed as a controlled schedule I substance.

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as amended in 2015 by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act (Pub. L. 114-89), where the DEA receives notification from HHS that the Secretary has indexed a drug under section 572 of the FDCA, the DEA is required to issue an interim final rule controlling the drug not later than 90 days after receiving such notification from HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(j). Accordingly, the DEA is issuing this interim final rule controlling thiafentanil.

    When controlling a drug pursuant to section 811(j), the DEA must apply the scheduling criteria of subsections 811(b), (c), and (d) and section 812(b). 21 U.S.C. 811(j)(3). In accordance with these criteria, the DEA has reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation provided by the HHS, along with all other relevant data, and completed its own eight-factor review document on thiafentanil pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). As explained below, based on these considerations, the DEA concludes that thiafentanil meets the criteria for placement in schedule II of the CSA.

    On November 28, 2011, the HHS provided the DEA with its initial scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation regarding thiafentanil. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), this document contained an eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of thiafentanil as a new drug, along with the HHS' recommendation to control thiafentanil and its salts under schedule II of the CSA. Subsequently, on March 23, 2016, the HHS provided the DEA with a supplement to its 2011 analysis, which indicated that the HHS/FDA planned to add Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) to the Index for use in the immobilization of non-domestic, non-food-producing minor species hoofstock and reiterated their recommendation that thiafentanil be placed in schedule II of the CSA. By letter dated June 20, 2016, the DEA received notification from the HHS that the FDA had granted the request on June 16, 2016, for Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) to be added to the Index.

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(j), and based on the HHS recommendation, MUMS Act indication by the HHS/FDA, and the DEA's determination, the DEA finds that thiafentanil has a high potential for abuse, a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions, and that abuse of thiafentanil may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Accordingly, the DEA is issuing this interim final rule to add thiafentanil (4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]piperidine) and its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such, to schedule II of the CSA.

    Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its scheduling action. Please note that the DEA and HHS analyses, along with the HHS supplement, are available in their entirety under “Supporting Documents” in the public docket for this interim final rule at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number “DEA-375.” Full analysis of, and citations to, the information referenced in the summary may also be found in the supporting and related material.

    1. The Drug's Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse: Thiafentanil is a chemical substance that has not been marketed in the United States, however, it is approved and marketed in the Republic of South Africa as a salt form under the brand name Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate). There is no information available which details actual abuse of thiafentanil.

    According to the HHS, thiafentanil is a synthetic analogue of fentanyl and is structurally related to other fentanyl-like opioids such as sufentanil (schedule II) and carfentanil (schedule II). It acts as a potent µ-opioid receptor agonist and produces strong morphine-like effects in animals. It is only intended for the immobilization of non-domestic, non-food-producing minor species hoofstock. Thiafentanil has been used in a manner similar to other opioid immobilizing agents such as etorphine hydrochloride (schedule II) and carfentanil (schedule II), which are approved only for veterinary use as animal immobilization agents. The abuse potential of thiafentanil has not been evaluated in humans or in animal behavioral models that are predictors of abuse by humans. Because thiafentanil shares chemical and pharmacological similarities with schedule II fentanyl and its analogues, the abuse potential of thiafentanil is considered similar to that of schedule II opioid substances such as sufentanil and carfentanil.

    Pharmacologically, as a potent µ opioid receptor agonist, thiafentanil is slightly less potent than carfentanil, which is 100 times more potent than fentanyl and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. Thiafentanil is a potent fentanyl analogue. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that there will be potentially significant diversion of thiafentanil from legitimate channels by people who have access to it, and that thiafentanil would be used without medical advice, therefore causing substantial hazards to the users or to the safety of the community if not controlled. The chemical and potent opioid-like pharmacological properties of thiafentanil predict that its risk to the public health is likely to be similar to fentanyl (schedule II) and its analogues such as carfentanil (schedule II), sufentanil (schedule II) and alpha-methylfentanyl (schedule I).

    2. Scientific Evidence of the Drug's Pharmacological Effects, if Known: According to HHS' scientific and medical review, there are no data on the effects of thiafentanil in humans. Thiafentanil's effects in humans are predicted from its effects in animals and its chemical and pharmacological similarity to other schedule II potent opioids such as fentanyl and carfentanil.

    The HHS eight-factor review document described a study directly comparing the immobilizing effects of thiafentanil (15 mg) and carfentanil (2 or 4 mg) in elk in which thiafentanil produced a faster immobilization effect (0.7 to 2.2 minutes) than carfentanil. In addition, the elk returned to standing 0.9 to 1.4 minutes faster under the thiafentanil condition. This study appears to support a faster immobilization and recovery time with thiafentanil relative to carfentanil. However, the authors stated that the role of the increased dose of thiafentanil is unknown.

    Animal studies described by the HHS demonstrated that the effects of thiafentanil and carfentanil are completely reversed by naltrexone. As a µ-opioid receptor antagonist, naltrexone can reverse the effects of a variety of opioid drugs including thiafentanil and carfentanil. Those studies suggest that thiafentanil possesses a neuro-pharmacological mechanism of action similar to other schedule II opioid drugs with a high abuse potential.

    According to HHS' review, Thianil (thiafentanil) is currently approved and registered for use in the Republic of South Africa. Thiafentanil oxalate is suggested as a drug of choice in the capture of exotic and ungulate wildlife species.

    3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding Thiafentanil: The chemical name of free base thiafentanil is 4-(methoxycarbonyl)-4-(N-phenylmethoxyacetamido)-1-[2-(2-thienyl)ethyl]piperidine. It has a molecular formula of C22H28N2O4S and a molecular weight of 416.52 g/mol with a Chemical Abstract Registry Number (CAS) of 101345-60-2. Thiafentanil oxalate is also known as A3080 with a CAS number of 101365-73-5 and has a molecular formula of C24H30N2O8S with a molecular weight of 506.57 g/mol. Thiafentanil oxalate is a white crystalline powder with a melting point of 190-192 °C and its salt crystalizes from absolute alcohol. Thiafentanil should not be confused with thiofentanyl (N-phenyl-N-(1-(2-(thiophen-2-yl)ethyl)piperidin-4-yl)propionamide), which is currently listed as a schedule I substance.

    4. Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse: According to the HHS' review, there are no reports of actual abuse and misuse of thiafentanil. This may be due to the limited use of thiafentanil as an immobilizing agent by trained veterinarians.

    Current data from the National Forensic Laboratory System (NFLIS),1 the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE),2 and the STARLiMS databases show that there is no evidence of law enforcement encounters of thiafentanil in the United States. However, thiafentanil's pharmacological and structural properties suggest that its pattern of abuse would be similar to other potent schedule II µ-opioid receptor agonists such as fentanyl and carfentanil.

    1 The National Forensic Laboratory System (NFLIS) is a program of the DEA, Office of Diversion Control. NFLIS systematically collects drug identification results and associated information from drug cases submitted to and analyzed by State and local forensic laboratories. NFLIS represents an important resource in monitoring illicit drug abuse and trafficking, including the diversion of legally manufactured pharmaceuticals into illegal markets. NFLIS is a comprehensive information system that includes data from forensic laboratories that handle approximately 90% of an estimated 1.0 million distinct annual State and local drug analysis cases. NFLIS includes drug chemistry results from completed analyses only. While NFLIS data is not direct evidence of abuse, it can lead to an inference that a drug has been diverted and abused. See 76 FR 77330, 77332, Dec. 12, 2011.

    2 The System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) is a database of drug exhibits sent to DEA laboratories for analysis. Exhibits from the database are from the DEA, other federal agencies, and local law enforcement agencies. Reporting via STRIDE ceased on September 30, 2014. STRIDE was succeeded by STARLiMS.

    5. The Scope, Duration, and Significance of Abuse: An assessment of the scope, duration, and significance of thiafentanil abuse is not available since it has only been used in a limited market. However, as stated in the HHS review, the structural and pharmacological properties of thiafentanil suggest that it could lead to an abuse pattern with a scope, duration, and significance of abuse similar to that observed with other opioid drugs and opioid analogues if it were marketed in a non-controlled status or were the subject of clandestine synthesis. The HHS and DEA note that thiafentanil is not known to be or to have been the subject of abuse in the United States.

    6. What, if any, Risk There is to the Public Health: The HHS review indicates that thiafentanil presents a significant risk to the public health and, in this vein, that thiafentanil should only be used in certain animals for very limited purposes and with extreme caution. Based on the review of the structural and pharmacological properties of thiafentanil, the HHS concluded that the abuse of thiafentanil is likely to pose a similar risk to public health as that of other potent opioid drugs such as sufentanil (schedule II), fentanyl (schedule II), carfentanil (schedule II) and clandestinely synthesized alpha-methylfentanyl (schedule I). Thus, inappropriate use of thiafentanil poses a high risk to the public health. Among other things, HHS noted that as a fentanyl derivative, and assuming that thiafentanil can be aerosolized, the use of thiafentanil presents a significant risk to the public health.

    HHS described that thiafentanil's labeling indicates that it is solely intended for use by zoologic, wildlife, or exotic animal veterinarians or field biologists who have received training and are supervised by veterinarians. The sponsor recommends the use of handling protocols similar to those in place for other scheduled potent opioids such as carfentanil. HHS further indicated that thiafentanil should be handled in teams consisting of at least two individuals knowledgeable about the hazards of working with potent μ-opioid agonist substances. Personal protective equipment such as latex gloves and protective eyewear should be used and syringes must be disposed of properly. If exposure to thiafentanil occurs in a remote or distant environment, veterinary naltrexone is recommended for use as a reversal agent. The label information will further state that thiafentanil must never be used unless an adequate amount of reversal agent (naltrexone hydrochloride) is immediately available.

    HHS also describes the risk of thiafentanil intoxication upon ingestion of animals immobilized with thiafentanil. The label information states that thiafentanil is not intended for human or animal consumption or in non-food producing minor species that become eligible for consumption by humans or food-producing animals. Because thiafentanil, similar to carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride and diprenorphine, is a potent μ-opioid receptor agonist, it will be subject to specialized handling, distribution and storage procedures similar to those applicable for carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride and diprenorphine as set forth in 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1305. As a result, this interim final rule revises 21 CFR 1301.74(g), 1301.75(e), 1305.07 introductory text and paragraph (a), and 1305.17(d) to include “thiafentanil.”

    7. Its Psychic or Physiological Dependence Liability: HHS' review states that the structural and pharmacological properties of thiafentanil suggest that it possesses a psychic and physiological dependence liability that is similar to other schedule II related µ-opioid receptor agonist drugs such as sufentanil, fentanyl and carfentanil.

    As cited by the HHS review, a double-blind abuse liability study examining intravenous fentanyl, buprenorphine, heroin, morphine, and oxycodone in methadone-maintained patients reported that fentanyl produced subjective effects similar to heroin (schedule I) on several outcome measures indicating that the two drugs produce similar subjective effects. It also demonstrates the psychic dependence liability of fentanyl, and thiafentanil is expected to produce effects similar to fentanyl and to present a similar risk of psychic and physiological dependence. There has been a major increase in abuse of opioids analgesics in the United States (HHS review document, 2011; Compton and Volkow, 2006). Thiafentanil, similar to these opioid analgesics, presents a risk of severe psychic and physiological dependence.

    8. Whether the Substance is an Immediate Precursor of a Substance Already Controlled under the CSA: Thiafentanil is not considered an immediate precursor of any controlled substance.

    Determination of Appropriate Schedule

    The CSA lists the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule (I, II, III, IV, or V). 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS and review of all available data, the Acting Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2), finds that:

    1. Thiafentanil has a high potential for abuse. Based on its structural and pharmacological properties, thiafentanil has an abuse potential that is comparable to other schedule II opioid drugs such as fentanyl, carfentanil, and sufentanil;

    2. FDA determined that Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) meets the requirements for addition to the Index as set forth by the MUMS Act, 2004 and accordingly added Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) to the Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species (the Index) under section 572 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Thianil (thiafentanil oxalate) will be legally marketed in the United States and will have an accepted medical use with severe restrictions; 3 and

    3 According to the HHS analysis, “[u]se of a new animal indexed drug is subject to significant restrictions. For example, use of an indexed new animal drug for minor species is limited to a minor species for which there is a reasonable certainty that the animal or edible products from the animal will not be consumed by humans or food producing animals. 21 U.S.C. § 360ccc-l(a)(1). The requester must label, distribute, and promote the new animal drug in accordance with the Index entry, and the FDA may remove a new animal drug from the Index if the conditions and limitations of use have not been followed. 21 U.S.C. 360ccc-l(d)(l)(G); (f)(l)(F). The labeling of an indexed new animal drug must prominently state that the extra-label use of the product is prohibited. 21 U.S.C. 360ccc-l(h). Such restrictions are not imposed upon approved human or animal drugs.”

    3. Due to the chemical and pharmacological similarities of thiafentanil to other schedule II fentanyl derivatives, abuse of thiafentanil may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

    Based on these findings, the Acting Administrator of the DEA concludes that thiafentanil, including its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers whenever the existences of such isomers, esters, ethers, and salts is possible warrants control in schedule II of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2).

    Requirements for Handling Thiafentanil

    Thiafentanil is subject to the CSA's schedule II regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis with, and possession involving schedule II substances, including the following:

    1. Registration. Any person who desires to handle thiafentanil (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, dispense, import, export, engage in research, or conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possess), must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

    2. Quota. Only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture thiafentanil in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

    3. Disposal of stocks. Upon obtaining a schedule II registration to handle thiafentanil, and if subsequently, any person who does not desire or is not able to maintain a schedule II registration must surrender all quantities of currently held thiafentanil, or may transfer all quantities of currently held thiafentanil to a person registered with the DEA in accordance with 21 CFR part 1317, in addition to all other applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws.

    4. Security. Thiafentanil is subject to schedule II security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821 and 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93.

    5. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of thiafentanil must comply with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302. In addition, thiafentanil is subject to additional labeling requirements provided by FDA. Thiafentanil must be labeled, distributed, and promoted in accordance with the Index entry of the new animal drug and the FDA may remove a new animal drug from the Index if the conditions and limitations of use have not been followed. 21 U.S.C. 360ccc-l(d)(l)(G); (f)(l)(F). The labeling of an indexed new animal drug must prominently state that the extra-label use of the product is prohibited. 21 U.S.C. 360ccc-l(h).

    6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who desires to possess any quantity of thiafentanil must take an inventory of thiafentanil on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    Any person who becomes registered with the DEA to handle thiafentanil must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including thiafentanil) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including thiafentanil) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    7. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant must maintain records and submit reports for thiafentanil, or products containing thiafentanil, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304, 1312, and 1317.

    8. Orders for thiafentanil. Every DEA registrant who distributes thiafentanil is required to comply with order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1305.

    9. Prescriptions and other dispensing. All prescriptions for thiafentanil or products containing thiafentanil must comply with 21 U.S.C. 829, and be issued in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1306 and 1311, subpart C. Moreover, given that thiafentanil is not the subject of an approved new drug application under the FDCA, and that it is only allowed under the MUMS Act amendments to the FDCA to be marketed for extremely limited use in minor species, DEA would not consider any dispensing of thiafentanil for human use to be for a legitimate medical purpose within the meaning of the CSA. Likewise, DEA would not consider any dispensing of thiafentanil for animal use beyond the scope of the drug's labeling authorized under the MUMS Act amendments to the FDCA to be for a legitimate medical purpose within the meaning of the CSA.

    10. Manufacturing and Distributing. In addition to the general requirements of the CSA and DEA regulations that are applicable to manufacturers and distributors of schedule II controlled substances, such registrants should be advised that (consistent with the foregoing considerations) any manufacturing or distribution of thiafentanil may only be for the legitimate purposes consistent with the drug's labeling authorized under the MUMS Act, or for research activities authorized by the FDCA and CSA.

    11. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of thiafentanil must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

    12. Liability. Any activity involving thiafentanil not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

    Regulatory Analyses Administrative Procedure Act

    Public Law 114-89 was signed into law, amending 21 U.S.C. 811. This amendment provides that in cases where a new drug is (1) approved or indexed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and (2) HHS recommends control in CSA schedule II-V, the DEA shall issue an interim final rule scheduling the drug within 90 days. Additionally, the law specifies that the rulemaking shall become immediately effective as an interim final rule without requiring the DEA to demonstrate good cause. Therefore, the DEA has determined that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action.

    Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    In accordance with Public Law 114-89, this scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the procedures and criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects 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.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603(a), “[w]henever an agency is required by [5 U.S.C. 553], or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an interpretive rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United States, the agency shall prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.” As noted in the above discussion regarding applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act, the DEA has determined that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this scheduling action. Consequently, the RFA does not apply to this interim final rule.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., the DEA has determined and certifies that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Congressional Review Act

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act (CRA)). This rule will not result in: An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets. However, pursuant to the CRA, the DEA has submitted a copy of this interim final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 1301

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Security measures.

    21 CFR Part 1305

    Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR parts 1301, 1305 and 1308 as follows:

    PART 1301—REGISTRATION OF MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND DISPENSERS OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1301 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 821, 822, 823, 824, 831, 871(b), 875, 877, 886a, 951, 952, 953, 956, 957, 958, 965.

    2. In § 1301.74, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 1301.74 Other security controls for non-practitioners; narcotic treatment programs and compounders for narcotic treatment programs.

    (g) Before the initial distribution of thiafentanil, carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride and/or diprenorphine to any person, the registrant must verify that the person is authorized to handle the substance(s) by contacting the Drug Enforcement Administration.

    3. In § 1301.75, revise paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 1301.75 Physical security controls for practitioners.

    (e) Thiafentanil, carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride and diprenorphine shall be stored in a safe or steel cabinet equivalent to a U.S. Government Class V security container.

    PART 1305—ORDERS FOR SCHEDULE I AND II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 4. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1305 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 821, 828, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    5. In § 1305.07, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 1305.07 Special procedure for filling certain orders.

    A supplier of thiafentanil, carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride, or diprenorphine, if he or she determines that the purchaser is a veterinarian engaged in zoo and exotic animal practice, wildlife management programs, or research, and is authorized by the Administrator to handle these substances, may fill the order in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 1305.17 except that:

    (a) A DEA Form 222 or an electronic order for thiafentanil, carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride, and diprenorphine must contain only these substances in reasonable quantities.

    6. In § 1305.17, revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 1305.17 Preservation of DEA Forms 222.

    (d) The supplier of thiafentanil, carfentanil, etorphine hydrochloride, and diprenorphine must maintain DEA Forms 222 for these substances separately from all other DEA Forms 222 and records required to be maintained by the registrant.

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 7. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    8. In § 1308.12, add paragraph (c)(29) to read as follows:
    § 1308.12 Schedule II.

    (c) * * *

    (29) Thiafentanil 9729
    Dated: August 18, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20463 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 232 [Docket ID: DOD-2013-OS-0133] RIN 0790-ZA11 Military Lending Act Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and Dependents AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Interpretive rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (Department) is interpreting its regulation implementing the Military Lending Act (the MLA). The MLA as implemented by the Department, limits the military annual percentage rate (MAPR) that a creditor may charge to a maximum of 36 percent, requires certain disclosures, and provides other substantive consumer protections on “consumer credit” extended to Service members and their families. On July 22, 2015, the Department amended its regulation primarily for the purpose of extending the protections of the MLA to a broader range of closed-end and open-end credit products (the July 2015 Final Rule). This interpretive rule provides guidance on certain questions the Department has received regarding compliance with the July 2015 Final Rule.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcus Beauregard, 571-372-5357.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Purpose

    In July, 2015, the Department of Defense (Department) issued a final rule 1 (the July 2015 Final Rule) amending its regulation implementing the Military Lending Act (MLA) 2 primarily for the purpose of extending the protections of the MLA to a broader range of closed-end and open-end credit products, rather than the limited credit products that had been defined as “consumer credit.” 3 Moreover, among other amendments, the July 2015 Final Rule modified provisions relating to the optional mechanism a creditor may use when assessing whether a consumer is a “covered borrower,” modified the disclosures that a creditor must provide to a covered borrower, and implemented the enforcement provisions of the MLA.

    1 80 FR 435560.

    2 10 U.S.C. 987.

    3 32 CFR 232.3(b) as implemented in a final rule published at 72 FR 50580 (Aug. 31, 2007).

    Subsequently, the Department received requests to clarify its interpretation of points raised in the July 2015 Final Rule. The Department is issuing this interpretive rule to inform the public of its views. The Department has chosen to provide this guidance in the form of a question and answer document to assist industry in complying with the July 2015 Final Rule. This interpretive rule does not substantively change the regulation implementing the MLA, but rather merely states the Department's preexisting interpretations of an existing regulation. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), this rulemaking is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2), this rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

    II. Interpretations of the Department

    The following questions and answers represent official interpretations of the Department on issues related to 32 CFR part 232. For ease of reference, the following terms are used throughout this document: MLA refers to the Military Lending Act (codified at 10 U.S.C. 987); MAPR refers to the military annual percentage rate, as defined in 32 CFR 232.3(p); TILA refers to the Truth in Lending Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.); Regulation Z refers to the regulation, and interpretations thereof, issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as applicable) to implement TILA, as defined in 32 CFR 232.3(s); DMDC refers to the Defense Manpower Data Center.

    1. What types of overdraft products are within the scope of 32 CFR 232.3(f) defining “consumer credit”?

    Answer: The MLA regulation generally directs creditors to look to provisions of TILA and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, in determining whether a product or service is considered “consumer credit” for purposes of the MLA.4 Also, the supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule discusses coverage of overdraft products.

    4 The Department notes that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may from time to time revise Regulation Z. See, e.g., 79 FR 77102 (Dec. 23, 2014) (proposing to revise the definition of finance charge with respect to charges imposed in connection with certain credit features offered in conjunction with prepaid card accounts). It is the Department's intention that this part should wherever possible be interpreted consistently with Regulation Z as it evolves in order to harmonize the two regulations and thereby minimize compliance burden.

    The MLA regulation defines “consumer credit” as credit offered or extended to a covered borrower primarily for personal, family or household purposes that is either subject to a finance charge or payable by a written agreement in more than four installments, with some exceptions. The exceptions include: Residential mortgage transactions; purchase money credit for a vehicle or personal property that is secured by the purchased vehicle or personal property; certain transactions exempt from Regulation Z (not including transactions exempt under 12 CFR 1026.29); and credit extended to non-covered borrowers consistent with 32 CFR 232.5(b). Although coverage by the MLA and the MLA regulation is not completely identical to that of TILA and Regulation Z, the July 2015 Final Rule amends the definition of consumer credit under the MLA to be more consistent with how credit is defined under TILA. The supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule states:

    As proposed, the Department is amending its regulation so that, in general, consumer credit covered under the MLA would be defined consistently with credit that for decades has been subject to TILA, namely: Credit offered or extended to a covered borrower primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and that is (i) subject to a finance charge or (ii) payable by a written agreement in more than four installments.5

    5 80 FR 43563 (footnotes omitted).

    The MLA regulation also defines “closed-end credit” and “open-end credit” with express references to the definitions of the same terms in Regulation Z.

    The supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule illustrates how to apply these standards specifically with respect to overdraft products and services.6 It states that consistent with Regulation Z, an overdraft line of credit with a finance charge is a covered consumer credit product when: It is offered to a covered borrower; the credit extended by the creditor is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; it is used to pay an item that overdraws an asset account and results in a fee or charge to the covered borrower; and, the extension of credit for the item and the imposition of a fee were previously agreed upon in writing. The supplementary information further states that other types of overdraft products not pursuant to a written agreement typically are not covered consumer credit “because Regulation Z excludes from `finance charge' any charge imposed by a creditor for credit extended to pay an item that overdraws an asset account and for which the borrower pays any fee or charge, unless the payment of such an item and the imposition of the fee or charge were previously agreed upon in writing.” 7

    6 80 FR 43579-43580.

    7 80 FR 43580.

    Thus, whether or not a particular overdraft product or service is “consumer credit” under the MLA regulation depends on whether the product or service meets each element of the definition of “consumer credit” and whether an exception applies.

    2. Does credit that a creditor extends for the purpose of purchasing personal property, which secures the credit, fall within the exception to “consumer credit” under 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(iii) where the creditor simultaneously extends credit in an amount greater than the purchase price?

    Answer: No. Section 232.3(f)(1) defines “consumer credit” as credit extended to a covered borrower primarily for personal, family, or household purposes that is subject to a finance charge or payable by written agreement in more than four installments. Section 232.3(f)(2) provides a list of exceptions to paragraph (f)(1), including an exception for any credit transaction that is expressly intended to finance the purchase of personal property when the credit is secured by the property being purchased. A hybrid purchase money and cash advance loan is not expressly intended to finance the purchase of personal property, because the loan provides additional financing that is unrelated to the purchase. To qualify for the purchase money exception from the definition of consumer credit, a loan must finance only the acquisition of personal property. Any credit transaction that provides purchase money secured financing of personal property along with additional “cash-out” financing is not eligible for the exception under § 232.3(f)(2)(iii) and must comply with the provisions set forth in the MLA regulation.

    3. Under 32 CFR 232.4(b), are creditors permitted to waive fees or periodic charges at the end of a billing cycle or earlier for open-end credit, in order to prevent a borrower from being assessed a military annual percentage rate (MAPR) in excess of 36 percent during that billing cycle?

    Answer: Yes. Section 232.4(b) requires that a creditor may not impose an MAPR greater than 36 percent in connection with an extension of consumer credit that is closed-end credit or in any billing cycle for open-end credit. In an open-end credit account, a covered borrower's use of a line of credit might, under certain circumstances, give rise to the imposition of a combination of fees and/or periodic charges that would cause the MAPR to exceed the limit in § 232.4(b). A creditor can comply with § 232.4(b) by designing a combination of periodic rates and fees that cannot possibly result in an MAPR greater than 36 percent. Nevertheless, nothing in 32 CFR part 232 prohibits a creditor from complying by waiving fees or finance charges, either in whole or in part, in order to reduce the MAPR to 36 percent or below in a given billing cycle. Thus, a creditor could alternatively comply by not imposing charges in excess of 36 percent MAPR that would otherwise be permitted under the credit agreement.

    4. Are fees that a creditor is required to pay by law and passes through to a covered borrower required to be included in the calculation of the MAPR?

    Answer: 32 CFR 232.4(c)(1) details the charges that must be included in the calculation of the MAPR. Among the charges that must be included are finance charges associated with the consumer credit. Finance charges are defined by § 232.3(n) to mean a “finance charge” in Regulation Z. If such fees are considered “finance charges” under Regulation Z, then such fees must be included in the calculation of the MAPR, unless they are bona fide fees charged to a credit card account that are excludable under § 232.4(d). However, if the fees are not “finance charges” under Regulation Z, then they may be excluded from the calculation of the MAPR, provided they do not qualify for any of the other categories of charges listed under § 232.4(c)(1).

    5. For open-end credit, what constitutes a situation where the MAPR cannot be calculated because there is “no balance” in the billing cycle under 32 CFR 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B)?

    Answer: Section 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B) specifically provides that for open-end credit, if the MAPR cannot be calculated in a billing cycle because there is “no balance” in the billing cycle, a creditor may not impose any fee or charge during that billing cycle, except for a participation fee that complies with the limitations set forth in § 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B). Because the provision is tied to whether the MAPR can be calculated based on whether there is a balance in the billing cycle, creditors that impose fees or charges that are excluded from the calculation of the MAPR during a particular billing cycle are not subject to the limitations in § 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B) for that billing cycle, as there would be no MAPR to calculate whether or not there was a balance during the billing cycle. For example, if a creditor charged a late fee for a late payment in accordance with its credit agreement with the covered borrower and in compliance with Regulation Z, the creditor may charge the fee, regardless of whether there is a balance in the billing cycle, because a late fee is not among the charges that are included in the calculation of the MAPR.

    Furthermore, § 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(A) states that the MAPR shall be calculated following the rules set forth in 12 CFR 1026.14(c) and (d) of Regulation Z. Thus, the reference in § 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B) to a situation in which the MAPR cannot be calculated in a billing cycle, because there is no balance, relates solely to the situation like the one described in 12 CFR 1026.14(c)(2), which is the only provision in 12 CFR 1026.14(c) and (d) that describes the inability to calculate an effective annual percentage rate when there is no balance in the billing cycle. 12 CFR 1026.14(c)(2) discusses how to compute an effective annual percentage rate when the charge imposed during the billing cycle is or includes a minimum, fixed, or other charge not due to the application of a periodic rate, other than a charge with respect to any specific transaction during the billing cycle. Under 12 CFR 1026.14(c)(2), if there is no balance to which the charge is applicable, an effective annual percentage rate cannot be determined under the section. Similarly, § 232.4(c)(2)(ii)(B) relates to when finance charge imposed during the billing cycle is or includes a minimum, fixed or other charge not due to the application of a periodic rate, other than a charge with respect to a specific transaction charge, and there is no balance to which the charge is applicable.

    6. Is a minimum interest charge that a creditor may charge a covered borrower as part of a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan and that is generally disclosed in the account-opening table under 12 CFR 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) eligible as a bona fide fee excludable from the calculation of the MAPR?

    Answer: Yes. 32 CFR 232.4(d)(1) provides that for consumer credit extended in a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, a bona fide fee, other than a periodic rate, is not a charge required to be included in the MAPR, provided it is a bona fide fee and reasonable for that type of fee. A minimum interest charge that a creditor will charge a covered borrower if the creditor charges interest during a particular billing cycle for a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan is generally required to be disclosed in the account-opening table under 12 CFR 1026.6(b)(2)(iii). Such a charge is not a periodic rate. Furthermore, neither of the categories of fees that are ineligible for the exclusion for bona fide fees (credit insurance premiums and fees for a credit-related ancillary product) applies to this type of charge. Consequently, a minimum interest charge that is generally disclosed in the account-opening table under 12 CFR 1026.6(b)(2)(iii) (even if it does not exceed the threshold for required disclosure in the account-opening table under 12 CFR 1026.6(b)(2)(iii)) may be a bona fide fee excludable from the calculation of the MAPR if it meets the conditions for exclusion.

    7. Under 32 CFR 232.4(d)(3)(ii), may creditors rely on commercially compiled sources of information in conducting calculations necessary for the conditional reasonable bona fide credit card fee safe harbor?

    Answer: Generally, yes. The July 2015 Final Rule intends to provide a firm, yet flexible, adaptable standard allowing credit card issuers to exclude bona fide and reasonable credit card fees from the calculation of the MAPR. Under the safe harbor set forth in § 232.4(d)(3)(ii), creditors are allowed to exclude a reasonable bona fide fee charged to a credit card account from the calculation of the MAPR, where that fee is less than or equal to an average amount of a fee for the same or a substantially similar product or service charged by 5 or more creditors, each of whose U.S. credit cards in force is at least $3 billion in an outstanding balance (or at least $3 billion in loans on U.S. credit card accounts initially extended by the creditor) at any time during the 3-year period preceding the time such average is computed. As the Department stated in the supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule, the Department believes that information on credit card fees imposed by large credit card issuers is widely available. Moreover, the Department stated in the supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule that the amount of outstanding credit card loans is available in both Securities and Exchange Commission filings as well as Call Reports. Nevertheless, nothing in 32 CFR part 232 prohibits a credit card issuer from relying on information sources compiled in commercially available databases or other industry sources in making safe harbor calculations. However, the safe harbor under § 232.4(d)(3)(ii) is available only if the amount of the fee is actually less than or equal to an average amount of a fee for the same or a substantially similar product or service charge by 5 or more creditors each, of whose U.S. credit cards in force is at least $3 billion in an outstanding balance (or at least $3 billion in loans on U.S. credit card accounts initially extended by the creditor) at any time during the 3-year period preceding the time such average is computed.

    8. Under 32 CFR 232.4(d), is it permissible to consider benefits provided by credit card rewards programs in determining whether the amount of a fee is (a) less than or equal to an average amount of a fee for a substantially similar product or service for purposes of comparison under the safe harbor and (b) reasonable overall?

    Answer: Generally, yes. Section 232.4(d)(1) provides that for a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, a bona fide fee, other than a periodic rate, is not a charge required to be included in the MAPR, provided it is a bona fide fee and reasonable for that type of fee. Under § 232.4(d)(3)(i), whether a fee is reasonable is determined by comparison to fees typically imposed by other creditors for the same or a substantially similar product or service. Under § 232.4(d)(3)(iii), whether a fee is reasonable depends on other factors relating to the credit card account. Section 232.4(d)(3)(iv) further clarifies that whether a participation fee is reasonable may be determined in reference to whether a credit card offers additional services or other benefits. Moreover, the supplementary information to the July 2015 Final Rule explains that “the `reasonable' condition for a bona fide fee is intended to be applied flexibly so that, in general, creditors may continue to offer a wide range of credit card products that carry reasonable costs expressly tied to specific products or services and which vary depending upon the covered borrower's own choices regarding the use of the card.” 8

    8 80 FR 43585 (Jul. 22, 2015).

    Under the Department's flexibly applied conditional exclusion, creditors may use any reasonable approach in identifying whether a fee is substantially similar for purposes of comparison and reasonable overall. Thus, the Department's policy, in this regard, permits a creditor to consider whether the benefits provided by a rewards program in determining whether a fee is reasonable overall. Moreover, creditors may consider rewards program benefits in determining whether the amount of a fee is less than or equal to an average amount of a fee for a substantially similar product or service for purposes of the safe harbor in § 232.4(d)(3)(ii).

    9. Under 32 CFR 232.5(b), is an assignee permitted to avail itself of a covered borrower identification safe harbor if the assignee has maintained the original creditor's record of a covered borrower check?

    Answer: Yes. Under § 232.5(b) a creditor may conclusively determine whether credit is offered or extended to a covered borrower by assessing the status of a credit applicant, in accordance with the methods for checking the status of consumers discussed in § 232.5(b)(2). A creditor's timely covered borrower check is legally conclusive, so long as the creditor creates and thereafter maintains a record of the consumer's covered borrower status. Under § 232.3(i)(2) a creditor, by definition, includes the creditor's assignee. Thus, the Department's policy is to extend the covered borrower check safe harbor to a creditor's assignee, provided that the assignee continues to maintain the record created by the creditor that initially extended the credit.

    10. Does the historic lookback provision of 32 CFR 232.5(b)(2)(B) prevent creditors from adopting a risk management plan that includes periodically screening credit portfolios to discover changes to covered borrower status?

    Answer: No. Section 232.5 explains the methods available to creditors when determining a consumer's covered borrower status prior to or at the time the parties enter into a transaction or an account is created. The provision permits a creditor to use its own method to assess covered borrower status, and it provides a safe harbor to a creditor that employs either of two available methods: Using information obtained directly or indirectly from the DMDC database; or obtaining a consumer report from a nationwide consumer reporting agency (or a reseller of the same) containing a statement, code, or similar indicator describing that status. To benefit from the safe harbor provision, a creditor must determine a consumer's covered borrower status at or before the time of the transaction or the time an account is established and make a record of the determination. Section 232.5(b)(2)(B) prohibits a creditor from accessing the DMDC database after the time a consumer entered into a transaction or established an account for a specific purpose, namely “to ascertain whether a consumer had been a covered borrower as of the date of that transaction or as of the date that account was established.” Therefore, the plain language of the regulation does not prohibit a creditor or assignee from accessing the DMDC database for other purposes, such as determining whether a previously covered borrower retains that status. However, as stated in § 232.7, other State or Federal laws providing greater protections to covered borrowers may apply to covered transactions under the MLA. Creditors should ensure compliance with any such laws that may apply to them and these transactions.

    11. Does the particular internet address referenced in 32 CFR 232.5(b)(2) limit the availability of a safe harbor for a covered borrower check conducted through alternative methods of accessing the MLA database provided by the Department?

    Answer: No. Under the safe harbor provided in § 232.5(b)(1), a creditor may conclusively determine whether credit is offered to a covered borrower by assessing the status of a consumer using information related to that consumer obtained from the database, maintained by the DMDC, for that purpose. Section 232.5(b)(2) references a uniform resource locator (URL), more commonly known as an Internet address, as a convenience to assist the public in locating the DMDC MLA database. However, that particular URL address itself does not serve as a restriction on the method through which the DMDC MLA database is accessed. For technological reasons, the Department may from time to time revise the DMDC MLA URL through providing notice on the DMDC MLA Web page. Therefore, a creditor who makes a determination regarding the status of a consumer by accessing the database maintained by the DMDC through a URL provided by the DMDC that is different from the one specifically referenced in § 232.5(b)(2) may still take advantage of the safe harbor in § 232.5(b)(1), so long as the creditor timely creates and thereafter maintains a record of the information so obtained as provided in § 232.5(b)(3).

    Furthermore, the Department is currently developing a pilot project in collaboration with several financial service providers that anticipate a large volume of covered borrower checks. In this pilot project, the Department is experimenting with a direct connection that may improve access to the DMDC database for the financial services industry. This direct connection pilot project accesses the same DMDC database available through an internet query. A creditor may verify the status of a consumer by using the database maintained by the Department for that purpose, even though the creditor uses a method of accessing that database provided by the Department other than the particular URL listed in § 232.5(b)(2). Thus, a creditor who makes a determination regarding the status of a consumer under § 232.5(b)(2) by participating in the Department's direct connection pilot project (or a similar form of access should it be provided by the Department at a future date) is deemed conclusive with respect to that transaction or account involving consumer credit between the creditor and that consumer, so long as that creditor timely creates and thereafter maintains a record of the information so obtained as provided in § 232.5(b)(3).

    12. How may a creditor orally provide the payment obligation disclosure required under 32 CFR 232.6(a)(3) to meet the requirements of 32 CFR 232.6(d)(2)?

    Answer: Section 232.6(a)(3) requires a creditor to provide to a covered borrower, before or at the time the borrower becomes obligated on the transaction or establishes an account for the consumer credit, a clear description of the payment obligation of the covered borrower, as applicable. A payment schedule (in the case of closed-end credit) or an account-opening disclosure (in the case of open-end credit) provided pursuant to the requirement to provide Regulation Z disclosures satisfies this obligation. Therefore, a creditor may orally provide the information in a payment schedule or an account-opening disclosure to a covered borrower. However, an oral recitation of the payment schedule or the account-opening disclosure is not the only way a creditor may comply with § 232.6(a)(3). A creditor may also orally provide a clear description of the payment obligation of the covered borrower by providing a general description of how the payment obligation is calculated or a description of what the borrower's payment obligation would be based on an estimate of the amount the borrower may borrow. For example, a creditor could generally describe how minimum payments are calculated on open-end credit plans issued by the creditor and then refer the covered borrower to the written materials the borrower will receive in connection with opening the plan. Alternatively, a creditor could choose to generally describe borrowers' obligations to make a monthly, bi-monthly, or weekly payment as the case may be under the borrowers' agreements.

    Neither the MLA nor the MLA regulation specifies particular content or format for the requirement of a clear, oral description of the payment obligation. Also, nothing in the MLA or the MLA regulation requires that the clear description of the payment obligation provided in writing must be the same as the oral disclosure, provided that both disclosures are clear and accurate. As explained in the supplementary information to the Department's July 2015 Final Rule, the Department's approach has been to interpret the MLA's oral disclosure requirement in a manner that provides creditors “straightforward mechanisms” that afford “latitude to develop the same (or consistent) systems to orally provide the required disclosures—regardless of the particular context . . .” 9 The requirement of a clear, oral payment obligation disclosure has sufficient breadth that creditors may choose a variety of acceptable oral disclosure compliance strategies. Thus, under the Department's approach, a generic oral description of the payment obligation may be provided, even though the disclosure is the same for borrowers with a variety of consumer credit transactions or accounts.

    9 80 FR 43588.

    13. If a creditor chooses to provide the information that is required to be provided orally by providing a toll-free telephone number, consistent with 32 CFR 232.6(d)(2)(ii)(B), when must the information be available to the borrower?

    Answer: Section 232.6(d)(2) requires a statement of the MAPR and a clear description of the covered borrower's payment obligation to be provided to the covered borrower orally. Creditors may satisfy this requirement by providing the information to the covered borrower in person or through a toll-free telephone number. If the creditor decides to provide the borrower with a toll-free telephone number, the toll-free telephone number must be provided on i) a form the creditor directs the consumer to use to apply for the transaction or account, or ii) the written disclosure of the information that is required under § 232.6(d)(1). Since § 232.6(d)(2) permits creditors to provide oral disclosures by providing a toll-free telephone number, such information must be available from the time the creditor provides the toll-free telephone number. The difficulty of providing this information in a timely way through a toll-free telephone system is mitigated by the Department's interpretation of mandatory oral disclosures as allowing for a nonnumeric statement of the MAPR and a generic, clear description of the payment obligation. See § 232.6(c) and Question and Answer #12 of these Interpretations. Oral disclosures provided through a toll-free telephone system need only be available under § 232.6(d)(2)(ii)(B) for a duration of time reasonably necessary to allow a covered borrower to contact the creditor for the purpose of listening to the disclosure.

    14. In circumstances where Regulation Z allows a creditor to provide disclosures after the borrower has become obligated on a transaction (as in the case of purchase orders or requests for credit made by mail, telephone, or fax), does the MLA provide for similarly delayed disclosure?

    Answer: Yes. 32 CFR 232.6(a) states that a creditor shall provide mandatory loan disclosures, including “any disclosure required by Regulation Z,” to a covered borrower “before or at the time the borrower becomes obligated on the transaction or establishes an account for the consumer credit. . .” Section 232.6(a)(2) further states that “any disclosure required by Regulation Z . . . shall be provided only in accordance with the requirements of Regulation Z that apply to that disclosure...” In certain instances Regulation Z allows a creditor to provide a disclosure after the borrower has become obligated on a transaction, as in the case of purchase orders or requests for credit made by mail, telephone, or fax under 12 CFR 1026.17(g). The MLA regulation's general timing requirement does not override more specific disclosure timing provisions in Regulation Z. The requirement in § 232.6(a) that any disclosure required by Regulation Z be provided only in accordance with the requirements of Regulation Z does not amount to a requirement that MLA-specific disclosures be separately provided to borrowers in advance of TILA disclosures. Thus, the disclosures required in § 232.6(a) may be provided at the time prescribed in Regulation Z.

    15. Under 32 CFR 232.8, within a single credit agreement may creditors permissibly use a “savings clause” that excludes covered borrowers from prohibited notice, waiver, arbitration, or other terms that would otherwise be applicable to non-covered borrowers?

    Answer: Yes. Section 232.8 makes it unlawful for any creditor to extend consumer credit in which the credit agreement imposes on a covered borrower a proscribed term or provision listed in § 232.8. However, nothing in the MLA regulation restricts the ability of creditors to impose on non-covered borrowers those provisions proscribed under § 232.8 for covered borrowers. Along these lines, the supplementary information in the July 2015 Final Rule explains that the Department “recognizes that many creditors likely would adopt disclosures and contract documents that would be designed to be provided to both consumers who are not entitled to the protections under the MLA and to covered borrowers.” 10 Under the MLA, a creditor may include a proscribed term under § 232.8, such as a mandatory arbitration clause, within a standard written credit agreement with a covered borrower, provided that the agreement includes a contractual “savings” clause limiting the application of the proscribed term to only non-covered borrowers, consistent with any other applicable law.

    10 80 FR 43587 n. 238.

    16. Does the limitation in § 232.8(e) on a creditor using a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the covered borrower prohibit the borrower from repaying a credit transaction by check or electronic fund transfer?

    Answer: No. As a general proposition the prohibition of a creditor's use of a check or other method of access in § 232.8(e) does not in any way imply that a creditor cannot be paid. In no case does paragraph (e) prevent covered borrowers from tendering a check or authorizing access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account to repay a creditor. Section 232.8(e) also does not prohibit a covered borrower from authorizing automatically recurring payments, provided that such recurring payments comply with other laws, such as the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulations, including 12 CFR 1005.10, as applicable.

    In contrast, § 232.8(e) prohibits a creditor from using the borrower's account information to create a remotely created check or remotely created payment order in order to collect payments on consumer credit from a covered borrower. Similarly, a creditor may not use a post-dated check provided at or around the time credit is extended that deprives the borrower of control over payment decisions, as is common in certain payday lending transactions.

    Section 232.8(e)(1) and (2) further clarify that covered borrowers may tender checks and authorize electronic fund transfers by specifying permissible actions creditors may take to secure repayment by covered borrowers. The exceptions address cases where a creditor requires a covered borrower to provide repayment in a certain way. Specifically, under § 232.8(e)(1), a creditor may require an electronic fund transfer to repay a consumer credit transaction, unless otherwise prohibited by law. The Department notes that 12 CFR 1005.10(e)(1) prohibits anyone from conditioning an extension of credit to a consumer on the consumer's repayment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers (except for credit extended under an overdraft credit plan or extended to maintain a specified minimum balance in the consumer's account). However, a preauthorized electronic fund transfer is defined under 12 CFR 1005.2(k) as an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.

    In addition, § 232.8(e)(2) clarifies that a creditor is permitted to require direct deposit of the consumer's salary as a condition of eligibility for consumer credit, unless otherwise prohibited by law. While § 232.8(g) prohibits a creditor from requiring as a condition for the extension of consumer credit that the covered borrower establish an allotment to repay an obligation, the regulation does not apply this restriction to a “military welfare society” or a “service relief society” as defined in 37 U.S.C. 1007(h)(4).

    17. Does the limitation in § 232.8(e) on a creditor using a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the covered borrower prohibit the borrower from granting a security interest to a creditor in the covered borrower's checking, savings or other financial account?

    Answer: No. The prohibition in § 232.8(e) does not prohibit covered borrowers from granting a security interest to a creditor in the covered borrower's checking, savings, or other financial account, provided that it is not otherwise prohibited by applicable law and the creditor complies with the MLA regulation including the limitation on the MAPR to 36 percent. As discussed in Question and Answer #16 of these Interpretations, § 232.8(e) prohibits a creditor from using the borrower's account information to create a remotely created check or remotely created payment order in order to collect payments on consumer credit from a covered borrower or using a post-dated check provided at or around the time credit is extended.

    Section 232.8(e)(3) further clarifies that covered borrowers may convey security interests in checking, savings, or other financial accounts by describing a permissible security interest granted by covered borrowers. Thus, for example, a covered borrower may grant a security interest in funds deposited in a checking, savings, or other financial account after the extension of credit in an account established in connection with the consumer credit transaction.

    18. Does the limitation in § 232.8(e) on a creditor using a check or other method of access to a deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the covered borrower prohibit a creditor from exercising a statutory right to take a security interest in funds deposited within a covered borrower's account?

    Answer: No. Under certain circumstances federal or state statutes may grant creditors statutory liens on funds deposited within covered borrowers' asset accounts. For example, under 12 U.S.C. 1757(11) federal credit unions may “enforce a lien upon the shares and dividends of any member, to the extent of any loan made to him and any dues or charges payable by him.” As discussed in Question and Answer #16 of these Interpretations, § 232.8(e) serves to prohibit a creditor from using the borrower's account information to create a remotely created check or remotely created payment order in order to collect payments on consumer credit from a covered borrower or using a post-dated check provided at or around the time credit is extended. Section 232.8(e)(3) describes a permissible activity under § 232.8(e). However, the fact that § 232.8(e)(3) specifies a particular time when a creditor may take a security interest in funds deposited in an account does not change the general effect of the prohibition in § 232.8(e). Therefore, § 232.8(e) does not impede a creditor from exercising a statutory right to take a security interest in funds deposited in an account at any time, provided that the security interest is not otherwise prohibited by applicable law and the creditor complies with the MLA regulation, including the limitation on the MAPR to 36 percent.

    19. Under 32 CFR 232.3(f)(2)(ii) and 232.8(f) what methods of transportation are included within the definition of a “vehicle”?

    Answer: For purposes of the MLA, the term “vehicle” means any self-propelled vehicle primarily used for personal, family, or household purposes for on-road transportation. The term does not include motor homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), golf carts, or motor scooters.

    III. Regulatory Impact Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This interpretive rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This rulemaking will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, or raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this rulemaking will not alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this rulemaking is not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866.

    2 U.S.C. Ch. 25, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

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

    The Department of Defense certifies that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    This rule does not impose reporting and record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    This rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). It has been determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rule has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this rule preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, Department did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.

    Dated: August 23, 2016. Morgan Park, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20486 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0783] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S213 (MD 213) Bridge across the Chester River, mile 26.8, at Chestertown, MD. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    The deviation is effective 8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 to 6 a.m. on Sunday, October 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0783] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the S213 (MD 213) Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.551, to facilitate painting of the bridge.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. September 6, 2016 to 6 a.m. October 30, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule drawbridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 12 feet above mean high water.

    The Chester River is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    For the duration of the bridge maintenance, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge due to placement of barges and equipment in the main navigation span. The bridge will open for vessels on signal during the scheduled closure periods, if at least 24 hours notice is given. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: August 19, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20482 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0804] Safety Zone; Portland Dragon Boat Races, Portland, OR AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce its Portland Dragon Boat Races safety zone regulations on September 10 and 11, 2016. Our regulations for this safety zone identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone without permission from the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1341 will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on both September 10, 2016, and September 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Ken Lawrenson, Waterways Management Division, MSU Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Portland Dragon Boat Races detailed in 33 CFR 165.1341 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., on both Saturday, September 10, 2016, and Sunday, September 11, 2016. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of maritime traffic, including public vessels present, on the Willamette River during the Portland Dragon Boat Races. Our regulations for the Portland Dragon Boat Races in § 165.1341 specify the location of the regulated area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1341 and 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone without permission from the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port. Persons or vessels wishing to enter the safety zone may request permission to do so from the on-scene Captain of the Port representative via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.1341 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 and marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: August 22, 2016. W. R. Timmons, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20480 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1030] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for the protection of a very important person (VIP). This VIP will be staying on beachfront property in close proximity to Kailua Bay. It is necessary to restrict waterway access to vessels and persons to prevent waterside threats to the VIP. The security zone encompasses two primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor from the navigable waters of the Kawainui Canal, beginning 150 yards south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge and continuing into Kailua Bay; and the navigable waters of Kailua Bay beginning at Kapoho Point and extending in a southwesterly direction to the shore boundary of a property located at 123 Kailuana Loop, Kailua, HI 96734. Entry of persons or vessels into the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 4:00 p.m. (HST) on August 30, 2016, through 11:30 p.m. (HST) on September 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-1030. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1030 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Nicolas Jarboe, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541-4359, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking TFR Temporary final rule Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code VIP Very Important Person II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) [5 U.S.C. 553(b)]. This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency, for good cause, finds those procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard further finds that it would be impractical to issue an NPRM with respect to this rule because details of the VIP's travel to Hawaii were not provided to the Coast Guard until August 9, 2016, preventing the Coast Guard from completing full notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. Publishing an NPRM and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the security zone's intended objectives, including but not limited to protection of the VIP, mitigation of potential terrorist risks, and enhancing public and maritime security. Publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the occasion would occur before a notice-and-comment rulemaking could be completed, thereby jeopardizing the safety of the VIP. The COTP finds this temporary security zone must be effective by August 30, 2016 to ensure the safety of the VIP during his visit to the Kailua Bay area on the eastern coast of Oahu, Hawaii.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. From August 30, 2016 through September 2, 2016, a VIP of the United States of America plans to visit the Kailua Bay area on Oahu, Hawaii. The security zone encompasses two primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor: (1) The navigable waters of the Kawainui Canal, beginning 150 yards south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge and continuing into Kailua Bay; and (2) the navigable waters of Kailua Bay beginning at Kapoho Point and extending in a southwesterly direction to the shore boundary of a property located at 123 Kailuana Loop, Kailua, HI 96734. The Captain of the Port of Honolulu (COTP) has determined the potential risks associated with the VIP's visit to the Kailua Bay area render a security zone necessary to ensure the VIP's safety. Entry of persons or vessels into the security zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu or a designated representative.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    This temporary final rule establishes a security zone from 4:00 p.m. (HST) on August 30, 2016, through 11:30 p.m. (HST) on September 2, 2016. The security zone encompasses two primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor: (1) The navigable waters of the Kawainui Canal, beginning 150 yards south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge and continuing into Kailua Bay; and (2) the navigable waters of Kailua Bay beginning at Kapoho Point and extending in a southwesterly direction to the shore boundary of a property located at 123 Kailuana Loop, Kailua, HI 96734.

    Two (2) shore-side markers will be placed in proximity of the security zone along the security zone boundary and one (1) orange boom will be placed at the canal boundary south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge as visual aids for mariners and public to approximate the zone. An illustration of the security zone will be made available on www.regulations.gov in the docket for this rulemaking, USCG-2015-1030. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Coast Guard expects the economical impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This expectation is based on the limited duration of the zone, the limited geographic area affected by it, and the lack of commercial vessel traffic affected by the zone. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T14-1030 to read as follows:
    § 165.T14-1030 Security Zone; Kailua Bay, Oahu, HI.

    (a) Location. The security zone area is located within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-10) and encompasses two primary areas from the surface of the water to the ocean floor:

    (1) The navigable waters of the Kawainui Canal, beginning 150 yards south of the N. Kalaheo Avenue Road Bridge and continuing into Kailua Bay; and

    (2) The navigable waters of Kailua Bay beginning at Kapoho Point and extending in a southwesterly direction to the shore boundary of a property located at 123 Kailuana Loop, Kailua, HI 96734. The geographic coordinates of the zone include the navigable waters of the Kawainui Canal beginning at a point 21°24′56″ N., 157°44′58″ W., then extending to 21°25′27″ N., 157°44′21″ W. (Kapoho Point) including all the waters to the west of a straight line to 21°25′11″ N., 157°44′39″ W., and extending back to the original point 21°24′56″ N., 157°44′58″ W.

    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from 4:00 p.m. (HST) on August 30, 2016, through 11:30 p.m. (HST) on September 2, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing security zones contained in § 165.33 apply to the security zone created by this temporary final rule.

    (1) All persons and vessels are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in this part.

    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.

    (3) Persons or vessels desiring to transit the security zone identified in paragraph (a) of this section may contact the COTP through his designated representatives at the Command Center via telephone: (808) 842-2600 and (808) 842-2601; fax: (808) 842-2642; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz) to request permission to transit the zones. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or his designated representative and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while in the zone.

    (4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the security zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (d) Notice of enforcement. The COTP will cause notice of the enforcement of the security zone described in this section to be made by verbal broadcasts and written notice to mariners and the general public.

    (e) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the COTP to assist in enforcing the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. M.C. Long, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Honolulu.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20530 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0402; FRL-9945-13-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for Particle Matter, Ozone, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide Correction

    In rule document 2016-08913, appearing on pages 23175-23180 in the issue of Wednesday, April 20, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 23177, in the first column, in the first paragraph following the table, lines 1-23, should read as follows:

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

    A Approve A* Approve, but conditionally approve aspect of PSD program relating to the identification of NOX as a precursor for ozone and addressing the changes made to 40 CFR part 51.116 in EPA's October 20, 2010 rulemaking (75 FR 64864) concerning emissions of fine particulate. D Disapprove, but no further action required because federal regulations already in place. + Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. NI Not included in the September 10, 2008 (PM2.5), January 2, 2013 (ozone and NO2), and May 30, 2013 (SO2) submittals which are the subject of today's action. NT Not taking action in today's action. NS No Submittal. NA Not applicable.
    [FR Doc. C1-2016-08913 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0320; FRL-9951-49-Region 2] Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; Interstate Transport Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving elements of a New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning interstate transport provisions.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0320. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Fradkin, 212-637-3702, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we”, “us”, and “our” means EPA.

    I. Background II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submission? III. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. What are the consequences of a disapproved SIP? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements in New York's infrastructure SIP submitted on April 4, 2013 to address applicable infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address. EPA commonly refers to such state plans as “infrastructure SIPs.” In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (commonly referred to as prong 1), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2), in any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality (prong 3) and to protect visibility (prong 4) in another state. This rulemaking addresses prongs 1, 2, and 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA will address the other portions of the April 4, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal, including prong 3 pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), in another action.

    II. What action did EPA propose on the SIP submission?

    The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was published on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40229). In that action, EPA proposed to disapprove the portions of New York's April 4, 2013 SIP submission addressing prongs 1 and 2, and proposed to approve prong 4 regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements.

    In proposing to disapprove the SIP submission as to prongs 1 and 2, EPA noted several deficiencies in New York's submission: (1) New York's own modeling showed “predicted” nonattainment in the bordering states of Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, but did not adequately explain its conclusion that New York emissions will not significantly contribute to those predicted exceedances; (2) the emissions reductions cited in New York's submission were based on preliminary emissions estimates, and were below the assumed emissions reductions that were used in New York's cited preliminary screening modeling performed for the Ozone Transport Commission; (3) the submission used a projection year (2020) to model downwind air quality that is two years beyond the July 11, 2018 moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; (4) the submission failed to address prong 2, the State's potential interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states; (5) the submission did not demonstrate that the emission rates at which Electric Generating Units (EGUs) in the state operated were the result of enforceable emission limits or other mandatory programs such that the emission rate would not increase; (6) New York's submission relied on the state's implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was not designed to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard and is no longer being implemented by the states and EPA; and (7) EPA recently released technical data that contradicts the State's conclusion that its SIP already contains adequate provisions to meet interstate transport requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    In proposing to approve the New York SIP submission with respect to the prong 4 visibility transport requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(II), EPA explained that New York's SIP submission relied on the State's approved Regional Haze SIP to ensure that emissions from sources within the State were not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states.

    III. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?

    We received comments during the public comment period on our proposed action from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), and the Environmental Energy Alliance of New York, LLC (the Alliance). A synopsis of the comments and our responses are below.

    Comment 1: The NYSDEC stated that EPA is proposing to replace New York's “supposedly deficient” plan with a partial remedy that controls fewer units at less stringency. NYSDEC further states that EPA is proposing to disapprove a plan based in part on a NOX regulation that covers EGUs as well as non-EGU source categories at a $5,000 per ton control cost threshold, and replace it with a program that covers only EGUs at a $1,300 per ton control cost threshold. NYSDEC also states that EPA should explain how its proposed transport rule addresses transport more effectively than New York's plan.

    Response 1: As noted above, we identified a number of deficiencies with New York's SIP submission to support the proposed disapproval of the plan as to prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While EPA cited the modeling conducted for EPA's proposed Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 ozone standard (CSAPR Update), 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015), as additional evidence that emissions from New York may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, this action did not propose and does not finalize any remedy to address the deficiency identified in New York's SIP submission. This action does not itself replace New York's plan with the proposed remedy that was included in the CSAPR Update proposal or any other remedy. Rather, with respect to prongs 1 and 2, this action disapproves New York's submission for its failure to provide sufficient analysis to support its conclusion that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions which interfere with air quality in other states.

    NYSDEC misstates the burden imposed upon the EPA in reviewing this action. In submitting an infrastructure SIP, the state's burden is to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that it has complied with the statutory requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA's role in reviewing infrastructure SIP submissions is to ensure that the state's plan complies with the statute. With respect to prongs 1 and 2, the EPA has reviewed New York's demonstration and determined, for the reasons summarized above, that it does not adequately demonstrate that the state's plan is sufficient to ensure that emissions from the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance. As noted below, this disapproval will trigger a federal implementation plan (FIP) clock which will require the EPA to promulgate a plan to prohibit those levels of emissions that impact downwind air quality in violation of the statute. However, the EPA is not required to provide that metric at the time it reviews the state's demonstration.

    Moreover, EPA's 2011 modeling baseline used for evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS accounted for the emission reductions from controls listed in the SIP—including New York's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules—and nonetheless continued to show that New York would contribute to downwind air quality problems. Despite the considerable emission reductions achieved by New York, EPA's technical analysis for the CSAPR Update proposal demonstrates that New York's emissions still have an impact on other states.

    Comment 2: The NYSDEC agreed that emissions in New York contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in downwind areas. However, NYSDEC states that EPA should review New York's control program relative to what EPA might determine to be an approvable remedy rather than basing its disapproval on NYSDEC's emission reduction estimates and the fact that New York did not quantify its significant contribution.

    Response 2: In this action, EPA is rightly focused on the discrete question of whether New York has demonstrated that its SIP contains adequate provisions to prohibit significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. New York acknowledges in its comment, and EPA agrees, that New York's SIP submission does not currently satisfy those requirements. As such, EPA must disapprove New York's SIP submission for failing to satisfy the statutory requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained in our June 21, 2016 proposal, and summarized above, New York has not demonstrated that its SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone standard. Furthermore, despite recent emission reductions achieved by New York, in EPA's technical analysis for the proposed CSAPR Update, our modeling shows that New York contributes well above the air quality threshold of 1 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to several projected downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. As indicated in our proposal, EPA's modeling shows that New York contributes 16.96 ppb to downwind receptors in Connecticut, and 17.21 ppb to downwind maintenance receptors in Connecticut and New Jersey, both of which greatly exceed the threshold contribution levels.

    Comment 3: The NYSDEC stated that EPA did not provide states with a clear indication of what was required for their respective transport SIPs at the time they were due. Without this information about cross-state contributions, NYSDEC relied on control measures already in place within the state.

    Response 3: States have an independent responsibility to demonstrate that their plans contain adequate provisions to address the statutory interstate transport provisions, specifically to demonstrate that the plan properly prohibits emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states. As the Supreme Court clearly held in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., “nothing in the statute places the EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations.” 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014).1 Simply put, the CAA does not require EPA to quantify states' good neighbor obligations before acting on their SIP submissions. Nevertheless, EPA did provide information to assist states with developing or supplementing their SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On January 22, 2015, we issued a memorandum providing preliminary modeling information regarding potential downwind air quality problems and levels of upwind state contributions. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, “Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2008 Ozone [NAAQS] under [CAA] Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)”, January 22, 2015.” 2 As we noted in our CSAPR Update proposal, the EPA also provided updated modeling and contribution information in its August 4, 2015 NODA. (80 FR 46271). All of these documents consistently indicated that the EPA's technical analysis showed that New York emissions contribute to downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, yet New York did not revise or supplement its SIP submittal with additional data demonstrating that the state had satisfied its statutory obligation.

    1 “Nothing in the Act differentiates the Good Neighbor Provision from the several other matters a State must address in its SIP. Rather, the statute speaks without reservation: Once a NAAQS has been issued, a State `shall' propose a SIP within three years, § 7410(a)(1), and that SIP `shall' include, among other components, provisions adequate to satisfy the Good Neighbor Provision, § 7410(a)(2).” EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. at 1601.

    2 Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/goodneighborprovision2008naaqs.pdf.

    Comment 4: NYSDEC states that EPA's failure to implement a full remedy leaves states unsure how to satisfy their transport obligations in regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. NYSDEC asserts that EPA should propose a subsequent update to CSAPR by June 2017 that encompasses a full remedy. NYSDEC states that the update should include requirements for large non-EGU sources and utilize a control cost threshold that is more equitable to states.

    Response 4: For the reasons stated above, this comment is outside of the scope of this action. EPA will address comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed FIP in the final CSAPR Update rule.

    Comment 5: Connecticut DEEP is supportive of the proposed disapproval of New York's SIP submission regarding prongs 1 and 2. DEEP notes that New York and Connecticut have partnered for over 40 years to provide clean air, especially in the southwest portion of Connecticut and the New York City metropolitan region, and will continue this collaboration. DEEP encourages EPA to describe, with as much specificity as possible, the steps states should take to meet their good neighbor responsibilities under the Clean Air Act. DEEP also urges EPA to immediately propose and finalize a full transport remedy for the 2008 ozone NAAQS rather than allowing compliance efforts for the 2015 NAAQS to drive compliance with the 2008 NAAQS.

    Response 5: EPA is supportive of the states' collaborative efforts to improve air quality. This action is focused on EPA's review of New York's infrastructure SIP submission addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submitted for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted earlier, while the EPA is not obligated to quantify state's emission reduction obligations prior to or as part of reviewing a state's SIP submission, we have provided data informative to the state's development and EPA's review of SIPs addressing these requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA will further address state's emission reduction obligations in the rulemaking to finalize the CSAPR Update rule.

    Comment 6: The Alliance requested extension of the public comment period for the proposal to coincide with the comment period for a proposed consent decree “requiring the EPA to reject the SIP” to address a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.3

    3See Sierra Club v. Gina McCarthy, No. 3:15-cv-04328-JD (N.D. Cal.).

    Response 6: We disagree that an extension of the public comment period is warranted for this action. The commenter does not provide an adequate justification why an extension is necessary. The proposed consent decree only concerns a proposed deadline by which EPA would have to act on the state's SIP submissions under CAA section 110(k)—not the substance of that action. See 81 FR 42351 (June 29, 2016). In contrast, the June 21, 2016 proposed disapproval sought comment on a substantive action—i.e., whether to approve or disapprove New York's submission, and on what basis.

    Comment 7: The Alliance asserts that the proposed disapproval of New York's transport SIP, the proposed consent decree mentioned in comment 6, and the CSAPR Update rule are all related and should be resolved at the same time. The Alliance states that they are concerned that one of the actions may be settled without consideration of comments associated with the other actions, and that the resulting plans for attainment may not be as cost effective, “reduction efficient” or may not significantly impact attainment. By way of example, the Alliance notes that it provided comments on the proposed CSAPR Update rule regarding errors in EPA's supporting modeling. The Alliance contends that without finalizing the CSAPR Update rule, neither the EPA nor the commenting public is able to fully evaluate the legitimacy of the SIP disapproval. The Alliance further states that in as much as the proposed consent decree is intended to effectuate SIP disapproval, finalization of the consent decree is unwarranted until the full assessment of public input to the CSAPR Update rule is completed and finalized.

    Response 7: EPA disagrees that the proposed disapproval of New York's transport SIP, the proposed consent decree mentioned in comment 6, or the CSAPR Update rule should be resolved at the same time. CAA section 110(k)(2) requires EPA to act on a state's SIP submission within one year after the submission is determined to be complete. As indicated in the response to comment 6, the proposed consent decree with the Sierra Club governs only the timetable on which EPA would be required to act on the state's SIP submissions under CAA section 110(k)(2)—not the substance of EPA's action.

    As described in the proposal and earlier in this document, EPA has identified several ways in which New York's SIP submission was deficient for purposes of addressing the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In particular, EPA proposed to disapprove New York's SIP submission because the State's modeling showed “predicted” nonattainment in other nearby states with existing measures; the submission did not demonstrate that the emission rates at which EGUs operated were the result of enforceable emission limits; the submission failed to address the State's potential interference with maintenance (or prong 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)); and the submission relied on the state's implementation of CAIR, a rule that is no longer being implemented by the states and EPA and that was declared invalid by the D.C. Circuit.

    While EPA cited the modeling conducted for the proposed CSAPR Update rule as additional evidence that New York may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction obligations. Rather, the evaluation of whether emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind, and if so what reductions are necessary to address that contribution, is being conducted in the context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking. Accordingly, EPA is considering submitted comments regarding EPA's air quality modeling and various associated legal and policy decisions in finalizing that rulemaking.

    EPA notes that the technical data discussed at proposal with respect to New York's potential contribution to downwind air quality problems is consistent with modeling previously conducted for trading programs addressing interstate ozone transport such as CSAPR (76 FR 48208), CAIR (70 FR 25162), and the NOX SIP Call (63 FR 57356), indicating that New York is frequently linked to downwind receptors. The modeling conducted to support the proposed CSAPR Update is the most recent technical information available to the Agency which still shows such linkages to downwind receptors. Even absent this modeling data, New York's SIP submission is inadequate to demonstrate compliance with prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Comment 8: The Alliance commented that, under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), SIP control requirements should apply to a source category or a reasonable aggregation of emissions. The Alliance further stated that under the CSAPR Update rule, EPA unreasonably concluded that the New York electric generating unit sector budget—and only that budget—had to be revised to address significant nonattainment. The Alliance contends that the New York EGU sector emissions are not a significant contributor to neighboring state nonattainment or maintenance issues, and if EPA finalizes the SIP disapproval and finalizes the CSAPR Update rule as proposed, another round of emission reductions from the New York EGU sector will not provide any significant improvement in air quality. The Alliance concludes that it is not appropriate to consider additional reductions from EGUs until reductions are found in other sectors.

    Response 8: As described in the proposal and earlier in this document, EPA has identified several ways in which New York's SIP fails to address the prongs 1 and 2 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action did not propose and does not finalize any remedy to address the deficiency identified in New York's SIP submission. Rather, with respect to prongs 1 and 2, this action disapproves New York's submission for its failure to provide sufficient analysis to support its conclusion that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to meet interstate transport requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The evaluation of the emission reductions necessary to address the State's significant contribution, including from which sectors such reductions might be achieved, is outside the scope of this rulemaking, and is being conducted in the context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking.

    Comment 9: The Alliance cited comments submitted to the docket of the CSAPR Update rulemaking that identified alleged technical deficiencies in EPA's modeling. The Alliance states that EPA should run its modeling using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 5.15 base case, and correct for other technical errors in CSAPR modeling. The Alliance questioned the CSAPR Update rule's conclusion of state linkages to downwind nonattainment (and therefore the validity of EPA's proposed disapproval), and the expenditure of significant state and EGU resources on developing revised SIPs and modifying controls based on an outdated modeling platform. The Alliance also states that regulated entities are not being given appropriate notice and opportunity to comment on the SIP disapproval when EPA has not yet completed modeling for the final CSAPR Update rule. The Alliance concludes that the correction of errors will demonstrate that the CSAPR Update rule, which EPA is relying on to disapprove New York's SIP, results in over-control.

    Response 9: As noted earlier in this document, EPA will consider timely submitted comments regarding EPA's air quality modeling, the modeling platform, and state linkages to downwind nonattainment for the CSAPR Update in the context of that rulemaking, not this one.

    With respect to this rulemaking, EPA disagrees with the commenter that we are only relying on CSAPR modeling to disapprove the State's SIP. As we have previously noted, EPA has identified several ways in which New York's SIP submission is deficient for purposes of addressing the State's obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While EPA cited the modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update as additional evidence that New York may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states, we did not propose to make a specific finding of contribution or to quantify any specific emissions reduction obligations. Rather, EPA is conducting its evaluation of whether emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind and, if so, what reductions are necessary to address that contribution, in the context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking.

    EPA therefore disagrees with the commenter that appropriate notice and comment to regulated entities on the proposed SIP disapproval has not been provided since the CSAPR Update modeling has not been finalized. EPA provided a 30 day comment period on the proposed disapproval (see 81 FR 40229). EPA has also provided appropriate public notice and comment for the CSAPR Update rule (see 80 FR 75706). Moreover, there are no regulated entities under this action as this action merely disapproves the portion of New York's SIP addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and does not itself create any new requirements.

    Comment 10: The Alliance commented that EPA should have performed refined screening modeling to determine all the factors driving ozone exceedances in New York and Connecticut. The Alliance further states that failure to do so could unnecessarily require further reductions in New York, not resolve the ozone nonattainment problem, and unnecessarily lead to the disapproval of New York's SIP.

    Response 10: As discussed above, this action did not propose and does not finalize any remedy to address the deficiency identified in New York's SIP submission. Rather, with respect to prongs 1 and 2, this action disapproves New York's submission for its failure to provide sufficient analysis to support its conclusion that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to meet interstate transport requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The degree to which additional emission reductions may be necessary to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be evaluated in a separate rulemaking.

    Comment 11: The Alliance submitted analyses regarding NOX emission trends in New York showing declining NOX emissions and emission rates, and operational data from 2007 to 2015 for annual NOX emissions, NOX ozone season emissions, NOX peak day emissions, and NOX emissions on ozone exceedance days. The Alliance commented that New York's “higher level of assumed reductions” is more conservative than the actual data reveal and that New York's modeling assumptions should be honored by EPA. The Alliance indicates that EPA's SIP disapproval is based on New York's modeling using higher levels of assumed emission reductions, assuming 48% NOX reductions and 30% VOC reductions without demonstrating how it will achieve those higher levels of emission reductions. The Alliance further indicated that the data they submitted shows that between 2007 and 2015, two years before the New York modeling year, annual NOX emissions decreased 64%, ozone season NOX emissions decreased 56%, peak ozone season emission day NOX emissions decreased 40%, and the average NOX emission reduction on those days when ozone exceedances were observed at eight New York ozone monitoring sites ranged from 47% to 63% and the NOX emission reduction at the Fairfield, Connecticut ozone monitoring site was 38%. The Alliance further stated that both the EPA and NYSDEC modeling used annual or ozone season emissions for their projections and in both instances the observed reductions from 2007 to 2015 are greater than the reductions used by NYSDEC. The Alliance concludes that the EPA basis for the SIP disapproval is incorrect.

    The Alliance also notes that EPA claimed that New York did not demonstrate that the emission rates at which EGUs operated in the state are the result of enforceable emission limits or other mandatory programs such that the emission rate will not increase. The Alliance notes that the NOX emission trends show a marked decrease in 2014 when New York's revised RACT limits become effective, resulting in an annual NOX rate decrease of 52% and an ozone season rate decrease of 42%. The Alliance states that the comparison of daily NOX emissions from 2007 to 2015 shows that New York's revised NOX RACT limits did have an enforceable impact. The Alliance also notes that coupled with the number of recent retirements at other New York facilities, it is extremely unlikely that NOX emission rates could increase substantially.

    Response 11: EPA agrees with the commenter that NOX emissions and emission rates in New York have been trending downward since 2007. EPA also agrees that due to New York's stringent 2014 RACT emission limits—which EPA approved into the SIP and, as such, are federally enforceable—there are enforceable limits on NOX emissions from EGUs and other large boilers regulated under New York's RACT rules. New York's RACT rules also make it unlikely that emission rates from those sources will increase above the levels permitted by the emissions limits.

    As an initial matter, EPA notes that the Alliance based its analysis only on a subset of New York's emissions data (from EPA's Clean Air Markets database), whereas New York's modeling was based on a much larger emission inventory (projected 328,457 tons of NOX emissions, and 368,784 tons of VOC emissions from overall state emissions in 2020).

    Most importantly, EPA notes that New York's RACT rules were factored into New York's modeling as well as EPA's base case modeling. Despite emission reductions from New York's RACT regulations, as noted previously in this document, EPA modeling still shows a very large contribution to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors from New York (i.e., over twenty times the threshold contribution). New York's modeling also showed nonattainment problems in nearby states. Thus, New York has not demonstrated that its RACT rules are sufficient to address the state's significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

    Comment 12: The Alliance submitted analyses showing the correlation between New York NOX emissions and observed daily maximum ozone concentrations on ozone exceedance days. The Alliance commented, “While these analyses confirm that there is a relationship [between ozone concentrations in Fairfield, Connecticut and New York EGU NOX emissions] they also indicate that EPA and NYSDEC should address the trend toward a weaker relationship noted in the difference between 2007 and 2015.” The Alliance further stated, “[I]t is obvious that the relationship between [New York] emissions and downwind ozone is complicated, not solely related to [New York] EGU emissions and must be evaluated in better detail before the EPA unilaterally rejects the New York's [sic] SIP.”

    Response 12: EPA agrees that there is a relationship between New York EGU NOX emissions and ozone concentrations in Fairfield, Connecticut. This relationship supports EPA's finding that reductions in New York EGU NOX emissions are needed to help lower ozone concentrations in Fairfield, Connecticut and at other downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites in Connecticut to which New York is linked. Ozone concentrations in Fairfield, Connecticut are dependent upon a number of factors including NOX emissions from EGUs and other upwind sources of NOX and VOC emissions, as well as local emissions in Connecticut. Inter-annual variability in meteorology is a principal factor in determining year-to-year differences in the magnitude of ozone concentrations. In this respect, the fact that the relationship between New York EGU NOX emissions and ozone in Fairfield, Connecticut is different in 2007 compared to 2015 does not disprove the contributions of New York EGU NOX emissions to high ozone concentrations in Fairfield, Connecticut.

    IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is disapproving a portion of the April 4, 2013 SIP submittal from New York pertaining to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport of air pollution that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, known as prongs 1 and 2 of the good neighbor provision.

    EPA is approving the portion of the April 4, 2013 SIP submittal from New York pertaining to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (or prong 4).

    We expect to take action on the other portions of New York's infrastructure SIP at a later date.

    V. What are the consequences of a disapproved SIP?

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), this disapproval establishes a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for New York addressing the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS unless New York submits and we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for New York pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities.

    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 rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves and disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

    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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. 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 merely partially approves and partially disapproves a SIP submittal from the State of New York.

    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

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action merely partially approves and partially disapproves a SIP submittal from the State of New York.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart HH—New York 2. Section 52.1670(e), is amended by adding an entry for “Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1670 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions Action/SIP element Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area
  • New York
  • submittal date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS Statewide 04/04/13 08/26/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA element: 110(a)(2)(D(i)(II) prong 4.
    3. Section 52.1683 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:
    § 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.

    (o) The portion of the SIP submitted on April 4, 2013 addressing Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is disapproved.

    [FR Doc. 2016-20411 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0233; FRL-9951-41-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds From the Reynolds Consumer Products LLC—Bellwood Printing Plant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) state implementation plan (SIP). The revision would remove a consent agreement and order (consent order) previously included in the Virginia SIP to address reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) control at the Reynolds Consumer Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and include a state operating permit in the SIP to continue to address RACT requirements for the Reynolds plant. EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 25, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0233 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 edited or removed 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:

    Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On October 26, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) submitted a revision to its SIP. The SIP revision submittal seeks to include state operating permit conditions and terms for the control of emissions of VOCs from Reynolds' plant located in Chesterfield, Virginia, in the Richmond Area, in order to address VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds. Previously, VOC RACT requirements for Reynolds were addressed via inclusion in the Virginia SIP of a Consent Order between VADEQ and Reynolds. This SIP revision submittal seeks to remove the prior Reynolds' consent order included in the SIP and replace it with nearly identical VOC RACT requirements now contained for the Reynolds' plant in a state operating permit. The SIP revision submittal also contains minor administrative and technical changes related to VOCs compared to the Reynolds' consent order; however, the substantive provision of VOC RACT remains the same for the Reynolds' plant, thus the minor administrative and technical changes have no effect on facility operation, VOC emissions, or air quality.

    The Virginia SIP provides that the Commonwealth of Virginia's State Air Pollution Control Board must, on case-by-case basis, determine RACT for VOCs from major sources for which EPA has not issued a control technology guideline (CTG). EPA defines RACT as “the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.” 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979). The Richmond Area was originally designated as a “moderate” ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), and thereby had to meet the non-CTGs RACT requirements under section 182 of the CAA (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). Reynolds' printing plant was identified as being subject to non-CTG RACT. The facility underwent a RACT analysis, and a federally-enforceable consent order was issued to the facility on October 30, 1986. The order was then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on June 6, 1996 (61 FR 29963).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision removes the prior Reynolds' consent order included in the SIP and replaces it with nearly identical VOC RACT requirements now contained for the Reynolds' plant in a state operating permit. Including the permit in the SIP will continue to implement RACT requirements for the plant, a major source of VOCs, as required by sections 172 and 182(b) of the CAA. The permit established control technology and other requirements for the control of VOC emissions from the Reynolds' plant in the Richmond Area. The permit incorporates only the conditions of the consent order, along with general permit conditions relating to testing, right of entry, and change of ownership. All operational requirements are limited in scope to those required by the consent order approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on June 6, 1996 (61 FR 29963). This includes process requirements to control VOC emissions, process emission limits, and on-site records.

    The Commonwealth of Virginia's SIP revision also corrects two typographical errors in the formula used to calculate the estimated percent reduction in VOC emissions at Reynolds' plant for X14 (total actual solvent usage for time period) and X15 (total estimated solvents the plant is capable of using if water based materials were not used). The formula with the typographical errors was approved into the Commonwealth's SIP on June 6, 1996 (61 FR 29963). The revised formula for the state operating permit merely corrects a typographical mistake made within the consent order but does not alter how VOCs are or were calculated nor affect VOC emissions from the plant. A more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation is included in a technical support document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the October 26, 2015 submittal for the purpose of removing a consent order previously included in the Virginia SIP to address RACT requirements for VOC control at the Reynolds' plant and including Reynolds' state operating permit in the SIP to continue to address RACT requirements for Reynolds. EPA also approves the minor administrative and technical changes in the formula used to calculate the estimated percent reduction in VOC emissions. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 25, 2016 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 26, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a revision removing the prior Reynolds' consent order included in the SIP and replacing it with nearly identical VOC RACT requirements now contained for the Reynolds' plant in a state operating permit. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

    This action removing a consent order previously included in the Virginia SIP to address RACT requirements for VOCs control at Reynolds plant and including Reynolds' state operating permit in the SIP to continue to address RACT requirements for Reynolds; as well as, making minor administrative and technical changes in the formula used to calculate the estimated percent reduction in VOC emissions, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the entry for Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements Source name Permit/order or registration No. State effective date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Reynolds Metals Co.-Bellwood 50260 10/20/2015 8/26/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] 52.2465(c)(110) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-20299 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 09-230; FCC 16-105] Television Broadcasting Services; Seaford, Delaware AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; application for review.

    SUMMARY:

    In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission denies the application for review of the Media Bureau's dismissal of a petition for reconsideration of decisions that allotted VHF television channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware. The Media Bureau had dismissed the petition for reconsideration challenging the Seaford allotment because it was untimely filed and the Commission concludes that there is no basis to waive the statutory deadline for the filing of petitions for reconsideration.

    DATES:

    August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeremy Miller, Media Bureau, (202) 418-1507, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to sections 331(a) and 307(b) of the Communications Act, this is a synopsis of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, MB Docket No. 09-230, adopted August 3, 2016, and released August 4, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order

    The Commission has before it for consideration an Application for Review filed by PMCM TV, LLC (“PMCM”), seeking review of three decisions by the Video Division of the Media Bureau (the “Division”): (1) The Seaford Report and Order that allotted very high frequency (“VHF”) television channel 5 to Seaford, Delaware; (2) the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration rejecting a petition for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order and (3) the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration dismissing PMCM's petition for reconsideration of the prior Seaford decisions as untimely. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the AFR and affirm the Division's dismissal of the PMCM Petition.1

    1 An Application for Review must establish that the actions of the delegated authority: (i) Conflicted with statute, regulation, case precedent or Commission policy; (ii) involved a question of law or policy not previously resolved by the Commission; (iii) involved precedent or policy that should be overturned or revised; (iv) made an erroneous finding as to an important fact; or (v) made a prejudicial procedural error.

    In ordering the Seaford allotment, the Commission concluded that the outcome of PMCM's Reallocation Request was not relevant. PMCM did not seek reconsideration of that finding until nearly three years later when, for the first time, it opposed the new Seaford allotment that it had previously “strongly” supported. In hindsight, PMCM now argues that the Commission should have postponed allocating a new channel to Delaware while its efforts to reallocate channel 2 played out at the Commission and in court, even though the pendency of that litigation did not prevent PMCM from raising other concerns premised on a favorable outcome regarding its Reallocation Request, and the Seaford allotment is consistent with that request.2 In short, it appears that PMCM simply changed its strategy as developments unfolded.

    2 PMCM now attempts to excuse its failure to object to the Seaford allotment earlier on the grounds that it had no reason to object to the proposal to place the allotment in Seaford, in Southern Delaware, which lacked robust broadcast service, but its interests changed when Western Pacific applied to change the community of license to Dover. PMCM even sought to bid in the auction for channel 5. As to its objection to an allotment in Dover, WMDE's application for a change in community of license is the proper proceeding for the airing of this grievance, and in fact, PMCM has sought reconsideration of the Bureau's decision in that proceeding.

    The staff was correct in determining that PMCM's Petition for Reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order was untimely. Section 405 of the Act provides that “petitions for reconsideration must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the action . . . complained of.” Public notice of the Seaford Report and Order was given on May 7, 2010. The Petition for Reconsideration was filed on March 15, 2013, on the basis that allotment of a new channel to Seaford was improper. PMCM's claim that its Petition was timely because it was filed within 30 days after issuance of the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration is entirely without merit. PMCM's Petition challenged the allocation adopted in the Seaford Report and Order, not the Commission's rejection of BMC's argument that the Commission should have placed the new allocation at channel 2 or 3. As to its request for reconsideration of the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration, the Petition therefore was an impermissible collateral challenge to the Seaford Report and Order. The deadline for filing the Petition therefore was 30 days after public notice of the Seaford Report and Order, not 30 days after public notice of the Seaford MO&O on Reconsideration. Accordingly, PMCM filed its Petition for Reconsideration approximately three years late.

    The Commission can only accept late-filed petitions for reconsideration if the petitioner shows that extraordinary circumstances warrant overriding the statutory filing deadline. As the D.C. Circuit has explained, “[a]lthough section 405 does not absolutely prohibit FCC consideration of untimely petitions for reconsideration, we have discouraged the Commission from accepting such petitions in the absence of extremely unusual circumstances.” Consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decisions, the Commission in applying that standard has focused on whether the Commission has failed to adhere to its procedural rules for providing notice of its decisions. PMCM has not even attempted to show that it has met this standard, much less demonstrated that the extraordinary circumstances required under this precedent are present here.

    The assertion that the Court's decision in PMCM TV constituted “changed circumstances” warranting an extension of the deadline for reconsideration of the Seaford Report and Order is also without merit. This contention presumes incorrectly that a showing of “changed circumstances” under section 1.429(b) warrants an extension of the statutory deadline for the filing of petitions for reconsideration. Thus, PMCM claims that “[i]t is hornbook law that `changed circumstances' provide an adequate legal basis for reconsideration” and that the “relevant test is whether the petitioner has raised the changed circumstance at the first opportunity to do so.” Rather than supporting its theory that changed circumstances can support a request for reconsideration filed after the applicable statutory deadline, the single case PMCM cites, a 1979 Commission order, relates not to the filing of petitions for reconsideration after the statutory deadline but instead to the circumstances under which parties may seek reconsideration of a Commission order denying an application for review. Section 1.429(b)(1) sets forth the limited circumstances in which new matter raised in a timely petition for reconsideration will be considered. It does not and cannot supersede the statutorily established deadline for the filing of petitions for reconsideration, which is set forth in Section 405 of the Act and reflected in Section 1.429(d) of the Commission's rules.3

    3 There is no exception in section 1.429(d) for late-filed petitions based on new information nor any other exception.

    For the foregoing reasons, PMCM's argument that the Petition was timely filed because of its submission within 30 days of the release of the Seaford MO&O on Further Reconsideration is without merit. We therefore affirm the Bureau's dismissal of the Petition and deny the AFR. In light of our denial of the AFR, the Motion to Dismiss and associated pleadings are moot. We therefore dismiss these filings.

    Accordingly, it is ordered That, pursuant to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(5), and § 1.115(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.115(g), the Application for Review IS DENIED.

    It is further ordered That, pursuant to section 4(i)-(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), and § 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.41, the Motion to Dismiss, Request for Leave to File Motion to Dismiss, and Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Western Pacific Broadcast, LLC, and the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Comments in Response to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and Request for Leave to File Comments in Response to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of PMCM TV, LLC, ARE DISMISSED as moot.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20504 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 48 Parts 301, 303 and 333 Notice of Adoption of the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulations (HHSAR) and OIG Class Deviations AGENCY:

    Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.

    ACTION:

    HHS OIG adoption of the HHSAR, and deviation from three clauses.

    SUMMARY:

    This announcement establishes that the OIG contracting activity will follow the requirements of the HHSAR, subject to three deviations establishing that OIG personnel shall seek legal guidance from the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General instead of the Office of the General Counsel.

    DATES:

    These deviations are effective on August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Hildebrandt, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, (202)205-9493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) adopts the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulations (HHSAR) as issued in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as chapter 3 of title 48; as promulgated by the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (ASFR) under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and section 205(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 121(c)(2)), and as delegated by the Secretary.

    In addition, by the authority vested in the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) in accordance with 48 CFR chapter 3, section 301.401 of the HHSAR, and 48 CFR chapter 1, section 1.401 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), I execute three class deviations from the HHSAR to ensure compliance with section 3(g) of the Inspector General Act. These deviations establish the OIG shall make use of the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), and not Office of the General Counsel (OGC), for the purposes of HHSAR sections 301.602-3; 303.203; & 333.102(g)(1); and further reaffirm the requirement that OCIG be consulted when the HHSAR and/or FAR require consultation with legal counsel.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Joanne M. Chiedi, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Senior Procurement Executive for OIG.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18790 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4152-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150306232-6736-02] RIN 0648-BE96 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 9 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are partially approving Framework Adjustment 9 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. This action is necessary to better achieve the goals and objectives of the management plan and achieve optimum yield. It is intended to increase monkfish landings by enhancing the operational and economic efficiency of existing management measures.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The monkfish fishery is jointly managed by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine and northern part of Georges Bank (GB), and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of GB through Southern New England (SNE) and into the Mid-Atlantic (MA) Bight to North Carolina.

    The monkfish fishery has not fully harvested the available annual catch target since fishing year 2011, particularly in the NFMA where the under-harvest has been more substantial. As a result, the fishery has not been achieving optimum yield in either area. The Councils developed Framework 9 to enhance the operational efficiency of existing management measures in an effort to better achieve optimum yield. Because this action modifies some requirements for Northeast (NE) multispecies sector vessels, it is also considered Framework Adjustment 54 to the NE Multispecies FMP.

    On June 23, 2016, we published a rule (81 FR 40838) proposing the measures included in Framework 9, and solicited comment through July 8, 2016. The Councils took final action on Framework 9 during summer 2015 and formally submitted it to us in February 2016. The proposed rule included three measures. This rule approves two measures and disapproves one measure. For more information on these measures, and the rationale for approval or disapproval, please refer to Approved Measures and Disapproved Measures below.

    Table 1—Status of Measures in This Rule Status Measure Area affected Approved Monkfish Possession Limits NFMA. Approved Minimum Mesh Requirements and Possession Restrictions SFMA. Disapproved Northeast Multispecies Days-at-sea Declaration Flexibility NMFA. Approved Measures 1. Monkfish Possession Limits in the NFMA

    This rule eliminates the monkfish possession limit for monkfish Category C and D permitted vessels (referred to as Category C and D vessels in this section) fishing under both a NE multispecies and monkfish day-at-sea (DAS) in the NFMA. This measure is designed to help increase monkfish landings and better achieve the annual catch target caught in the NFMA.

    Possession limits differ based on the type of DAS being used by a vessel. By eliminating the trip limit for a vessel fishing under both a NE multispecies and monkfish DAS, we are adding another tier to the possession limit system without changing the existing possession limits for a vessel fishing on a NE multispecies DAS or a monkfish DAS. A Category C or D vessel that is fishing under both a NE multispecies and a monkfish DAS in the NFMA may now retain an unlimited amount of monkfish. Table 2 includes a summary of the existing and new monkfish tail weight possession limits for a vessel fishing under the various DAS available in the NFMA.

    Table 2—Existing and New Monkfish Tail Weight Possession Limits for Monkfish Category C and D permitted Vessels Fishing on a DAS in the NFMA DAS Type Category C Category D Existing Measures NE Multispecies A only 600 lb (272.16 kg) 500 lb (226.80 kg). Monkfish only 1,250 lb (566.99 kg) 600 lb (272.16 kg). New Measure NE Multispecies A and Monkfish Unlimited Unlimited. Note: Tail weight × 2.91 = whole weight.

    A Category C or D vessel is still required to declare a trip at the dock under a NE multispecies A DAS with the option to declare a monkfish DAS while at sea, but can then declare a monkfish DAS while at sea in order or to be exempt from the monkfish possession limits. Alternately, a Category C or D vessel can declare a concurrent NE Multispecies A DAS and a monkfish DAS at the dock prior to starting a trip in order or to be exempt from the monkfish possession limits.

    2. Minimum Mesh Size Requirements and Possession Limits in the SFMA

    We are revising minimum mesh size and possession restrictions in different parts of SFMA (see Figure 1) to increase operational flexibility.

    ER26AU16.032

    This rule implements a measure that allows a Category C or D vessel fishing under both a NE multispecies and a monkfish DAS in the SFMA to use 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) roundfish gillnets. This rule also allows any monkfish-permitted vessel fishing on a monkfish-only DAS in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area to use 5-inch (12.7-cm) roundfish gillnets in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area. Finally, monkfish-permitted vessels fishing on a monkfish-only DAS in either the SNE Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area or the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption Area may retain both monkfish and dogfish on the same trip when declared into either area. This measure also limits a vessel to using 50 roundfish gillnets in the SNE Dogfish and the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Areas. Table 3 summarizes the approved measures (highlighted in bold) and also includes existing seasonal, gear, and DAS requirements.

    ER26AU16.033

    A vessel taking advantage of these smaller minimum mesh size requirements must still comply with all other requirements of fishing in the SFMA or in the Exemption Areas. Existing monkfish possession limits for vessels issued a limited access monkfish permit and fishing in the SFMA would remain the same.

    Disapproved Measure NE Multispecies DAS Declaration Flexibility Measure

    We are disapproving the Framework 9 measure that would have allowed a Monkfish Category C and D vessel enrolled in a NE multispecies sector, fishing exclusively in the NFMA under either a NE multispecies non-DAS sector trip or a monkfish-only DAS, to declare a NE multispecies A DAS while at sea through the vessel monitoring system (VMS). We are disapproving this measure because it is inconsistent with National Standards 5 and 7 and the NE Multispecies FMP. Specifically, our disapproval is based on this measure's limited utility for fishery participants, poor cost-to-benefit ratio, enforcement concerns, and inconsistency with the NE multispecies FMP at-sea monitoring program. A full description of our rationale is provided below.

    This measure was intended to help increase operational flexibility and potentially increase monkfish landings in the NFMA. However, as proposed by the Councils, it would create a loophole that would allow a vessel to circumvent existing groundfish sector at-sea monitoring requirements, which would be inconsistent with the NE Multispecies FMP. We have determined that the measure itself and the proposed remedy to the monitoring loophole described in the proposed rule are not consistent with National Standards 5 and 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act because administrative costs and burdens are not offset by meaningful benefits to the industry.

    We raised several concerns with this measure in the proposed rule (see 81 FR 40838, 40839) and noted that we intended to further evaluate the potential cost/benefit of providing this at-sea declaration flexibility, as well as review comments, when considering the approvability of this measure. We specifically requested comments on this measure and our concerns in the proposed rule and received two comments generally supporting this measure from industry members. These comments provided no specific feedback on the monitoring loophole, justifications for the cost/benefits, or our request to address concerns related to approvability. In addition, we had extensive conversations about this measure with the New England Council during the regulatory deeming process. The New England Council did not comment in support of the measure, nor did the New England Council address the multiple concerns we raised.

    We are disapproving this DAS flexibility measure for the following reasons:

    1. Allowing a vessel to declare a NE multispecies A DAS after starting a trip on a monkfish-only DAS is inconsistent with the NE Multispecies FMP. This measure would have allowed a groundfish sector vessel to circumvent existing NE multispecies pre-trip notification requirements for deploying industry-funded at-sea monitors. Monitoring is a fundamental requirement of the NE multispecies sector system because it allows the sectors and NMFS to adequately monitor the catching and discards made by participating vessels.

    2. It is inconsistent with National Standards 5 and 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If approved, the costs of this measure and potential remedies to the monitoring loophole far outweigh any potential benefits to the industry. This measure would have required VMS changes that were estimated by the agency to cost approximately $100,000 based on comparisons of other similar programmatic changes that required VMS vendors to reprogram for additional declaration codes. Other database changes in the pre-trip notification system and to accommodate bycatch moderating would also have been needed to address the loophole created in the NE multispecies monitoring program. These changes are not reflected in the $100,000 VMS change estimate.

    Further, this measure would not have provided as many benefits as first anticipated. Framework 9 estimated that only a small percent (1.6 percent) of vessels approached applicable trip limits for non-DAS sector trips and monkfish-only trips in recent fishing years, indicating that few vessels would realize a benefit from this measure. During its development, this measure underwent several iterative changes wherein the universe of vessels that could potentially use the provision was reduced. Many of these changes were designed to address the concern raised in the proposed rule. Presently, sector vessels may only use monkfish-only DAS in an exempted fishery. The only exempted fishery that overlaps with the NFMA is in the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank Dogfish and Monkfish Gillnet Exemption Area, as described in § 648.80(a)(13). Given that the majority of the fleet in the NFMA fishes with trawl gear and cannot take advantage of this opportunity because they are excluded from this exempted fishery, we were concerned that only a small number of vessels that use gillnet gear would benefit from this flexibility. In fact, additional agency analysis indicates that, in the last three years, only three vessels took four trips that would have been eligible to use the monkfish-only flexibility. These four trips resulted in landings worth approximately $12,000. National Standard 5 and 7 require that management measures consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources and minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. Given this limited benefit and the costs associated with this DAS declaration flexibility, we have determined that this measure is inconsistent with National Standards 5 and 7.

    In addition, we also raised concern in the proposed rule that allowing this measure would create enforcement concerns with regulatory discard requirements. A vessel declared out of the NE multispecies fishery and fishing in an exempted fishery is prohibited from retaining NE multispecies (must discard all groundfish); whereas a vessel fishing under a NE multispecies DAS is required to retain all legal size NE multispecies. If we had approved this measure, a vessel would have begun a trip discarding all NE multispecies, only to then be required to retain all legal-sized NE multispecies after declaring a NE multispecies DAS. There would be no way to monitor these discard requirements unless each trip making use of this provision was monitored.

    Corrections and Clarifications to Existing Regulations

    This final rule corrects a number of inadvertent errors, omissions, and ambiguities in existing regulations in order to ensure consistency with, and accurately reflect the intent of, previous actions under the FMP, or to more effectively administer and enforce existing and new provisions. These clarifications are being taken under the authority provided to the Secretary of Commerce in section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The following measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the regulations.

    In § 648.10, paragraphs (b)(3), (g)(1), (g)(3), and (g)(3)(i) through (ii) are revised to enhance readability and more clearly state the regulatory requirements.

    In § 648.92, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is revised to enhance readability and more clearly state the regulatory requirements. A reference to the DAS requirements in the SFMA and adjustment for gear conflicts has also been removed, as these references are unnecessary. The reference to DAS requirement in the SFMA in § 648.92(b)(1)(ii) is not needed because that referenced section further explains how the overall DAS allocation may be used. The reference to adjustment for gear conflicts in § 648.96(b)(3) states that the Councils may develop recommendations to address gear conflicts. This reference is unnecessary because those measures would be captured in the regulations and appropriately cross-referenced.

    In § 648.94, paragraph (b)(3)(i) is be revised to enhance readability and more clearly state the regulatory requirements. A reference to Category F permits has also been deleted for clarity because it may cause confusion with regard to the possession limits for Category F permits. Possession limit requirements for Category F permits are more clearly outlined in § 648.95.

    Comments and Responses

    Our proposed rule solicited comments for 15 days through July 8, 2016. We received nine comments from fishing industry members. A summary of the comments and our responses is provided below.

    Comment 1: Six letters supported eliminating the trip limit for Category C and D vessels fishing under both a NE multispecies and monkfish DAS in the NFMA. One stated that this measure was needed to help more fully harvest the quota. Another stated that this measure will help increase efficiency, decrease discards, and will promote the conservation of other stocks by promoting harvest of monkfish.

    Response: We agree and are approving this measure. The Councils specifically designed this measure to “increase monkfish landings to more fully utilize the annual catch target in the NFMA.” The Councils were also optimistic that this measure could benefit other fisheries by noting that it “could provide additional fishing revenue for groundfish vessels to help offset expected fishing revenue reductions associated with reduced groundfish quotas in NFMA in the near future . . .” While we cannot be certain that this measure will decrease discards, we recognize the potential benefit and encourage the Council to continue developing measures that reduce discards and discard mortality, as required by National Standard 9.

    Comment 2: Three letters opposed removing the trip limit for Category C and D vessels fishing under both a NE multispecies and monkfish DAS in the NFMA. These letters based this recommendation on overall questions about the stock assessment and uncertainty about growth rates, stock definition, and stock distribution.

    Response: The Northeast Fisheries Science Center is in the process of completing a monkfish operational assessment update. This assessment process has raised questions about the validity of monkfish aging information included in previous stock assessments. These important issues could change the results of the ongoing or future assessments. The Councils will need to evaluate these future results, set catch advice, and adjust management measure taking this new information into account. Still, the best available scientific information indicates that the monkfish stock is not overfished, nor subject to overfishing. Further, the fishery has been under-harvested the past several years. We believe that eliminating the trip limit for Category C and D vessels fishing under both a NE multispecies and monkfish DAS in the NFMA is warranted and presents little to no risk to the northern stock. Moreover, should this measure increase catch to levels above the annual catch target, the FMP has accountability measures designed to prevent recurring overages.

    Comment 3: Three letters supported revising minimum mesh size and possession requirements in the SFMA, two of which also noted support for the 50-net limit in certain exemption areas. These letters noted that these changes help align the regulations with historic practices of the fishery. Two letters also spoke to timing: One letter requested the regulations be approved by October when dogfish become available, while the other requested that these administrative changes be made as soon as possible.

    Response: We are approving the suite of SFMA mesh and possession measures, sharing the Council's rationale that this measure “increases operational flexibility of monkfish operations by allowing vessels to target both monkfish and dogfish using different gear types when on a monkfish DAS.” Monkfish are not overfished, nor subject to overfishing, and removing these administrative burdens to better align current regulations with historic practices will help the fishery better achieve optimum yield. To expedite the effective date of these measures, we are waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness because this rule relieves restrictions. For more information on this waiver, please refer to the Classification section below.

    Comment 4: Two letters generally supported the measure that would have allowed a Monkfish Category C and D vessel enrolled in a NE multispecies sector fishing exclusively in the NFMA under either a NE multispecies non-DAS sector trip or a monkfish-only DAS to declare a NE multispecies A DAS while at sea.

    Response: As discussed above, we have disapproved this measure. We raised several concerns with the measure, noting that we would evaluate available data on potential use, the costs of implementation, and any public comments when considering the approvability of the measure. These two comments were very general and provided no additional information to address our noted concerns including the monitoring loophole, cost/benefits, or our request to address concerns related to approvability or justification in support of the measure. As discussed in Disapproved Measure, we have determined that this measure is inconsistent with the NE Multispecies FMP and National Standards 5 and 7, and have disapproved it.

    Classification

    The Administrator, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, determined that Framework 9 is necessary for the conservation and management of the monkfish fishery and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    Because this rule relieves a restriction by increasing the trip limit in the NMFA and liberalizing gear and possession restrictions in the SFMA, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). The Councils developed these measures to increase monkfish landings and associated fishing revenue to more effectively achieve optimum yield in the fishery. Accordingly, delaying this action for 30-days is contrary to the public interest, because it would unnecessarily delay the industry's ability to take advantage of increased opportunities to catch and land monkfish and benefit from the associated economic benefits of higher monkfish landings. Further, since this rule imposes no further restrictions on the monkfish fishery that would alter existing fishing practices or require affected entities to acquire additional equipment, there is no need to delay implementation of this action to provide affected entities sufficient time to prepare or comply with the measures of this rule. Thus, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the delay in effectiveness for this action.

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

    On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and prior to July 1, 2016, a certification was developed for this regulatory action using SBA's former size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. Under the SBA's size standards, 16 shellfish businesses were determined not to be small. The new standard could result in a few more commercial shellfish businesses being considered small. In addition, the new standard could result in fewer commercial finfish businesses being considered small. Previously, all finfish businesses (206 businesses) were classified as small businesses. Based on analysis in the environmental assessment, we do not expect any of these finfish businesses to be classified as large under the new size standards. However, NMFS has determined that the new size standard does not affect its decision to certify this regulatory action. The action results in minimal, potentially slightly positive impacts on all regulated entities regardless of size.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 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 part 648 is amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.10, revise paragraphs (b)(3), (g)(1), (g)(3) introductory text, and (g)(3)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
    § 648.10 VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owners/operators.

    (b) * * *

    (3) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish, Occasional scallop, or Combination permit, whose owner elects to provide the notifications required by this section using VMS, unless otherwise authorized or required by the Regional Administrator under paragraph (d) of this section;

    (g) * * *

    (1) The owner or authorized representative of a vessel that is required to or elects to use VMS, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, must notify the Regional Administrator of the vessel's intended fishing activity by entering the appropriate VMS code prior to leaving port at the start of each fishing trip except:

    (i) If notified by letter, pursuant to paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, or

    (ii) The vessel is a scallop vessel and is exempted, as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.

    (3) A vessel operator cannot change any aspect of a vessel's VMS activity code outside of port, except as follows:

    (i) An operator of a NE multispecies vessel is authorized to change the category of NE multispecies DAS used (i.e., flip its DAS), as provided at § 648.85(b), or change the area declared to be fished so that the vessel may fish both inside and outside of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area on the same trip, as provided at § 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(A).

    (ii) An operator of a vessel issued both a NE multispecies permit and a monkfish permit are authorized to change their DAS declaration from a NE multispecies Category A DAS to a monkfish DAS, while remaining subject to the to the NE multispecies DAS usage requirements under § 648.92(b)(1)(i), during the course of a trip, as provided at § 648.92(b)(1)(iii)(A).

    3. In § 648.14, revise paragraph (m)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.14 Prohibitions.

    (m) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Fish with or use nets with mesh size smaller than the minimum mesh size specified in § 648.91(c) while fishing under a monkfish DAS, except as authorized by § 648.91(c)(1)(iii).

    4. In § 648.80,: a. Revise the introductory text to paragraph (b)(2)(iv); b. Revise paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A), (b)(7)(i)(A) and (B); c. Revise the introductory text to paragraph (c)(2)(v); and d. Revise paragraph (c)(5).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iv) Gillnet vessels. For Day and Trip gillnet vessels, the minimum mesh size for any sink gillnet not stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, when fishing under a DAS in the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip in the SNE Regulated Mesh Area, is 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) throughout the entire net. This restriction does not apply to nets or pieces of nets smaller than 3 ft (0.9 m) x 3 ft (0.9 m), (9 sq ft (0.81 sq m)), to vessels fishing with gillnet gear under a monkfish-only DAS in the SNE Dogfish Gillnet Exemption Area in accordance with the provisions specified under paragraph (b)(7)(i)(A) of this section; to vessels fishing with gillnet gear under a monkfish-only DAS in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area in accordance with the provisions specified under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section; or to vessels that have not been issued a NE multispecies permit and that are fishing exclusively in state waters. Day gillnet vessels must also abide by the tagging requirements in paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(C) of this section.

    (6) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) A vessel fishing under the SNE Monkfish and Skate Gillnet Exemption may only fish for, possess on board, or land monkfish as specified in § 648.94(b), spiny dogfish up to the amount specified in § 648.235, and other incidentally caught species up to the amounts specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    (7) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) A vessel fishing under the SNE Dogfish Gillnet Exemption may only fish for, possess on board, or land dogfish and the bycatch species and amounts specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, unless fishing under a monkfish DAS. A vessel fishing under this exemption while on a monkfish-only DAS may also fish for, possess on board, and land monkfish up to the amount specified in § 648.94.

    (B) All gillnets must have a minimum mesh size of 6-inch (15.2-cm) diamond mesh throughout the net. A vessel fishing under this exemption while on a monkfish-only DAS may not fish with, possess, haul, or deploy more than 50 roundfish gillnets, as defined in § 648.2.

    (c) * * *-

    (2) * * *

    (v) Gillnet vessels. For Day and Trip gillnet vessels, the minimum mesh size for any sink gillnet, not stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, when fishing under a DAS in the NE multispecies DAS program or on a sector trip in the MA Regulated Mesh Area, is 6.5 inches (16.5 cm) throughout the entire net. This restriction does not apply to nets or pieces of nets smaller than 3 ft (0.9 m) x 3 ft (0.9 m), (9 sq ft (0.81 sq m)), to vessels fishing with gillnet gear under a monkfish-only DAS in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area in accordance with the provisions specified under paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section, or to vessels that have not been issued a NE multispecies permit and that are fishing exclusively in state waters.

    (5) MA Exemption Area. (i) The MA Exemption Area is that area that lies west of the SNE Exemption Area defined in paragraph (b)(10) of this section.

    (ii) Monkfish/Spiny Dogfish Exempted Gillnet Fishery. A vessel fishing on a monkfish-only DAS may fish with, use, or possess gillnets in the MA Exemption Area with a mesh size smaller than the minimum size specified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(v) of this section, provided the vessel complies with the following requirements:

    (A) Number of nets. Notwithstanding the provisions specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(v)(A) and (B) of this section and § 648.92(b)(8), a vessel fishing on a monkfish-only DAS within the MA Exemption Area may not fish with, possess, haul, or deploy more than 50 roundfish gillnets, as defined in § 648.2.

    (B) Minimum mesh size. The minimum mesh size for any roundfish gillnet not stowed and available for immediate use by a vessel fishing on a monkfish-only DAS within the MA Exemption Area is 5 inches (12.7 cm) throughout the entire net.

    (C) Possession limits. A vessel fishing on a monkfish-only DAS within the MA Exemption Area may fish for, possess on board, or land monkfish up to the amount specified in § 648.94, spiny dogfish up to the amount specified in § 648.235, and other incidentally caught species up to the amounts specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    5. In § 648.91, revise paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
    § 648.91 Monkfish regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) Gillnets while on a monkfish DAS. The minimum mesh size for any gillnets used by a vessel fishing under a monkfish DAS is 10-inch (25.4-cm) diamond mesh, unless:

    (A) The owner or operator of a limited access NE multispecies vessel fishing under a NE multispecies category A DAS with gillnet gear in the NFMA changes the vessel's DAS declaration to a monkfish DAS through the vessel's VMS unit during the course of the trip in accordance with the provisions specified under § 648.92(b)(1)(iii);

    (B) A vessel issued a Category C or D limited access monkfish permit is fishing under both a monkfish and NE multispecies Category A DAS in the SFMA using roundfish gillnets, as defined at § 648.2, with 6.5-inch (16.5-cm) diamond mesh;

    (C) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit is fishing on a monkfish-only DAS in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area using roundfish gillnets with a minimum mesh size of 5 inches (12.7 cm) in accordance with the provisions specified under § 648.80(c)(5); or

    (D) A vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit is fishing on a monkfish-only DAS in the Southern New England Dogfish Exemption Area using roundfish gillnets with a minimum mesh size of 6 inches (15.2 cm) in accordance with the provisions specified under § 648.80(b)(7).

    6. In § 648.92, revise paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.92 Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) General provision. Each vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit shall be allocated 46 monkfish DAS each fishing year, which must be used in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b), unless the permit is enrolled in the Offshore Fishery Program in the SFMA, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section. The annual allocation of monkfish DAS to each limited access monkfish permit shall be reduced by the amount calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section for the research DAS set-aside. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section or under this subpart F, a vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies or limited access sea scallop permit that is also issued a limited access monkfish permit must use a NE multispecies or sea scallop DAS concurrently with each monkfish DAS utilized.

    7. In § 648.94, revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.94 Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the NFMA— (i) Category A vessels. A limited access monkfish Category A vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS may land up to 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail weight or 3,638 lb (1,650 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (ii) Category B vessels. A limited access monkfish Category B vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under a monkfish DAS may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (iii) Category C vessels. A limited access monkfish Category C vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under a monkfish-only DAS may land up to 1,250 lb (567 kg) tail weight or 3,638 lb (1,650 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A limited access monkfish Category C vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under both a monkfish and NE multispecies DAS may possess and land an unlimited amount of monkfish. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (iv) Category D vessels. A limited access monkfish Category D vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under a monkfish-only DAS may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A limited access monkfish Category D vessel that fishes exclusively in the NFMA under both a monkfish and NE multispecies DAS may possess and land an unlimited amount of monkfish. For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (3) * * *

    (i) NFMA. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 600 lb (272 kg) tail weight or 1,746 lb (792 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category D permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 500 lb (227 kg) tail weight or 1,455 lb (660 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, or F permit participating in the NE Multispecies Regular B DAS program, as specified under § 648.85(b)(6), is also subject to the incidental landing limit specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section on such trips.

    [FR Doc. 2016-20483 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 166 Friday, August 26, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0053] RIN 0579-AE22 Importation of Fresh Raspberry Fruit From Morocco Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh raspberry fruit from Morocco into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the raspberries would have to be produced under a systems approach to mitigate for the fungus Monilinia fructigena and would have to be inspected prior to exportation from Morocco and found free of this pest. The raspberries would have to be imported in commercial consignments only, produced at registered places of production, and field inspected for signs of M. fructigena infection no more than 30 days prior to harvest in registered packinghouses. The raspberries would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the conditions for importation have been met. Raspberry consignments would be subject to further inspection at the port of entry into the continental United States. This action would allow the importation of raspberries from Morocco while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0053.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0053, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0053 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Morocco has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh raspberry fruit from Morocco to be imported into the continental United States.

    As part of our evaluation of Morocco's request, we prepared a pathway initiated pest risk assessment (PRA), titled “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) into the Continental United States from Morocco” (February 2013). The PRA evaluated the risks associated with the importation of raspberries into the continental United States from Morocco.

    The PRA identified one pest of quarantine significance present in Morocco that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of raspberries. According to our PRA, this pest, a fungus (Monilinia fructigena Honey ex Whetzel), is rated as high risk potential. Pests with high pest risk potential generally require measures in addition to inspection at the port of entry to mitigate risk.

    APHIS prepared a risk management document (RMD) for the importation of fresh raspberry fruit from Morocco that identifies a systems approach of specific mitigation measures against the quarantine pest and concludes that those measures, along with the general requirements for the importation of fruits and vegetable, will be sufficient to prevent the introduction of the pest into the continental United States. Copies of the PRA and RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    Based on the recommendations of the RMD, we are proposing to allow the importation of raspberries from Morocco into the continental United States only if they are produced in accordance with a systems approach. The systems approach we are proposing would be added to the regulations in a new § 319.56-76. The proposed measures are described below.

    General Requirements

    Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56-76 would set out general requirements for the NPPO of Morocco and for growers producing fresh raspberries for export to the continental United States.

    Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of Morocco to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-76. An operational workplan is an agreement developed between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed § 319.56-76 would state that raspberries from Moroccan can be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial shipments. Noncommercial shipments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.

    Places of Production Requirements

    Paragraph (b)(1) would require raspberries to be grown at a place of production that is registered with the NPPO of Morocco. All production sites participating in the raspberry export program would be required to register with the NPPO of Morocco. Registering places of production would allow APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco to trace back consignments of raspberries to the orchard of origin if a pest or disease of concern is detected after harvest.

    M. fructigena is the most common cause of fruit rot in the fruit orchards in Europe and Asia, causing characteristic brown rot symptoms that can easily be identified during visual inspections. Therefore, proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require that, no more than 30 days prior to harvest, raspberries be inspected in the field by the NPPO of Morocco for signs of M. fructigena infection. If the fungal disease is detected, the NPPO of Morocco would have to notify APHIS, at which point APHIS will prohibit the importation of raspberries into the continental United States from the place of production for the remainder of the season. The place of production may resume shipments of raspberries to the United States in the next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken.

    Packinghouse Requirement

    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that raspberries be packed in packinghouses that are registered with the NPPO of Morocco. Paragraph (c)(2) would state that the detection of M. fructigena infection at a packinghouse may result in the suspension of the packinghouse until an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree to appropriate remedial measures.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    The NPPO of Morocco would be responsible for export certification, inspection, and issuance of a phytosanitary certificate. Paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require each consignment of raspberries imported from Morocco into the continental United States to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Morocco with an additional declaration stating that the requirements of § 319.56-76 have been met and the consignment has been inspected and found free of M. fructigena.

    Under the general conditions for the importation of fruits and vegetables in § 319.56-3, each consignment of raspberries would be subject to further inspection at the port of entry into the United States.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The proposed rule would allow importation into the continental United States of fresh raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.) from Morocco under certain phytosanitary restrictions. Morocco produces around 4,000 metric tons (MT) of fresh raspberries per year. Between 2012 and 2014, Morocco exported a yearly average of about 3,650 MT of raspberries, mostly to Europe due to proximity and lower shipping costs. Morocco expects to export between 200 and 500 MT of fresh raspberries to the United States annually. At $1,580 per MT, the estimated value of these imports would be between $316,000 and $790,000.

    The majority of U.S. raspberry farms are in three States: California, Oregon, and Washington. They are classified within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) under “Berry except Strawberry Farming” (NAICS 111334). For this industry classification, a business is considered to be a small entity if its annual receipts are not more than $750,000. The average 2012 market value of fruit crops sold by farms in this category was less than $135,000. We infer that most fresh raspberry production is by small entities.

    In 2014, U.S. fresh raspberry production totaled 55,130 MT. Annual imports from Morocco of between 200 and 500 MT would be the equivalent of between 0.4 and 0.9 percent of U.S. fresh raspberry production.

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action is not expected to affect the economy of the United States or to negatively affect producers of raspberries in the United States.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh raspberry fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Morocco under a systems approach. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding raspberries imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0053. Please send a copy of your comments to APHIS using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.

    This proposed rule would amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh raspberry fruit from Morocco into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the raspberries would have to be produced under a systems approach employing a combination of mitigation measures for one quarantine pest and would have to be inspected prior to exportation from Morocco and found free of this pest. The raspberries would have to be imported in commercial consignments and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the conditions for importation have been met.

    Implementing this rulemaking would require additional information collection activities, such as production site and packinghouse registration, inspection, operational workplan, and the completion of a phytosanitary certificate.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.667 hours per response.

    Respondents: Foreign business and the NPPO of Morocco.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 102.6.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 513.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 342 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) Copies can also be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727. APHIS will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    APHIS is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-76 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-76 Fresh raspberries from Morocco.

    Fresh fruit of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) may be imported into the continental United States from Morocco only under the conditions listed in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the fungus Monilinia fructigena Honey ex Whetzel.

    (a) General requirements. (1) The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Morocco must develop an operational workplan, subject to APHIS approval, that details the activities that the NPPO of Morocco would carry out to meet the requirements of this section.

    (2) The raspberries may be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (b) Places of production requirements. (1) Raspberry fruit must be grown at a place of production that is registered with the NPPO of Morocco.

    (2) During the growing season, raspberries must be inspected in the field by the NPPO of Morocco for signs of M. fructigena infection no more than 30 days prior to harvest. If the fungal disease is detected, the NPPO of Morocco must notify APHIS. APHIS will prohibit the importation of raspberries from Morocco into the continental United States from the place of production for the remainder of the growing season. The exportation of raspberries from the rejected place of production may resume in the next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree that appropriate remedial actions have been taken.

    (c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) Raspberries must be packed in packinghouses that are registered with the NPPO of Morocco.

    (2) Detection of M. fructigena infection at a packinghouse may result in the suspension of the packinghouse until an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of Morocco agree to appropriate remedial measures.

    (d) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of raspberries must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Morocco with an additional declaration stating that the conditions of this section have been met, and that the consignment has been inspected prior to export from Morocco and found free of M. fructigena.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of August 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20507 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0052] RIN 0579-AE26 Importation of Fresh Persimmons From New Zealand Into the United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh persimmons from New Zealand into the United States. As a condition of entry, the persimmons would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for orchard certification, orchard pest control, post harvest safeguards, fruit culling, traceback, sampling, and treatment with either hot water or modified atmosphere treatment. The persimmons would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that they were produced under, and meet all the components of, the systems approach and were inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the proposed requirements. This action would allow the importation of fresh persimmons from New Zealand while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0052.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0052, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0052 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, IRM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

    The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of New Zealand has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh persimmons (Diospyros kaki Thunb.) from New Zealand to be imported into the United States. As part of our evaluation of New Zealand's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    The PRA, titled “Importation of Persimmon, Diospyros kaki Thunb., as Fresh Fruit from New Zealand into the Entire United States, Including Hawaii and U.S. Territories” (April 23, 2012) evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh persimmons from New Zealand into the United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the United States of fresh persimmons from New Zealand.

    The PRA identified nine pests of quarantine significance present in New Zealand that could be introduced into the United States through the importation of fresh persimmons:

    • The leafroller moths Cnephasia jactatana (Walker), Ctenopseustis herana (Felder and Rogenhofer), Ctenopseustis obliquana (Walker), Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Sperchia intractana (Walker), Stathmopoda skelloni (Butler); and

    • The fungi Colletotrichum horii B. Weir & P.R. Johnst. and Cryptosporiopsis actinidiae P.R. Johnst., M.A. Manning & X. Meier.

    A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. Potential plant pest risks associated with the importation of fresh persimmons from New Zealand into the United States were determined by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of quarantine pests into the United States and ranking the risk potential as high, medium, or low. The PRA determined that four of these nine pests—C. herana, C. obliquana, E. postvittana, and P. excessana—pose a high risk of following the pathway of persimmons from New Zealand into the United States and having negative effects on U.S. agriculture. The remaining pests—C. jactatana, C. horii, C. actinidiae, S. intractana, and S. skelloni—were rated as having a medium risk potential.

    Based on the conclusions of the PRA and the RMD, we have determined that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of persimmons from New Zealand into the United States subject to a systems approach. The conditions in the systems approach that we are proposing are described below. These conditions would be added to the regulations in a new § 319.56-76.

    General Requirements

    Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of New Zealand to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO would, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of proposed § 319.56-76. The operational workplan would have to include and describe in detail the quarantine pest survey intervals and other specific requirements in proposed § 319.56-76.

    An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will be carried out to comply with our regulations governing the importation of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a systems approach typically requires an operational workplan to be developed.

    Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56-76 would require persimmons from New Zealand to be imported only in commercial consignments. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestations/infections because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packing, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.

    Place of Production Requirements

    Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that all places of production (orchards) participating in the persimmon export program be registered with and approved by the NPPO of New Zealand in accordance with the requirements of the operational workplan.

    Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require the NPPO of New Zealand or its approved designee 1 to visit and inspect the places of production monthly beginning at blossom drop and continuing until the end of the shipping season and to apply appropriate pest controls in accordance with the operational workplan. APHIS may also monitor the places of production if necessary. If APHIS or the NPPO of New Zealand finds that a place of production is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    1 An approved designee is an entity with which the NPPO creates a formal agreement that allows that entity to certify that the appropriate procedures have been followed. The approved designee can be a contracted entity, a coalition of growers, or the growers themselves.

    Packinghouse Requirements

    We are proposing several requirements for packinghouse activities, which would be contained in paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-76. Paragraph (d)(1) would require that all packinghouses participating in the persimmon export program be registered with and approved by the NPPO of New Zealand in accordance with the requirements of the operational workplan.

    Paragraph (d)(2) would require that, during the time that the packinghouse is in use for exporting persimmons to the United States, the packinghouse would only be allowed to accept persimmons from registered places of production and that the persimmons be segregated from other fruit. This requirement would prevent persimmons intended for export to the United States from being exposed to or mixed with persimmons or other fruit that are not produced according to the requirements of the systems approach.

    Paragraph (d)(3) would require that any diseased or insect-infested fruits and fruits with surface pests be culled either before or during packing and removed from the packinghouse. Culling would also include any damaged or deformed fruit. Fruit with broken or bruised skin or that is deformed is more susceptible to infestation by pests than undamaged fruit.

    Paragraph (d)(4) would state that final shipping containers would have to be marked to identify the place of production and packinghouse from which the consignment of fruit originated. Such registration and container marking would facilitate traceback of a consignment of persimmon fruit to the place of production in which it was grown and the packinghouse in which it was packed in the event that quarantine pests were discovered in the consignment at the port of first arrival into the United States.

    Paragraph (d)(5) would state that the NPPO of New Zealand must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the requirements of the systems approach. If the NPPO of New Zealand finds that a packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of the systems approach, no persimmon fruit from the packinghouse will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand conduct an investigation and both agree that the pest risk has been mitigated.

    Phytosanitary Inspection

    Paragraph (e) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that a biometric sample of persimmon fruit jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand be inspected in the exporting country by the NPPO of New Zealand following post-harvest processing. The biometric sample would be visually inspected for signs of disease, and a portion of the fruit would be cut open to detect internally feeding pests. If quarantine pests are found during sampling, the consignment of fruit would be prohibited from export to the United States.

    Postharvest Treatment

    Paragraph (f) of proposed § 319.56-76 would require that all persimmons undergo postharvest treatment with either hot water or modified atmosphere treatment. Under the hot water treatment, the persimmons would have to be held for 20 minutes in hot water at 50 °C

    (122 °F). This treatment has been shown to provide 100 percent mortality of leafroller moth larvae. In addition, hot water treatment reduces populations of fungal pathogens such as C. horii and C. actinidiae on fruit.

    Under the modified atmosphere treatment, the persimmons would have to be packed in semi-permeable polymeric bags and stored at 0 °C for a minimum of 28 days. As the fruit respire within the modified atmosphere bag, oxygen is consumed and carbon dioxide is produced which causes mortality of any leafrollers present. Modified atmosphere cold storage has been used by New Zealand for all persimmons exported to Australia since 2007. Since this treatment was initiated, there have been no quarantine pests detected in New Zealand persimmons exported to Australia. Treatment with either the described hot water or modified atmosphere treatments, in conjunction with other safeguards that would be required by the regulations for persimmons from New Zealand, would reduce the likelihood that persimmons will introduce injurious plant pests into the United States.

    Phytosanitary Certificate

    To certify that the fresh persimmon fruit from New Zealand has been grown and packed in accordance with the requirements of proposed § 319.56-76, paragraph (g) would require each consignment of fruit to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of New Zealand, with an additional declaration stating that they were produced under and meet all the components of the systems approach and were inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the requirements.

    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

    APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of fresh persimmon fruit (Diospyros kaki) into the entire United States from New Zealand subject to a systems approach. Most U.S. persimmon production takes place in California, where the 2011 value of production totaled about $13.6 million. The most recent data on U.S. persimmon imports show a total value of about $3 million in 2014. The wholesale value of the persimmon fruit for which New Zealand has requested import access would be about $90,000 initially. The value of future imports is forecast to reach about $330,000, or about 2 percent of the U.S. persimmon market.

    The Small Business Administration's (SBA) small-entity standard for entities involved in fruit farming is $750,000 or less in annual receipts (NAICS 111339). It is probable that most or all U.S. persimmon producers are small businesses by the SBA standard. We expect any impact of the proposed rule for these entities would be minimal, given New Zealand's expected small share of the U.S. persimmon market.

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow persimmons to be imported into the United States from New Zealand. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding persimmons imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send comments on the Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0052. Please send a copy of your comments to APHIS using one of the methods described under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.

    APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of fresh persimmons from New Zealand into the United States. As a condition of entry, the persimmons would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for orchard certification, orchard pest control, post-harvest safeguards, fruit culling, traceback, sampling, and treatment with either hot water or modified atmosphere treatment. The persimmons would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that they were produced under, and meet all the components of, the systems approach and were inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the proposed requirements.

    Implementing this rule will require information collection activities, such as an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registration, container markings, production site inspections, investigations and remedial action, packinghouse monitoring, sampling, treatment records, and phytosanitary certificates.

    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.12 hours per response.

    Respondents: Growers, exporters, packinghouses, and the NPPO of New Zealand.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 30.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 10.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 301.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 339 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) Copies can also be obtained from Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727. APHIS will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the EGovernment Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

    PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-76 is added to read as follows:
    § 319.56-76 Persimmons From New Zealand.

    Fresh persimmons (Diospyros kaki Thunb.) may be imported into the United States only under the conditions described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the introduction of the quarantine pests Colletotrichum horii B. Weir & P.R. Johnst., Cnephasia jactatana (Walker), Cryptosporiopsis actinidiae P.R. Johnst., M.A. Manning & X. Meier, Ctenopseustis herana (Felder and Rogenhofer), Ctenopseustis obliquana (Walker), Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), Planotortrix excessana (Walker), Sperchia intractana (Walker), and Stathmopoda skelloni (Butler).

    (a) Operational workplan. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of New Zealand must provide an operational workplan to APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO of New Zealand will, subject to APHIS' approval of the workplan, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. The operational workplan must include and describe the quarantine pest survey intervals and other specific requirements as set forth in this section.

    (b) Commercial consignments. Persimmons from New Zealand may be imported in commercial consignments only.

    (c)(1) Place of production requirements. All places of production that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the New Zealand NPPO in accordance with the requirements of the operational workplan.

    (2) The NPPO of New Zealand or its approved designee must visit and inspect the places of production monthly beginning at blossom drop and continuing until the end of the shipping season for quarantine pests. Appropriate pest controls must be applied in accordance with the operational workplan. If the NPPO of New Zealand finds that a place of production is not complying with the requirements of this section, no fruit from the place of production will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    (d)(1) Packinghouse requirements. All packinghouses that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the New Zealand NPPO in accordance with the requirements of the operational workplan.

    (2) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting persimmons to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept persimmons from registered approved places of production and the fruit must be segregated from fruit intended for other markets.

    (3) All diseased or insect-infested fruit and fruit with surface pests must be culled either before or during packing and removed from the packinghouse. Culling must also include any damaged or deformed fruit.

    (4) Each shipping container must be marked to identify the place of production and packinghouse from which the consignment of fruit originated.

    (5) The NPPO of New Zealand must monitor packinghouse operations to verify that the packinghouses are complying with the requirements of the systems approach. If the NPPO of New Zealand finds that a packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of this section, no fruit from the packinghouse will be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

    (e) Sampling. Inspectors from the NPPO of New Zealand must inspect a biometric sample of the fruit from each consignment at a rate jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of New Zealand. The inspectors must visually inspect for quarantine pests listed in the operational workplan required by paragraph (a) of this section and must cut fruit to inspect for quarantine pests that are internal feeders. If quarantine pests are detected in this inspection, the consignment will be prohibited entry into the United States.

    (f) Treatment. Each consignment of persimmons must be subjected to a post-harvest treatment by either:

    (1) Hot water treatment. The persimmons are held for 20 minutes in hot water at 50 °C (122 °F); or

    (2) Modified atmosphere treatment. The persimmons are packed in semi-permeable polymeric bags and stored at 0 °C for a minimum of 28 days.

    (g) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of persimmons must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the New Zealand NPPO with an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment were grown, packed, and inspected and found to be free of quarantine pests in accordance with the requirements of the systems approach.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of August 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20508 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Part 319 [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0051] RIN 0579-AE20 Importation of Lemons From Chile Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that would amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to list lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) from Chile as eligible for importation into the continental United States subject to a systems approach. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on April 4, 2016 (81 FR 19063) is reopened. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0051.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2015-0051, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0051 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. George Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 4, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 19063, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0051) a proposal to the fruits and vegetables regulations to list lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) from Chile as eligible for importation into the continental United States subject to a systems approach.

    Our review of the information supporting the safe importation into the United States of citrus from Chile under the listed phytosanitary measures is examined in a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) titled “Importation of Fresh Lemons (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. F.), from Chile into the Continental United States Using a Systems Approach.” The CIED was based on a pathway-initiated risk assessment (PRA), titled “Importation of Fresh Lemons (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) from Chile into the Continental United States.” The draft PRA was made available for review and comment on the APHIS Web page in 2014. However, we did not make the PRA available with the proposed rule for further review and comment. A commenter on the proposed rule asked that we make the PRA available again. In response to this comment we are making the PRA available for review and reopening the comment period. Copies of the CIED and PRA may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room).

    Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before June 3, 2016. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2015-0051 for an additional 30 days. We will also consider all comments received between June 4, 2016, and the date of this notice. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of August 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20506 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8847; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-020-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening fully. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures; and replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners, or removal of the door, if necessary. This proposed AD would also require installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal. Such interference could result in a MLG failing to fully extend, which could cause an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 11, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514 855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2016-8847; 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 proposed 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:

    Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-8847; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-020 -AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed 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 proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated January 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two cases of main landing gear (MLG) failure to fully extend have been reported on model CL-600-2C10/-2D15/-2D24 aeroplanes. Investigation determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening.

    Although model CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes feature new MLG door design, similar interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal could exist on aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this [Canadian] AD. An MLG failing to extend may result in an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the repetitive inspection and rectification, as required, of the MLG fairing and seal, MLG door, and adjacent structures, until the mandatory terminating action is completed.

    The terminating action includes installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. 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-2016-8847.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures; replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners and removal of the door. We have also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing.

    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 Proposed 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 proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection and Installation 50 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,250 $0 $4,250 $170,000

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/removals that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have received no definitive data on the costs for the on-condition repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements/removals/repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement of damaged fairing seal 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per seal replacement $921 per seal $1,431 per seal replacement $57,240 per seal replacement. Removal of MLG door 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per removal of MLG door $0 $255 per removal of MLG door $10,200 per removal of MLG door.
    Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Installation of MLG door 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 $0 $1,105 $44,200
    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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

    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.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8847; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-020-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 11, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 19002 through 19041.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two cases where the main landing gear (MLG) failed to fully extend; it was determined that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening fully. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal. Such interference could result in a MLG failing to fully extend, which could cause an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of MLG Fairing, Seal, Door, and Adjacent Structures

    Within 660 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, conduct a detailed inspection for damage to the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjunct structures, and for missing parts and fasteners, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 660 flight hours until the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD is done.

    (h) Replacement of MLG Fairing Seal or Door Removal

    If damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace the seal, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013; or remove the door, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.

    (i) Repair of the MLG Door or Door Removal

    If damage to the MLG door is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 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); or remove the door, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013.

    (j) Repair of the MLG Fairing

    If damage to the MLG fairing is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 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.

    (k) Repair of the Adjacent Structure and Other Corrective Actions

    If damage to the adjacent structure is found or if any part or fastener is found missing or damaged during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Replace missing or damaged parts and fasteners, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instruction of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, except where Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, specifies to contact Bombardier, 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) Repair damaged structure using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

    (l) Reinstallation of the MLG Inboard Door

    For any MLG inboard door that has been removed as specified in paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD: Reinstallation of the door, if accomplished, must be done in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. Before further flight after any reinstallation, the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be done and the inspection must be repeated thereafter at the times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD until the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD is done.

    (m) Installation of a Safety Guide on the MLG Fairing and Increase of Spacing Between MLG Door and Fairing

    Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD: Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, install a safety guide on the MLG fairing and increase the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015. Accomplishment of these actions terminates the requirement of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (n) Provisions for Removed/Reinstalled Doors

    If the MLG door has been removed in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013, the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD may be delayed until the MLG door is reinstalled in accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD. When the removed MLG door is reinstalled, the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD must be done at the time specified in paragraph (m) of this AD or before further flight after reinstallation of the removed MLG door, whichever occurs later.

    (o) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (p) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated January 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8847.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2016. Dorr M. Anderson, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20378 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 229, 239, and 249 [Release Nos. 33-10127; 34-78652; File No. S7-10-16] RIN 3235-AL53 Extension of Comment Period for Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the comment period for a release proposing revisions to the property disclosure requirements for mining registrants and related guidance [Release Nos. 33-10098 and 34-78086 (June 16, 2016)], published June 27, 2016. The original comment period is scheduled to end on August 26, 2016. The Commission is extending the time period in which to provide the Commission with comments until September 26, 2016. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published June 27, 2016, at 81 FR 41651, is extended. Comments should be received on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number S7-10-16 on the subject line; or

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

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number S7-10-16. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

    Studies, memoranda or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the SEC's Web site. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elliot Staffin, Special Counsel, in the Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3450, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has requested comment on a release proposing revisions to the property disclosure requirements for mining registrants and related guidance, currently set forth in Item 102 of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and in Industry Guide 7. The proposed revisions would modernize the Commission's disclosure requirements and policies for mining properties by more closely aligning them with current industry and global regulatory practices and standards. In addition, the proposed revisions would rescind Industry Guide 7, amend section 102 of Regulation S-K, add new exhibit (96) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, add new subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K, amend Form 1-A and amend Form 20-F.

    The Commission originally requested that comments on the release be received by August 26, 2016. The Commission has received requests for an extension of time for public comment on the proposal to, among other things, allow for a more complete assessment of the numerous provisions of the proposed rules, including a fuller consideration of their implications, and to improve the quality of responses.1 The Commission believes that providing the public additional time to consider thoroughly the matters addressed by the release and to submit comprehensive responses to the release would benefit the Commission in its consideration of final rules. Therefore, the Commission is extending the comment period for Release Nos. 33-10098 and 34-78086, “Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants,” until September 26, 2016.

    1See letter from Michael Johnson, President and CEO of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (July 5, 2016); letter from Douglas Currault II, Deputy General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Freeport-McMoran Inc. (August 8, 2016); letter from Katie Sweeney, General Counsel of the National Mining Association (August 15, 2016); and letter from Jeffrey Klenda, Chair of Ur-Energy Inc. (August 19, 2016). Comments are available on the Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-16/s71016.htm.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 23, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20548 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 20 CFR Part 702 RIN 1240-AA06 Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act: Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates AGENCY:

    Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is proposing rules to implement the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act's maximum and minimum compensation provisions. Some of these provisions, which cap the amounts of compensation and death benefits payable to entitled claimants and provide a floor below which compensation may not fall, have become the topic of litigation. The proposed rules would clarify how the Department interprets and applies these provisions. In addition, the proposed rules would implement the Act's annual compensation-adjustment mechanism for permanent total disability compensation and death benefits.

    DATES:

    The Department invites written comments on the proposed regulations from interested parties. Written comments must be received by October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments, identified by RIN number 1240-AA06, by any of the following methods. To facilitate the receipt and processing of comment letters, OWCP encourages interested parties to submit their comments electronically.

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

    Fax: (202) 693-1380 (this is not a toll-free number). Only comments of ten or fewer pages (including a Fax cover sheet and attachments, if any) will be accepted by Fax.

    Regular Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Submit comments on paper to the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-4319, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. The Department's receipt of U.S. mail may be significantly delayed due to security procedures. You must take this into consideration when preparing to meet the deadline for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and the Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Antonio Rios, Director, Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-4319, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone: (202)-693-0038 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll free 1-877-889-5627 for further information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background of This Rulemaking

    The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-50 (LHWCA or Act), establishes a federal workers' compensation system for an employee's disability or death arising in the course of covered maritime employment. 33 U.S.C. 903(a), 908, 909. This proposed rule would implement the Act's provisions on maximum and minimum amounts of compensation payable.

    A. The Act's Compensation Scheme

    Disability, which the Act defines as “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury,” 33 U.S.C. 902(10), “is in essence an economic, not a medical concept.” Metro. Stevedores v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291, 297 (1995). From its inception in 1927, the Act has provided that “the average weekly wage of the injured employee at the time of the injury” must be used as the basis for computing his or her compensation rate. 33 U.S.C. 910. Thus, “[a]n employee's compensation depends on the severity of his disability and his preinjury pay.” Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1350, 1354 (2012).

    Several statutory sections have an impact on determining the amount of compensation payable. Section 10, “Determination of Pay,” 33 U.S.C. 910, is the starting point in the statutory scheme. It sets out rules for calculating the employee's average weekly wage (AWW) as of the time of the employee's disabling injury. This AWW serves as the basis for all future benefit calculations for that worker throughout the life of his or her claim.

    The second step is to determine what percentage of the employee's AWW a claimant will receive in compensation. This is determined under section 8, “Compensation for Disability,” and section 9, “Compensation for Death,” 33 U.S.C. 908, 909. Compensation payable for disability varies based on the nature and extent of an employee's disability. Section 8 establishes four basic categories of disability: Permanent total, temporary total, permanent partial, and temporary partial. 33 U.S.C. 908(a)-(c), (e). In general, an injury is “total” if the worker is unable to work after the injury and “partial” if the worker is able to work at a diminished wage. A disability is “temporary” if the employee's medical condition is improving and becomes “permanent” when he or she reaches maximum medical improvement. See 33 U.S.C. 908(a)-(c), (e); see also Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268 (1980). And section 9 provides compensation payable to the employees' eligible survivors for injuries causing death. 30 U.S.C. 909.

    For all disability categories, the Act uses a “two-thirds” rule to compute compensation. Totally disabled employees—those who are unable to return to their original employment or earn wages in suitable alternative employment—receive two-thirds the AWW they were earning at the time of injury. 33 U.S.C. 908(a)-(b). Partially disabled employees—those who experience the loss or loss-of-use of body parts specified in the statute—are entitled to two-thirds of their date-of-injury AWW for a specified number of weeks. 33 U.S.C. 908(c)(1)-(19). Other partially disabled employees—those who are able to work after their injuries at a diminished wage—receive two-thirds of the difference between their pre-disability AWW and their residual earning capacity (i.e., the post-injury wages they earn or could earn through suitable alternative employment). See 33 U.S.C. 908(c)(21), (e). Finally, the compensation rate for survivors of an employee who suffers a work-related death is usually based on the deceased employee's AWW at the time of death, and, with certain exceptions, can be as high as two-thirds of that wage. 33 U.S.C. 909(b).

    The third step is to apply the statute's compensation-limiting rules. Despite the general two-thirds rule, section 6, “Compensation,” 33 U.S.C. 906, both caps the compensation amounts that can be received (a “maximum”) and provides a floor below which compensation may not fall (a “minimum”). These limits are applied after calculating two-thirds of the worker's date-of-injury AWW. The Act sets the maximum for all disability compensation categories at 200 percent of the “applicable national average weekly wage.” 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(1). Total compensation for death—the amount payable to all survivors in the aggregate—is also limited to that 200-percent figure, or to the deceased employee's AWW, whichever is less. 33 U.S.C. 909(e)(1); Donovan v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 31 BRBS 2 (1997). The Act sets the minimum for total disability compensation at the lower of: (1) 50 percent of the applicable national average weekly wage; or (2) the employee's actual AWW. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(2). The Act does not provide minimums for the remaining compensation categories.

    The Secretary of Labor determines the national average weekly wage before October 1 of each year, and it applies for a fiscal year (FY), from October 1 until the next September 30. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(3). A given fiscal year's national average weekly wage, and the resulting maximum and minimum rates, apply to “employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death during such [fiscal year], as well as those newly awarded compensation during such [fiscal year].” 33 U.S.C. 906(c) (emphasis added). Under the “currently receiving” clause, the maximum rate for claimants receiving benefits for permanent total disability or death is “adjusted each fiscal year—and typically increases, in step with the usual inflation-driven rise in the national average weekly wage.” Roberts, 132 S.Ct. at 1354 n.2. In fact, because the national average weekly wage has risen every year since Congress added this self-adjustment feature to section 6 in 1972, each year's maximum rate has risen as well. Thus, applying a later fiscal year's maximum generally results in a higher compensation rate.

    Finally, in addition to section 6's provisions allowing adjustments to the maximum compensation rate, section 10(f) provides another mechanism for adjusting compensation amounts over time. “[B]enefits payable for permanent total disability or death” are increased at the beginning of each fiscal year (October 1) by the same percentage as any increase in the national average weekly wage (as calculated under section 6), but no more than 5 percent. 33 U.S.C. 910(f). The primary difference between the two adjustment provisions is that section 10(f) applies to all claimants receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death, while section 6(c) assists only those affected by the maximum rate. Through these provisions, compensation payable to a claimant each year increases by the same amount as wage-growth generally, ensuring that the value of the workers' compensation is not eroded over time.

    In recent litigation, disputes have arisen over which fiscal year's maximum rate or rates apply to a given claimant, specifically: (1) In what fiscal year is a claimant “newly awarded compensation”; and (2) in what fiscal year is a claimant “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death.” On the first question, the dispute is whether a claimant is “newly awarded compensation” when he or she first becomes disabled—and therefore entitled to compensation—or when an administrative law judge issues a compensation order. On the second question, the dispute is whether a claimant is “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability” when he or she first becomes permanently totally disabled or when he or she actually receives compensation for permanent total disability.

    The Supreme Court resolved the first of these questions in its Roberts decision. But the second issue has not been addressed by all circuits around the country, and thus remains subject to litigation. The proposed rules would codify the Supreme Court's decision, resolve the second issue in a manner consistent with the courts that have addressed it, implement other aspects of the Act's maximum and minimum compensation provisions, and address the related section 10(f) annual adjustment provision.

    B. Section 6(c)'s “Newly Awarded Compensation During Such Period” Clause

    The Supreme Court construed this part of section 6(c) in Roberts and held “that an employee is `newly awarded compensation' when he first becomes disabled and thereby becomes statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on his behalf.” 132 S.Ct. at 1363. Mr. Roberts was injured and became disabled in FY 2002. An administrative law judge (ALJ) order awarding compensation, however, was not issued until FY 2007. While Mr. Roberts' employer initially made some compensation payments, it stopped in May 2005 and did not resume payments until after the ALJ's FY 2007 order. The ALJ found that Mr. Roberts' disability was: Temporary total from March 11, 2002, to July 11, 2005; permanent total from July 12, 2005, to October 9, 2005; and permanent partial beginning on October 10, 2005. Roberts v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 625 F.3d 1204, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the employer had ceased paying compensation in May 2005, before Mr. Roberts' period of permanent total disability, it did not pay him for that disability until after the ALJ's order in FY 2007.

    The ALJ found that Mr. Roberts' compensation rate for total disability—two-thirds of his AWW—was $1,902.05, and that his compensation rate for permanent partial disability—two-thirds of the difference between his average weekly and his residual wage-earning capacity—was $1,422.05. He found, however, that Mr. Roberts was subject, for all periods of disability, to the maximum rate of $966.08 in effect during FY 2002, because that was when he first became disabled, and was thus “newly awarded compensation.” Id. at 1206. On Mr. Roberts' motion for reconsideration, the ALJ determined that he had applied the wrong maximum rate for the period from October 1, 2005, through October 9, 2005. The ALJ found that Mr. Roberts was entitled to the FY 2006 maximum rate of $1,703.64 per week for that period because he was “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability” during that time. Id.

    The Benefits Review Board, relying on its earlier decision in Reposky v. Int'l Transp. Services, 40 BRBS 65, 74-76 (2006) (holding that a claimant is newly awarded compensation “when benefits commence, generally at the time of injury”), affirmed the ALJ's decision. The Ninth Circuit followed suit. In affirming the ALJ's decision, it held that an injured employee is “newly awarded” compensation when he or she first becomes entitled to compensation rather than when a formal compensation order is issued. Roberts, 625 F.3d at 1208. Although Mr. Roberts argued that “awarded” could mean only “assigned by formal order in the course of adjudication,” and that “newly awarded” must therefore mean newly issued a compensation order, id. at 1206, the court rejected that argument. It reasoned that the LHWCA sometimes uses “awarded” to mean “entitled to.” It found that use applied to section 6, and held that a claimant is “newly awarded” compensation when he first becomes entitled to compensation, which is when he first becomes disabled.

    The Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of section 6(c)'s “newly awarded compensation” clause. The Court acknowledged that Mr. Roberts' contrary view was “appealing” because “[i]n ordinary usage, `award' most often means `give by judicial decree' or `assign after careful judgment.' ” Roberts, 132 S. Ct. at 1356 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 152 (2002)). It recognized, however, that “award” can also mean “grant” or “confer or bestow upon.” Thus, deciding that “the text of § 906(c), in isolation, is indeterminate[,]” the Court considered its function in the context of the statute as a whole. Id. at 1357. The Court concluded that in the Act's “comprehensive, reticulated regime for worker benefits—in which § 906 plays a pivotal role—`awarded compensation' is much more sensibly interpreted to mean `statutorily entitled to compensation because of disability,' ” id. at 1357, than “awarded compensation in a formal order.” Id. at 1356.

    The Court gave several reasons for its holding. First, the Court recognized that construing “newly awarded compensation” to mean a formal compensation order would be “incompatible with the Act's design.” Id. at 1357. The Court reasoned that this construction of the clause would be impossible to apply in the many cases where benefits are paid voluntarily and a formal compensation order is never issued. Noting that the three provisions of section 6 that relate to the maximum compensation rate “work together to cap disability benefits,” and that section 6(b)(1)'s cap on benefits “applies globally, to all disability claims,” the Court concluded that section 6(c)'s “newly awarded” clause must also apply globally. Id. at 1358.

    Second, the Court examined the Act's administrative structure, which requires employers to pay compensation within 14 days after the employer knows of the worker's injury (see 30 U.S.C. 914(b)). It determined that using the national average weekly wage at the time of disability to determine the applicable maximum “coheres” with that structure. Roberts, 132 S. Ct. at 1358. The Court recognized that the employer, as well as OWCP, must be able to calculate the amount of compensation due at the time of payment, a calculation that necessarily includes consideration of any applicable cap. Because an employer is “powerless to predict” future events related to the compensation claim or what a later national average weekly wage will be, the court reasoned that “[i]t is difficult to see how an employer can apply or certify a national average weekly wage other than the one in effect at the time an employee becomes disabled.” Roberts, 132 S. Ct. at 1358-59.

    Reading section 6(c) in the context of the Act's comprehensive scheme, the Court further explained that “applying the national average weekly wage for the fiscal year in which an employee becomes disabled advances the LHWCA's purpose to compensate disability,” which focuses on wages at the time of the injury as the basis to compute compensation. Id. at 1359 (citing 33 U.S.C. 902(10)). It is thus “logical to apply the national average weekly wage for the same point in time.” Id.

    Moreover, the Court found that applying the date-of-disability maximum rate as suggested by the Director and Employer “avoids disparate treatment of similarly situated employees . . . who earn the same salary and suffer the same injury on the same day.” Id. at 1359. By contrast, Mr. Roberts' approach could subject such employees to different rates based solely on the “happenstance of their obtaining orders in different fiscal years.” Id.

    Third, the Court believed its approach “discourages gamesmanship in the claims process.” Id. at 1360. Using the date a compensation order issues would encourage claimants to delay the adjudication process or initiate additional administrative proceedings seeking to take advantage of a later year's national average weekly wage. At the same time, an employer who promptly pays compensation at the correct rate would be subject to an increased cap retroactively for those payments based on a later compensation order. The Court refused to “reward” claimants with these “windfalls” while “punishing” employers who have met their statutory obligations. Id.

    C. Section 6(c)'s “Currently Receiving Compensation for Permanent Total Disability or Death Benefits During Such Period” Clause

    While the Supreme Court's Roberts decision settled the interpretation of the “newly awarded” clause, the Court declined to consider section 6(c)'s “currently receiving” clause, leaving the phrase's correct interpretation open to further litigation. The Ninth Circuit Roberts court had interpreted the “currently receiving” clause consistently with the “newly awarded” clause, noting that “[u]nder both clauses, the inquiry into the applicable maximum rate focuses on an employee's entitlement to compensation.” Roberts, 625 F.3d at 1208. It held that “the `currently receiving' clause of section 6(c) unambiguously refers to the period during which an employee was entitled to receive compensation for permanent total disability, regardless of whether his employer actually paid it.” Id. at 1209. Consequently, the court determined that Mr. Roberts was “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability” as of July 12, 2005, and thus entitled to the FY 2005 maximum rate from that date through September 30, 2005 (the end of FY 2005), and to the FY 2006 rate from October 1, 2005, through October 9, 2005. Beginning October 10, 2005—when Mr. Roberts regained an earning capacity, making his disability permanent partial—the court concluded he was once again subject to the FY 2002 maximum rate. Id. at 1206, 1209.

    Although the Eleventh Circuit initially disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's construction of the “currently receiving” clause, Boroski v. DynCorp Int'l, 662 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2011), that court reversed its position after the Supreme Court decided Roberts. Boroski v. DynCorp Int'l, 700 F.3d 446 (11th Cir. 2012) on remand from 132 S.Ct. 2430 (2012). Mr. Boroski was first disabled by his work-related injury in April 2002. His employer, DynCorp International, timely contested his compensation claim and thus did not voluntarily pay him compensation. An ALJ entered an order in FY 2008 awarding him permanent total disability compensation from 2002 and continuing. DynCorp based its subsequent payments on the maximum compensation rate applicable for FY 2002, and adjusted the amount upward each year, beginning on October 1, 2002, as required by section 10(f). Mr. Boroski objected, arguing that he was not “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability” until FY 2008, when the employer actually began paying him, and was thus entitled to the FY 2008 maximum rate from the outset.

    The Eleventh Circuit rejected Mr. Boroski's argument and held that “ `currently receiving compensation' in § 906(c) means `currently entitled to compensation.' ” Boroski, 700 F.3d at 451. The court agreed with the Director that for each year after 2002 during which Mr. Boroski was entitled to compensation for permanent total disability, he was “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability,” and thus subject to the new fiscal year's maximum rate, regardless of when the compensation was actually paid.

    Taking its analytical lead from the Supreme Court in Roberts, the Boroski court considered the “currently receiving” clause's role in the context of the entire statute. The court noted that using the maximum for the year in which compensation was actually paid (2008) rather than for the first year Mr. Boroski was disabled (2002) would lead to “two different and irreconcilable weekly benefit payment amounts” under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the “newly awarded” clause, which also applied to his compensation calculation. Id. at 451. The Director's contrary interpretation instead harmonized the two clauses of section 6(c).

    The court also found the Director's position more consistent with section 10(f)'s annual adjustment mechanism. The court reasoned that the Director's interpretation of the “currently receiving” clause operates similarly, “gradually increasing benefits to maintain the value of an injured employee's wages, determined `at the time of the injury.' ” Id. at 452. Mr. Boroski's interpretation—under which “employers who first pay benefits to an injured employee in a year other than the year of the injury would pay all past due payments based on the national average weekly wage for the year in which the first payment is made . . . effectively giv[ing] the injured employee a raise to the later year's national average weekly wage, and would make that raise retroactive to the date of his disability”—would be “incongruous” with section 10(f). Id. at 452. The court also rejected Mr. Boroski's assertion that Congress intended his interpretation to encourage prompt payment of benefits. The court noted that claimants are entitled to interest on late payments of compensation, and found that interest both adequately compensates claimants for the delayed receipt of benefits and discourages employers from refusing to promptly pay legitimate claims.

    Finally, the court determined that the Director's interpretation avoided disparate treatment of similarly situated claimants. “Under the Director's interpretation, Boroski receives the same benefits as a similarly situated employee who was first injured and who first received payment in 2002, and, additionally, Boroski receives interest on all late payments, to compensate him for the delay.” Id. at 453. By contrast, under Mr. Boroski's interpretation—in which Mr. Boroski “would receive, in addition to interest, higher benefits for the same period of disability than claimants who timely receive their benefits”—the same hypothetical employee “would receive approximately $30,000 less than Boroski.” Id.

    For all of these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit held, as had the Ninth Circuit in Roberts, that an employee is “currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability” when he is entitled to such compensation, not when he is actually paid that compensation. To date, the remaining circuits have not weighed in on this issue.

    The Benefits Review Board subsequently reached the same conclusion as the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. Lake v. L-3 Communications, 47 BRBS 45 (2013). In Lake, the Board held that a claimant is “currently receiving compensation” under section 6(c) “during a period in which he is entitled to receive such compensation, regardless of whether his employer actually pays it.” Id. at 48. The Board also held that when a claimant's temporary total disability changes to permanent total disability during a fiscal year, the maximum rate in effect during that year applies immediately. Id. at 48. In reaching this conclusion, the Board overruled this portion of its earlier contrary decision in Reposky, 40 BRBS at 65. The Board thus held that the FY 2009 maximum rate applied as of December 10, 2008, the date that Mr. Lake's entitlement to permanent total disability benefits commenced, until the next October 1, when the new fiscal year's maximum rate applied.

    The Board also addressed a related question on the interplay between sections 6 and 10(f) in Lake. The employer argued that Mr. Lake, who first reached permanent total disability status in FY 2009, was not entitled to the FY 2009 maximum rate. Instead, the employer contended that he was limited to a section 10(f) increase on the FY 2006 maximum rate that he had been receiving since his injury, followed by a section 10(f) adjustment each subsequent October 1. The Board rejected this argument. Citing its earlier contrary holding in Marko v. Morris Boney Co., 23 BRBS 353 (1990), the Board reiterated its conclusion that, “in a permanent total disability case in which two-thirds of the claimant's actual [AWW] exceeds the Section 6(b)(3) statutory maximum rate, he is entitled to the benefit of the new maximum rate each fiscal year . . . until such time as two-thirds of his actual average weekly wage falls below 200 percent of the applicable [national average weekly wage], and then annual adjustments under Section 10(f) apply.” Lake, 47 BRBS at 50. The Board found its holding compelled by the plain language of section 6(c) and supported by the Ninth Circuit's Roberts decision.

    II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. General Information

    As discussed in the Section-by-Section Explanation below, this proposed rule implements the Act's provisions governing the maximum and minimum amount of disability compensation and death benefits payable. The proposed regulations do not govern general compensation calculations (referred to in the rules as the “calculated compensation rate”), and the fact that compensation payable is subject to these maximum and minimum rates does not mean that claimants are necessarily entitled to them. Rather, the proposed regulations simply provide that disability compensation and death benefits can go no higher than the applicable maximum rate or lower than the applicable minimum rate.

    The proposed rule includes two subparts. Subpart G describes the annual adjustment to compensation and death benefits provided under section 10(f) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 910(f). While section 10(f) allows for an annual adjustment to all payments of compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits, including those cases where neither the maximum nor the minimum rates are implicated, the Department has included section 10(f) in this rulemaking because its application can be closely tied with the maximum compensation or death benefits payable in certain cases. These interrelationships are detailed in the Section-by-Section Explanation below.

    Subpart H includes proposed regulations implementing the Act's maximum and minimum provisions. The Department has organized these sections first to cover general topics, then by whether the rules govern maximum or minimum compensation payable, and finally by categories of compensation payable (i.e., temporary total or partial, permanent total or partial, and death benefits).

    B. Section-by-Section Explanation

    This discussion contains an explanation of each proposed rule. Many of the rules include examples that use the Department's yearly calculation of the applicable national average weekly wage, the maximum and minimum weekly compensation rates, and percentage adjustments available under section 10(f), 33 U.S.C. 910(f). This information is routinely available on OWCP's Web site. See https://www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc/ (last visited Aug. 1, 2016). For the reader's convenience, these amounts for FY 2000 to FY 2016 are provided in the following chart.

    Period NAWW 1 Maximum weekly
  • rate
  • (200% of
  • NAWW)
  • Minimum weekly
  • rate
  • (50% of
  • NAWW)
  • Section 10(f) percent
  • increase (%)
  • (FY 16) 10/01/2015-09/30/2016 $703.00 $1,406.00 $351.50 2.10 (FY 15) 10/01/2014-09/30/2015 688.51 1,377.02 344.26 2.25 (FY 14) 10/01/2013-09/30/2014 673.34 1,346.68 336.67 1.62 (FY 13) 10/01/2012-09/30/2013 662.59 1,325.18 331.30 2.31 (FY 12) 10/01/2011-09/30/2012 647.60 1,295.20 323.80 3.05 (FY 11) 10/01/2010-09/30/2011 628.42 1,256.84 314.21 2.63 (FY 10) 10/01/2009-09/30/2010 612.33 1,224.66 306.17 2.00 (FY 09) 10/01/2008-09/30/2009 600.31 1,200.62 300.16 3.47 (FY 08) 10/01/2007-09/30/2008 580.18 1,160.36 290.09 4.12 (FY 07) 10/01/2006-09/30/2007 557.22 1114.44 278.61 3.80 (FY 06) 10/01/2005-09/30/2006 536.82 1073.64 268.41 2.53 (FY 05) 10/01/2004-09/30/2005 523.58 1,047.16 261.79 1.59 (FY 04) 10/01/2003-09/30/2004 515.39 1,030.78 257.70 3.44 (FY 03) 10/01/2002-09/30/2003 498.27 996.54 249.14 3.15 (FY 02) 10/01/2001-09/30/2002 483.04 966.08 241.52 3.45 (FY 01) 10/01/2000-09/30/2001 466.91 933.82 233.46 3.61 (FY 00) 10/01/1999-09/30/2000 450.64 901.28 225.32 3.39

    Some examples also include compensation calculations. When compensation is based on 66 and 2/3 percent of the injured employee's average weekly wage (e.g., compensation for permanent total disability), the formula for calculating this percentage is expressed as: Average weekly wage amount × 2 ÷ 3.

    1 For purposes of this chart, “NAWW” means the applicable national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls during the first three quarters of the preceding fiscal year as determined by the Department.

    Subpart G—Section 10(f) Adjustments 20 CFR 702.701 What is an annual section 10(f) adjustment and how is it calculated?

    Section 10(f) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 910(f), provides for an annual upward percentage adjustment of permanent total disability compensation rates and death benefits so that the value of the compensation received does not erode over time. Proposed § 702.701 sets out the basic rules for section 10(f) adjustments.

    Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) describe the section 10(f) adjustment and how the fiscal year percentage is determined. Consistent with the statute, paragraph (a) states that section 10(f) adjustments apply each fiscal year to permanent total disability compensation and death benefits, and that those adjustments may only increase amounts payable. 33 U.S.C. 910(f) (“benefits payable for permanent total disability or death . . . shall be increased”); 33 U.S.C. 910(g) (“in no event shall compensation for death benefits be reduced”). Paragraph (b) describes how the Department calculates the annual section 10(f) adjustment, a method dictated by section 10(f) itself. In any given fiscal year, the 10(f) adjustment is the percentage increase in the applicable national average weekly wage over the prior fiscal year's applicable national average or five percent, whichever is lower. See 33 U.S.C. 910(f)(1), (2).

    Proposed paragraphs (c) through (e) set out how the fiscal year percentage is applied in individual cases. Paragraph (c) specifies that section 10(f) adjustments are applied each October 1 to the prior year's compensation or death benefits payable to the claimant. By using the statutory term “payable,” the Department intends the percentage increase to apply to the compensation and death benefits due during the prior year, even if not actually paid. Paragraph (d) implements the statutory requirements that calculations resulting from section 10(f) adjustments are rounded to the nearest dollar and that no adjustment is made if the amount is less than one dollar. See 33 U.S.C. 910(g). And paragraph (e) provides that section 10(f) adjustments may not increase compensation or death benefits beyond the maximum rate for any fiscal year. This limitation is consistent with LHWCA section 6(b)(1)'s command that compensation payments, whether for disability or death, must not exceed the applicable fiscal year's maximum rate.

    Finally, proposed paragraph (f) states that the adjustments do not apply to compensation for temporary or partial disability, including temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, and permanent partial disability. The paragraph reflects the limitation set forth in paragraph (a) and is added for clarity.

    Subpart H—Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates General 20 CFR 702.801 Scope and Intent of This Subpart

    Proposed § 702.801 describes the statutory provisions this subpart is intended to implement. Paragraph (a) generally lists the statutory provisions that affect the maximum and minimum compensation and death benefits payable to entitled individuals. Section 6(b) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 906(b), sets the maximum compensation rate for death or disability compensation at 200 percent of the applicable national average weekly wage, and the minimum compensation rate for total disability at the lower of the employee's average weekly wage or 50 percent of the applicable national average weekly wage. Section 6(b) also provides that the Secretary of Labor determines the applicable national average weekly wage for each one-year period from October 1 to September 30. Section 6(c), 33 U.S.C. 906(c), provides that the Secretary's determination of the national average weekly wage for each one-year period “shall apply to employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits during such period, as well as those newly awarded compensation during such period.” Section 9(e), 33 U.S.C. 909(e), includes provisions that affect the minimum death benefits payable to a deceased employee's survivors.

    Because the interpretation of section 6(c) is important to determining how the maximum and minimum provisions apply and has been the subject of litigation, proposed paragraph (b) more specifically addresses section 6(c)'s “newly awarded compensation” and “currently receiving compensation” phrases. Paragraph (b)(1) adopts the Supreme Court's conclusion in Roberts that a claimant, regardless of the nature or extent of disability, is “newly awarded compensation” when he or she first becomes disabled and entitled to compensation. See supra Section I. B. Claimants are initially subject to the maximum and minimum rates derived from the national average weekly wage in effect during the fiscal year his or her disability begins. Paragraph (b)(2) applies the Supreme Court's Roberts analysis to death benefits by providing that a deceased employee's survivor is “newly awarded compensation” on the day of the employee's death, the first time a survivor may be entitled to death benefits. See discussion infra at proposed § 702.807. And paragraph (b)(3) provides that a claimant is “currently receiving compensation” during the period for which the compensation is payable, regardless of when it is actually paid. This construction is consistent with the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits' interpretations. See supra Section I. C. While these phrases are not used in the remainder of the proposed subpart, the concepts set forth in paragraph (b) underlie the rules.

    20 CFR 702.802 Applicability of This Subpart

    Proposed § 702.802(a) lists several circumstances in which this subpart's rules do not apply, including: Approved settlements made under section 8(i) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 908(i); payments for an employee's compensable death made to the Special Fund when the employee has no eligible survivors, 33 U.S.C. 944(c)(1); payments for medical expenses, 33 U.S.C. 907; and any other compensation calculated and paid in a lump sum, such as the two years of death benefits payable to an employee's eligible surviving spouse who remarries, 33 U.S.C. 909(b), or when compensation payments are commuted, 33 U.S.C. 909(g). In all of these circumstances, the maximum and minimum weekly rates do not apply either because the compensation due is not based on a weekly rate (e.g., medical expenses) or it is not necessarily paid on a weekly basis (e.g., settlements, commutations). Although not subject to the rules in this subpart, the maximum and minimum compensation rates will nevertheless be relevant in some of these circumstances. For example, the Department would consider such compensation rates in calculating a commuted award or death benefits payable when a survivor remarries. Similarly, the Department anticipates that private parties will consider the maximum and minimum compensation rates in settlement negotiations, and the Department will consider them in deciding whether to approve settlements.

    Proposed § 702.802(b) provides that the rules governing minimum compensation and death benefits payable do not apply to claims arising under the Defense Base Act (DBA), 42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq. The DBA specifically precludes application of the LHWCA's minimum compensation provisions: “The minimum limit on weekly compensation for disability, established by section 6(b), and the minimum limit on the average weekly wages on which death benefits are to be computed, established by section 9(e) of the [Longshore] Act, shall not apply in computing compensation and death benefits under [the DBA].” 42 U.S.C. 1652(a). The Secretary's regulations implementing the DBA also reflect this limitation. See 20 CFR 704.103. The limitation in proposed § 702.802(b) comports with these authorities.

    20 CFR 702.803 Definitions

    This section defines certain terms used in this subpart; these definitions do not apply outside of this subpart. Proposed paragraph (a) defines a claimant's “calculated compensation rate” as the weekly compensation or death benefits payable prior to any consideration of the maximum or minimum rates, or a section 10(f) adjustment. As discussed above (see supra Section I. A.), this figure is a specified percentage of the employee's average weekly wage at the time of the injury or death. But there are exceptions. For example, in certain claims, the calculated compensation rate is based on the national average weekly wage rather than on the employee's actual earnings. 33 U.S.C. 909(e), 910(d)(2)(B).

    Proposed paragraph (b) defines the phrase “date of disability” as the date an employee first becomes economically impaired—or, in other words, unable to earn the same wages—as a result of a covered injury. The phrase incorporates the statutory definition of “disability,” see 33 U.S.C. 902(10), and is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Roberts, which held that the maximum compensation rate applicable on the day the employee became “entitled to compensation because of disability” controlled. Roberts, 132 S.Ct. at 1357. The phrase is used in this subpart to delineate when certain minimum or maximum compensation rates apply.

    The proposed rule, however, excepts from the general “date of disability” definition three situations that demand special treatment. Paragraph (b)(2)(i) provides that for scheduled permanent partial disabilities under 33 U.S.C. 908(c)(1)-(20) that are not preceded by another category of disability (i.e., permanent total, temporary total, or temporary partial), the date of disability is when the employee first becomes permanently impaired by the injury to the scheduled member. This exception is necessary because an employee may suffer a scheduled injury without any loss in wage-earning capacity, which is the touchstone for the general “date of disability” definition. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) establishes a separate date of disability for occupational diseases because the disease may manifest after voluntary retirement, when the employee does not experience a loss of wage-earning capacity. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) provides that for very short-term disabilities lasting no more than 14 days, the date of disability is 4 days after the injury affected the employee's wage earning capacity. For such a short-term disability, section 6(a) of the Act provides that no compensation is payable for the first 3 days of disability. 33 U.S.C. 906(a). Thus, using the fourth day as the “date of disability” for determining the maximum and minimum compensation payable reflects the date on which the employee is actually entitled to compensation.

    The remaining definitions explain how basic terms are used in the proposed rule. Paragraph (c) defines the dates of a standard fiscal year. Paragraphs (d) and (e) define “maximum rate” and “minimum rate” as the weekly compensation rates the Department calculates for each fiscal year. And paragraph (f) defines a “section 10(f) adjustment” as the annual compensation increase some claimants receive under LHWCA section 10(f), 33 U.S.C. 910(f). See proposed § 702.701.

    20 CFR 702.804 What are the weekly maximum and minimum rates for each fiscal year and how are they calculated?

    Proposed § 702.804 explains how the Department calculates basic weekly maximum and minimum rates for each fiscal year. Paragraph (a) notes that these weekly compensation rates are one factor considered when calculating compensation and death benefits payable. Paragraphs (b) and (c) set forth the calculation formulas for weekly maximum and minimum rates. Both are based on the national average weekly wage, which the Act defines as the “national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonagricultural payrolls.” 33 U.S.C. 902(19). These statistics are compiled on an ongoing basis by the Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Before each new fiscal year, the Department calculates the average earnings of these employees for the period October 1 through June 30 (i.e., the first three quarters) of the current fiscal year. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(3). The Act pegs the maximum weekly rate at 200 percent of this number and the minimum at 50 percent. 33 U.S.C. 906(b)(1), (2). For example, the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private, nonagricultural payrolls for the period from October 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014 (i.e., the first three quarters of FY 2014), were $688.51. As a result, the Department determined that the maximum compensation rate for FY 2015 was $1,377.02 ($688.51 × 2) and the minimum compensation rate was $344.26 ($688.51 × 2).

    Maximum Rates 20 CFR 702.805 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and temporary partial disability?

    Proposed § 702.805 provides that the maximum rate in effect for the fiscal year on the employee's date of disability applies to all compensation payable for temporary partial disability, temporary total disability, or permanent partial disability, including compensation payable in subsequent fiscal years. This rule effectuates the Supreme Court's construction of the “newly awarded compensation” clause by applying the maximum rate for the fiscal year the employee's disability begins. For these types of compensation, the date-of-disability fiscal year's maximum rate applies to all compensation payments—including compensation payable for subsequent fiscal years—because section 6(c)'s “currently receiving compensation” clause does not apply. 33 U.S.C. 906(c) (maximum rate determinations “with respect to a period shall apply to employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits during such period[.]”).

    The first example at paragraph (b)(1) sets out a common scenario involving an injured employee who is temporarily totally disabled for a period prior to being permanently partially disabled. Although his compensation periods span more than one fiscal year, the maximum rate that applies remains the rate in effect on his date of disability. See proposed § 702.803(b)(1). The second example at paragraph (b)(2) is slightly more complicated. The employee incurs two separate periods of temporary total disability from the same injury; each period begins in a different fiscal year. Under section 6(c), the maximum rate applicable at the beginning of the first disability period applies to all payments for temporary total disability, including those in the second period. The third example at paragraph (b)(3) addresses an occupational disease discovered post-retirement. Occupational diseases occurring after an employee has voluntarily retired are considered permanent partial disabilities. 20 CFR 702.601(b). Thus, compensation payable in this instance is subject to the maximum rate in effect on the date of disability—when the employee becomes aware of the relationship between employment, the disease and any disability. See proposed § 702.803(b)(2)(ii).

    20 CFR 702.806 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability?

    Proposed § 702.806 implements both the “newly awarded” and “currently receiving” compensation clauses for permanent total disability compensation as they pertain to the maximum compensation payable. Paragraph (a) provides that the maximum rate for the fiscal year during which the employee first becomes permanently and totally disabled applies to all compensation payable during that fiscal year. Paragraph (b) then provides that all periods of permanent total disability in subsequent fiscal years arising from the same injury are subject to the maximum rates for those subsequent fiscal years because the employee is then “currently receiving compensation.”

    Proposed paragraph (c) addresses how the 10(f) adjustment applies in a “cross-over” year. A cross-over year is one in which the claimant's compensation was paid at the maximum rate in the current fiscal year, but the claimant's calculated compensation rate does not exceed the maximum rate set for the next fiscal year. In those circumstances, the rule requires that the claimant's compensation for the next fiscal year be increased by the amount of the 10(f) adjustment up to the maximum for that fiscal year.

    The examples in proposed paragraph (d) apply these principles. Paragraph (d)(1) presents the relatively straightforward situation of an employee who is permanently totally disabled from the time of injury. He is “newly awarded” compensation in the fiscal year he became disabled and his compensation is subject to that fiscal year's maximum rate. In subsequent years, he is “currently receiving” compensation and his compensation is subject to the maximum rate for each subsequent fiscal year. Paragraph (d)(2) adds an additional wrinkle to the first example. Here, the employee suffers a period of temporary total disability that spans more than one fiscal year before he becomes permanently totally disabled. The maximum that applies to the entire temporary total disability compensation period is the fiscal year rate in effect on the date of disability (in the example, FY 2000), which is when the employee is “newly awarded” compensation. See proposed § 702.805(a). When the employee becomes permanently totally disabled two years later, however, he is “currently receiving” permanent total disability compensation and the maximum rate in effect at that time (in the example, FY 2002) applies. Compensation for permanent total disability in succeeding years is subject to those subsequent fiscal years' maximum rates because he continues to be “currently receiving” compensation.

    Finally, proposed paragraph (d)(3) demonstrates how the rule operates in a “cross-over” year. In the example, employee C's calculated compensation rate exceeds the annual fiscal year maximum rate each year from when he was first permanently totally disabled in FY 2009 through FY 2012. In FY 2013, however, the employee's calculated compensation rate falls below the maximum rate and remains below that rate even after the addition of a section 10(f) adjustment. Thus, for FY 2013, employee C's compensation is not limited by the maximum rate.

    20 CFR 702.807 What weekly maximum rates apply to death benefits?

    Determining the maximum rates for death benefits in any particular case can be straightforward or involve several statutory provisions. The proposed rule integrates these provisions to provide a comprehensive approach to the issue.

    LHWCA section 6(b)(1) applies the “applicable” maximum rate to all compensation for disability or death. For death benefits purposes, proposed § 702.807(a) defines the “applicable” rate as the fiscal-year rate in effect when the employee died. By using the employee's date of death, the rule applies the “newly awarded” clause in the same manner as the Supreme Court applied it to disability claims in Roberts: A survivor's right to benefits first arises at the time of death. See generally Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 519 U.S. 248, 257-58 (1997) (survivors seeking death benefits cannot satisfy prerequisites prior to employee's death); Travelers Insurance Co. v. Marshall, 634 F.2d 843, 846 (5th Cir. 1981) (section 9 “cause of action for death benefits certainly does not arise until [employee's] death”).

    Proposed § 702.807(b) sets out the general rules for determining the death-benefits cap in the year the employee died. These limits are compelled by LHWCA section 6(b)(1) along with the provisions of section 9(e), 33 U.S.C. 909(e). Section 9(e) provides an alternative method for computing death benefits for survivors of lower-wage employees to boost the benefit amount. If the deceased employee's actual average weekly wage was lower than the national average weekly wage, death benefits are calculated as a percentage of the national average weekly wage instead of a percentage of the actual wage. This results in a higher calculated compensation rate than if the calculation were based on the employee's actual wage. Survivors are entitled to benefits at the higher calculated rate except when that rate exceeds the employee's full actual weekly wage. In that event, section 9(e)(1) sets an initial cap by providing that total weekly death benefits “shall not exceed the lesser of the average weekly wages of the deceased” (or the section 6(b)(1) maximum rate). 33 U.S.C. 909(e)(1). Thus, in no event may weekly death benefits payable in the year of the employee's death exceed the employee's actual average weekly wages. Proposed paragraph (b) implements these provisions by limiting “aggregate” weekly death benefits—meaning the death benefits payable to all survivors combined—to the lower of the maximum rate applicable for the fiscal year in which the employee died or the employee's actual average weekly wages.

    Proposed paragraph (c) sets out rules governing payments for subsequent fiscal years. Consistent with the “currently receiving” clause, paragraph (c)(1) provides that each subsequent fiscal year's maximum rate applies to aggregate death benefits. Paragraph (c)(2) provides an exception to the section 9(e)(1) feature limiting death benefits to no more than the employee's actual average weekly wages. If death benefits were paid at the employee's full average weekly wage in the year of death, paragraph (c)(2) provides that death benefits payable may be adjusted upward under section 10(f). See Donovan, 31 BRBS 2 (holding that section 9(e)(1) does not bar application of 10(f) adjustments even if adjusted death benefits amount exceeds deceased employee's actual average weekly wage).

    Finally, proposed paragraph (d) addresses LHWCA section 9(e)'s specific limit on death benefits payable when death results from an occupational disease that manifested after the employee retired voluntarily (i.e., he or she did not retire because of disability). In those circumstances, LHWCA section 9(e)(2) provides that “total weekly benefits shall not exceed one fifty-second part of the employee's average annual earnings during the 52-week period preceding retirement.” 33 U.S.C. 909(e)(2). Proposed paragraph (d)(1) implements this provision, as well as the general section 6(b) maximum cap, by providing that aggregate death benefits paid during the year of the employee's death must not exceed the lower of that fiscal year's maximum rate or one-fifty-second part of the employee's average annual earnings during the 52-weeks preceding retirement. Proposed paragraph (d)(2)(i) provides that each subsequent fiscal year's maximum rate applies to aggregate death benefits because death benefits are subject to the “currently receiving” clause. If death benefits in the year of death were paid at one-fifty-second part of the employee's average annual earnings, proposed paragraph (d)(2)(ii) provides that the death benefits payable may be adjusted upward under section 10(f).

    The example at proposed paragraph (e)(1) illustrates that the maximum rate applicable at the time of the employee's death applies to death benefits, even when the employee's injury occurred in an earlier fiscal year. Employee A's injury occurred in FY 2013 but he did not die as a result of the injury until FY 2014. His survivor's death benefits for the remainder of the year in which he died are subject to the FY 2014 maximum rate, with subsequent death benefits subject to each subsequent fiscal year's rate.

    Paragraph (e)(2)'s example demonstrates how the death-benefits-calculation method for survivors of low-wage earners interfaces with the cap placed on those benefits in some circumstances. In the example, employee B's weekly earnings fell below the national average during the year of her death. Thus, her survivor's death benefits are computed using the higher national average weekly wage. 33 U.S.C. 909(e); see proposed § 702.811(a). Because that calculated compensation rate of $331.30 exceeds the employee's actual average weekly wage of $300.00, death benefits are capped at the employee's actual wages, except for section 10(f) adjustments in subsequent fiscal years.

    Paragraph (e)(3) sets out an example involving an occupational disease discovered more than one year post-retirement that leads to death. Employee C's compensation during his lifetime is calculated based on the FY 2002 national average weekly wage because his disease manifested then and he had voluntarily retired more than one year earlier. Based on the date of employee C's death, his survivors' death benefits are calculated based on the national average weekly wage for FY 2015. 33 U.S.C. 910(d)(2)(B); 20 CFR 702.604(b). This calculation yields a weekly figure greater than 1/52 part of the employee's last year of earnings. Thus, the total death benefits payable are capped at 1/52 part of the employee's actual earnings, except for section 10(f) adjustments in subsequent fiscal years.

    Minimum Rates 20 CFR 702.808 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for partial disability?

    The LHWCA places no minimum compensation requirements on payments for temporary partial disability or permanent partial disability. Accordingly, proposed § 702.808 simply states that there is no minimum rate for these types of compensation.

    20 CFR 702.809 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for temporary total disability?

    Proposed § 702.809 provides that the minimum rate in effect for the fiscal year on the employee's date of disability applies to all compensation payable for temporary total disability, including compensation payable in subsequent fiscal years. LHWCA section 6(b)(2) generally provides that compensation for total disability cannot fall below 50 percent of the “applicable” national average weekly wage unless the employee's actual average weekly wages are less than that amount. In that event, the employee receives his or her average weekly wages as compensation. This rule effectuates the Supreme Court's construction of the “newly awarded compensation” clause by applying the minimum rate for the fiscal year the employee's disability begins. See generally Montoya v. Navy Exchange Service Command, 49 BRBS 51 (2015) (applying Roberts, employee entitled to minimum rate in effect on date of disability onset). The date-of-disability fiscal year's minimum rate applies to all temporary total disability compensation payments—including compensation payable for subsequent fiscal years—because section 6(c)'s “currently receiving” clause does not apply to compensation for temporary disabilities. See 33 U.S.C. 906(c) (national average weekly wage determinations “with respect to a period shall apply to employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits during such period”). Thus, the applicable minimum remains the one in effect on the date of disability.

    Proposed paragraph (b)'s example demonstrates how the minimum rate provision works when the employee's calculated compensation rate falls below it. In the example, employee A's calculated compensation rate for FY 2014 (the year of his injury) is $333.34 per week. That number falls below the FY 2014 minimum rate of $336.67. Thus, employee A's compensation is raised to the minimum rate. Although his temporary total disability continues into FY 2015, his rate remains tied to the FY 2014 minimum because neither section 6(c)'s “currently receiving” clause nor section 10(f)'s adjustments apply to compensation for temporary disabilities. See 33 U.S.C. 906(c), 910(f).

    20 CFR 702.810 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability?

    Proposed § 702.810(a) provides that the lower of the minimum rate in effect on the date of disability or the employee's actual average weekly wage on that date sets the floor below which compensation may not fall. This rule implements LHWCA section 6(b)(2)'s direction that compensation for total disability be no less than 50 percent of the “applicable” national average weekly wage unless the employee's actual average weekly wages are less than that amount. In that event, the employee receives his or her average weekly wages as compensation. By using the date of disability to describe the applicable fiscal year's minimum rate, paragraph (a) also implements section 6(c)'s “newly awarded” clause.

    Proposed paragraph (b) describes how the minimum applies in subsequent fiscal years. It sets the minimum compensation level at the lower of the minimum rate for each subsequent fiscal year or the employee's actual average weekly wages on the date of disability. By applying subsequent fiscal years' minimum rates, the regulation implements section 6(c)'s “currently receiving” clause.

    Proposed paragraph (c)'s example shows how this regulation applies when a low-wage earner suffers a permanent total disability. Because his calculated compensation rate for the fiscal year in which he first became disabled (in the example, FY 2003) was below the applicable fiscal year minimum rate, and his actual weekly wages were above the fiscal year minimum, he is compensated at the minimum rate. But in subsequent fiscal years, when the minimum rises above the employee's actual average weekly wages at the time of disability, he receives his actual wages in compensation, subject in following years to section 10(f) adjustments.

    20 CFR 702.811 What weekly minimum rates apply to death benefits?

    Rather than applying weekly minimum rates like those used for temporary total or permanent total disability compensation—specified amounts below which compensation may not fall—section 9(e) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 909(e), uses a different mechanism to ensure a minimum compensation level for an employee's survivors. Section 9(e) does this by using the national average weekly wage calculated by the Department under section 6(b) as a proxy to compute death benefits when the deceased employee's actual weekly wage falls below the national average. See 33 U.S.C. 902(19) (defining national average weekly wage for LHWCA purposes). Using the national average weekly wage ensures that death benefits will be paid at a minimal level. Proposed paragraph (a) sets out this procedure by providing that the average weekly wage used to compute death benefits is the greater of the employee's actual wages or the national average. The regulation also provides that the applicable national average weekly wage is the one in effect when the employee died, which is when a survivor's right to benefits first arises. See generally Ingalls Shipbuilding, 519 U.S. at 257-58 (survivors seeking death benefits cannot satisfy prerequisites prior to employee's death); Travelers Insurance, 634 F.2d at 846 (section 9 “cause of action for death benefits certainly does not arise until [employee's] death”). Paragraph (b) adds that the weekly minimum rate, as that phrase is used in this subpart, does not apply to death benefits.

    III. Statutory Authority

    Section 39(a) of the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 939(a), authorizes the Secretary of Labor to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the Act.

    IV. Information Collection Requirements (Subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act) Imposed Under the Proposed Rule

    This rulemaking would impose no new collections of information.

    V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Department has considered this proposed rule with these principles in mind and has concluded that the regulated community will benefit from this regulation.

    This proposed rule will benefit the parties by providing them with greater guidance on applying the Act's maximum and minimum compensation provisions and section 10(f) adjustments in determining the amount of disability compensation or death benefits payable. By clarifying how these provisions apply, the rule will also promote consistency so that similarly situated claimants receive similar compensation or death benefits. In addition, the rule will benefit the regulated community by forestalling further litigation over the “currently receiving” clause, which neither the Supreme Court nor several circuit courts have yet construed. Indeed, the absence of regulations implementing these statutory provisions led to much of the litigation described above. See supra Sections I. B. and C. The Department also sees no countervailing burden—economic or otherwise—other than those imposed by the statute itself that would counsel against promulgating this rule.

    Finally, because this is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it prior to publication.

    VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, “other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.” For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, this rule does not include any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private sector of more than $100,000,000.

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis when it proposes regulations that will have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” or to certify that the proposed regulations will have no such impact, and to make the analysis or certification available for public comment.

    The Department has determined that a regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA is not required for this rulemaking. While many longshore employers are small entities within the meaning of the RFA, see generally 77 FR 19471-72 (March 30, 2012), this rule, if adopted in final, will not have a significant economic impact on them. The proposed rules reflect current payment practices and thus impose no new costs on employers or their insurance carriers. As explained above, the proposed rules mainly codify case law interpreting how the Act's maximum and minimum provisions work; the rules are based primarily on the Supreme Court's controlling decision in Roberts, the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits' decisions in Roberts and Boroski, and the Benefits Review Board's decisions in Reposky and Lake.

    With one small exception, these decisions comport with the Director's longstanding interpretation and application of the maximum and minimum compensation provisions. That exception involved cases in which the employee's disability was initially something less than permanent total—temporary total, permanent partial, or temporary partial—and in a later fiscal year became permanently totally disabling. Prior to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Roberts, the Department took the view that the employee would have remained at the maximum rate in effect on the date of disability until the next October 1. On that October 1, his compensation rate would be determined by applying section 10(f) to increase his maximum rate by the same percentage as the increase to the national average weekly wage. But the Ninth Circuit held that the employee need not wait until the next October 1 and is instead immediately subject to the maximum rate in effect on the day he or she becomes permanently totally disabled under section 6(c)'s “currently receiving” clause. Roberts, 625 F.3d at 1208-09. The Department has been following the Ninth Circuit's construction of the statute since 2012, and the regulations reflect this construction as well.

    Based on these facts, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The Department invites comments from members of the public who believe the regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small longshore employers or insurers. The Department has provided the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration with a copy of this certification. See 5 U.S.C. 605.

    XIII. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The Department has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism, and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The proposed rule 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,” if promulgated as a final rule.

    IX. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets the 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.

    List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 702

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Longshore and harbor workers, Maximum compensation rates, Minimum compensation rates, Workers' compensation.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor proposes to amend 20 CFR part 702 as follows:

    PART 702—ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 702 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301, and 8171 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15 FR 3174, 64 Stat. 1263; Secretary's Order 10-2009, 74 FR 58834.

    2. In part 702, add subparts G and H as follows: Subpart G—Section 10(f) Adjustments Sec. 702.701 What is an annual section 10(f) adjustment and how is it calculated? Subpart H—Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates General Sec. 702.801 Scope and intent of this subpart. 702.802 Applicability of this subpart. 702.803 Definitions. 702.804 What are the weekly maximum and minimum rates for each fiscal year and how are they calculated? Maximum Rates Sec. 702.805 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and temporary partial disability? 702.806 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability? 702.807 What weekly maximum rates apply to death benefits? Minimum Rates Sec. 702.808 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for partial disability? 702.809 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for temporary total disability? 702.810 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability? 702.811 What weekly minimum rates apply to death benefits? Subpart G—Section 10(f) Adjustments
    § 702.701 What is an annual section 10(f) adjustment and how is it calculated?

    (a) Claimants receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits are entitled to section 10(f) adjustments each fiscal year. A section 10(f) adjustment cannot decrease the compensation or death benefits payable to any claimant.

    (b) The section 10(f) adjustment for a given fiscal year is the lower of:

    (1) The percentage by which the new fiscal year's national average weekly wage exceeds the prior fiscal year's national average weekly wage as determined by the Department (see § 702.804(b)); or

    (2) 5 percent.

    (c) Section 10(f) percentage increases are applied each October 1 to the amount of compensation or death benefits payable in the prior fiscal year.

    (d) In applying section 10(f) adjustments—

    (1) Calculations are rounded to the nearest dollar; and

    (2) No adjustment is made if the calculated amount is less than one dollar.

    (e) A section 10(f) adjustment must not increase a claimant's weekly compensation or death benefits beyond the applicable fiscal year's maximum rate.

    (f) Section 10(f) adjustments do not apply to compensation for temporary or partial disability.

    Subpart H—Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates General
    § 702.801 Scope and intent of this subpart.

    (a) This subpart implements the Act's provisions that affect the maximum and minimum rates of compensation and death benefits payable to employees and survivors. These statutory provisions include sections 6(b) and (c), and 9(e). 33 U.S.C. 906(b), (c); 909(e). It is intended that these statutory provisions be construed as provided in this subpart.

    (b) These regulations implement section 6(c), 33 U.S.C. 906(c), based on the following concepts:

    (1) An employee is “newly awarded compensation” when he or she first becomes disabled due to an injury;

    (2) A survivor is “newly awarded compensation” on the date the employee died; and

    (3) An employee or survivor is “currently receiving compensation” when compensation for permanent total disability or death benefits is payable, regardless of when payment is actually made.

    § 702.802 Applicability of this subpart.

    (a) This subpart applies to all compensation and death benefits paid under the Act with the following exceptions:

    (1) Amounts payable under an approved settlement (see 33 U.S.C. 908(i));

    (2) Amounts paid for an employee's death to the Special Fund (see 33 U.S.C. 944(c)(1));

    (3) Any payments for medical expenses (see 33 U.S.C. 907); and

    (4) Any other lump sum payment of compensation or death benefits, including aggregate death benefits paid when a survivor remarries (see 33 U.S.C. 909(b)) or aggregate compensation paid under a commutation (see 33 U.S.C. 909(g)).

    (b) The rules in this subpart governing minimum disability compensation and death benefits do not apply to claims arising under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651 (see 42 U.S.C. 1652(a); 20 CFR 704.103).

    § 702.803 Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart:

    (a) Calculated compensation rate means the amount of weekly compensation for total disability or death that a claimant would be entitled to if there were no maximum rates, minimum rates, or section 10(f) adjustments.

    (b) Date of disability

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2), the date of disability is the date on which the employee first became incapable, because of an injury, of earning the same wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.

    (2) Exceptions:

    (i) For scheduled permanent partial disability benefits under 33 U.S.C. 908(c)(1)-(20) that are not preceded by a permanent total, temporary total, or temporary partial disability resulting from the same injury, the date of disability is the date on which the employee first becomes permanently impaired by the injury to the scheduled member.

    (ii) For an occupational disease that does not immediately result in disability, the date of disability is the date on which the employee becomes aware, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence or by reason of medical advice should have been aware, of the relationship between his or her employment, the disease, and the disability.

    (iii) For any disability lasting 14 or fewer days, the date of disability is 4 days after the date on which the employee first became incapable, because of an injury, of earning the same wages the employee was receiving at the time of the injury.

    (c) Fiscal year or FY means the period from October 1 of a calendar year until September 30 of the following calendar year.

    (d) Maximum rate means the maximum weekly compensation rate calculated by the Department for a given fiscal year as described in § 702.804(b).

    (e) Minimum rate means the minimum weekly compensation rate calculated by the Department for a given fiscal year as described in § 702.804(c).

    (f) Section 10(f) adjustment means the annual increase that certain claimants receiving compensation for permanent total disability or death are entitled to each fiscal year under 33 U.S.C. 910(f) and as calculated by the Department as described in § 702.701(b).

    § 702.804 What are the weekly maximum and minimum rates for each fiscal year and how are they calculated?

    (a) For each fiscal year, the Department must determine a weekly maximum and minimum compensation rate. These amounts are called the maximum and minimum rates in this subchapter. In combination with other factors, these rates are used to determine compensation payments under the Act.

    (b) The maximum compensation rate in effect for a given fiscal year is 200% of the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private, nonagricultural payrolls, as calculated by the Department, for the first three quarters of the preceding fiscal year.

    (c) The minimum compensation rate in effect for a given fiscal year is 50% of the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private, nonagricultural payrolls, as calculated by the Department, for the first three quarters of the preceding fiscal year.

    Maximum Rates
    § 702.805 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and temporary partial disability?

    (a) The maximum rate in effect on the date of disability applies to all compensation payable for permanent partial disability, temporary partial disability, and temporary total disability.

    (b) Examples:

    (1) Employee A suffers a covered workplace injury on April 1, 2000, is temporarily totally disabled from that day through June 4, 2002, and is thereafter permanently partially disabled. All compensation payable for A's disability is subject to the FY 2000 maximum rate.

    (2) Employee B suffers a covered workplace injury on August 25, 2010, and is temporarily totally disabled until September 25, 2010, when he returns to work. On January 3, 2011, he again becomes temporarily totally disabled from the same injury. He ceases work and is unable to return until November 22, 2012. All compensation payable for B's disability is subject to the FY 2010 maximum rate.

    (3) Employee C retires on May 6, 2011. She discovers on November 10, 2012, that she has a compensable occupational disease. All compensation payable for C's occupational disease is subject to the FY 2013 maximum rate. See § 702.601(b) (occupational diseases discovered post-retirement are compensated as permanent partial disabilities).

    § 702.806 What weekly maximum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability?

    (a) The maximum rate in effect on the date that the employee became totally and permanently disabled applies to all compensation payable for permanent total disability during that fiscal year.

    (b) For all periods the employee is permanently and totally disabled in subsequent fiscal years, the weekly compensation payable is subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.

    (c) If a claimant is receiving compensation for permanent total disability at the maximum rate for the current fiscal year, but the next fiscal year's maximum rate will be higher than the claimant's calculated compensation rate, the claimant's compensation for the next fiscal year will increase by the amount of the 10(f) adjustment, subject to the maximum rate for the next fiscal year.

    (d) Examples:

    (1) Employee A suffers a covered workplace injury on April 1, 2000, and is permanently and totally disabled from that date forward. A's compensation for the period from April 1, 2000, until September 30, 2000, is subject to the FY 2000 maximum rate. Beginning October 1, 2000, A's compensation for FY 2001 is subject to the FY 2001 maximum rate, compensation for FY 2002 is subject to the FY 2002 maximum rate, etc.

    (2) Employee B suffers a covered workplace injury on April 1, 2000, is temporarily totally disabled from that day through June 3, 2002, and is thereafter permanently totally disabled. B's compensation for the period from April 1, 2000, through June 3, 2002, is subject to the FY 2000 maximum rate (see § 702.805(a)). B's compensation for the period from June 4, 2002, through September 30, 2002, is subject to the FY 2002 maximum rate. Beginning October 1, 2002, B's compensation for FY 2003 is subject to the FY 2003 maximum rate, compensation for FY 2004 is subject to the FY 2004 maximum rate, etc.

    (3) Employee C suffers a covered workplace injury in FY 2009 and is permanently totally disabled from that day forward. He was earning $1,950.00 a week when he was injured, making his calculated compensation rate $1,300.00 ($1,950.00 × 2 ÷ 3). His calculated compensation rate exceeds the maximum rate from FY 2009-2012; thus, his compensation is limited to each year's maximum rate. In FY 2013, C's calculated compensation rate of $1,300.00 is, for the first time, less than the FY 2013 maximum rate of $1,325.18. Applying the FY 2013 2.31% section 10(f) adjustment to C's FY 2012 compensation rate of $1,295.20 results in a compensation rate of $1,325.00 ($1,295.20 × .0231 = $29.92 (rounded to the nearest cent); $1,295.20 + $29.92 = $1,325.12, rounded to the nearest dollar). This amount falls just below the FY 2013 maximum rate of $1,325.18. Thus, C's benefit rate for FY 2013 is $1,325.00, and is not limited by the maximum rate.

    § 702.807 What weekly maximum rates apply to death benefits?

    (a) The maximum rate in effect on the date that the employee died applies to all death benefits payable during that fiscal year.

    (b) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid to all eligible survivors during the fiscal year in which the employee died must not exceed the lower of—

    (1) The maximum rate for that fiscal year; or

    (2) The employee's average weekly wages.

    (c) For subsequent fiscal years—

    (1) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid during each subsequent fiscal year are subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.

    (2) If death benefits were paid in the first year at the employee's full average weekly wage under paragraph (b)(2), the aggregate weekly death benefits paid for each subsequent year may not exceed the current benefit rate plus the subsequent year's section 10(f) adjustment (see § 702.701).

    (d) Post-retirement occupational diseases. Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)-(c), if an employee's death results from an occupational disease where the date of disability occurred after the employee voluntarily retired—

    (1) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid to all eligible survivors during the fiscal year in which the employee died must not exceed the lower of:

    (i) The maximum rate for that fiscal year; or

    (ii) One fifty-second part of the employee's average annual earnings during the 52-week period preceding retirement.

    (2) For subsequent fiscal years—

    (i) Aggregate weekly death benefits paid during each subsequent fiscal year are subject to each subsequent year's maximum rate.

    (ii) If death benefits were paid in the first year at 1/52 part of the employee's average annual earnings prior to retirement under paragraph (d)(1)(ii), the aggregate weekly death benefits paid for each subsequent year may not exceed the current benefit rate plus the subsequent year's section 10(f) adjustment (see § 702.701).

    (e) Examples:

    (1) Employee A suffers a covered workplace injury on May 1, 2013, and is permanently and totally disabled from that date until August 1, 2014, when he dies due to the injury. He has one eligible survivor and his average weekly wage at the time of injury was $3,000.00. The calculated compensation rate for A's survivor is $1,500.00 (i.e., 50% of A's average weekly wage). A's weekly survivor's benefits for the period from August 2, 2014, to September 30, 2014, are limited to the FY 2014 maximum rate of $1,346.68. Beginning October 1, 2014, A's survivor's benefits for FY 2015 are subject to the FY 2015 maximum rate, benefits for FY 2016 are subject to the FY 2016 maximum rate, etc.

    (2) Employee B suffers a covered workplace injury and dies on December 1, 2012. She has one eligible survivor and her average weekly wage was $300.00. Because B's average weekly wage of $300.00 falls below the FY 2013 national average weekly wage of $662.59, death benefits are calculated at 50% of that national average wage (see 33 U.S.C. 909(e)). This yields a calculated compensation rate of $331.30. But because this rate exceeds B's actual average weekly wages, weekly death benefits payable during FY 2013 are limited to $300.00. In FY 2014, B's survivor is entitled to a 1.62% section 10(f) adjustment, resulting in weekly death benefits of $305.00 ($300.00 × .0162 = $4.86; $300.00 + $4.86 = $304.86, rounded to the nearest dollar). B's survivor would continue to receive section 10(f) adjustments in subsequent fiscal years.

    (3) Employee C retired on February 1, 1998. During his last year of employment, he earned $23,000. He discovers on April 15, 2002, that he has a compensable occupational disease resulting in a 50% permanent impairment. See § 702.601(b). Because he retired more than one year before this date, his payrate for calculating compensation is the FY 2002 national average weekly wage, or $483.04. See § 702.603(b). He is entitled to weekly compensation of $161.01 ($483.04 × 2 ÷ 3 × 50%). C dies from the disease on June 1, 2015, leaving two survivors. The payrate for calculating death benefits is the FY 2015 national average weekly wage, or $688.51. See § 702.604(b). The survivors' aggregate calculated compensation rate is $459.01 ($688.51 × 2 ÷ 3). But because compensation cannot exceed 1/52 part of C's last year of earnings, aggregate weekly death benefits payable for FY 2015 are limited to $442.31 ($23,000 ÷ 52). For FY 2016, C's survivors are entitled to a 2.10% section 10(f) adjustment resulting in weekly death benefits of $452.00 ($442.31 × 021 = $9.29 (rounded to the nearest cent); $442.31 + $9.29 = $451.60, rounded to the nearest dollar). C's survivors would continue to receive section 10(f) adjustments in subsequent fiscal years.

    Minimum Rates
    § 702.808 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for partial disability?

    There is no minimum rate for compensation paid for partial disability, whether temporary or permanent.

    § 702.809 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for temporary total disability?

    (a) The minimum compensation payable for temporary total disability is the lower of:

    (1) The minimum rate in effect on the date of disability, or

    (2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.

    (b) Example: Employee A suffers a covered workplace injury on May 6, 2014. He is temporarily totally disabled until November 6, 2015, when he returns to work. His average weekly wages at the time of disability were $500.00. Because his calculated compensation rate (i.e., 66 and 2/3% of $500.00, or $333.34) is lower than the $336.67 FY 2014 minimum rate, A's compensation is raised to $336.67 for the entire period of his disability.

    § 702.810 What weekly minimum rates apply to compensation for permanent total disability?

    (a) The weekly minimum compensation payable for the fiscal year in which the employee became permanently and totally disabled is the lower of:

    (1) The minimum rate in effect on the date of disability, or

    (2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.

    (b) For all periods the employee is permanently and totally disabled in subsequent fiscal years, the weekly minimum compensation payable is the lower of:

    (1) Each subsequent fiscal year's minimum rate, or

    (2) The employee's average weekly wage on the date of disability.

    (c) Example: Employee A suffers a covered workplace injury on April 1, 2003, and is permanently totally disabled from that day forward. He was earning $250.00 a week when he was injured. His calculated compensation rate is $166.67 ($250 × 2 ÷ 3). The FY 2003 minimum rate is $249.14. Because A's calculated compensation rate is below the FY 2003 minimum rate, and his actual weekly wage is above that rate, he is entitled to compensation at the minimum rate of $249.14 from April 1, 2003, to September 30, 2003. The FY 2004 minimum rate is $257.70. Because A's actual weekly wages on the date of disability are lower than the FY 2004 minimum rate, A's minimum weekly compensation rate for FY 2004 is $250.00. His weekly compensation rate for FY 2004, however, is higher because of a section 10(f) adjustment. For FY 2004, A's compensation rate is increased by a 3.44% section 10(f) adjustment, raising his compensation level to $258.00 ($249.14 × .0344 = $8.57; $249.14 + $8.57 = $257.71, rounded to the nearest dollar).

    § 702.811 What weekly minimum rates apply to death benefits?

    (a) The average weekly wage used to compute death benefits is the greater of—

    (1) The deceased employee's average weekly wages; or

    (2) The national average weekly wage in effect at the time of the employee's death.

    (b) The weekly minimum rate does not apply to death benefits.

    Leonard J. Howie III, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20467 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 515 RIN 3141-AA65 Privacy Act Procedures AGENCY:

    National Indian Gaming Commission, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this document is to propose amendments to the procedures followed by the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) when processing a request under the Privacy Act of 1974. The proposed amendments make the following changes to the current regulations. These changes will serve to update certain Commission information, streamline how the Commission processes its Privacy Act requests, and aligns those processes with its procedures for processing Freedom of Information Act requests.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be mailed to Attn: National Indian Gaming Commission, FOIA/PA Officer, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240 or faxed to (202) 632-7066 (this is not a toll free number). Comments may be inspected between 9:00 a.m. and noon and between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002. Comments may also be submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Mendoza at (202) 632-7003 or by fax (202) 632-7066 (these numbers are not toll free).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Comments Invited

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

    II. Background

    The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted on October 17, 1988, established the National Indian Gaming Commission. Congress enacted the Privacy Act in 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a). The Commission originally adopted Privacy Act procedures on January 22, 1993. Since that time, the Commission has changed the location of its headquarters office, established a new system of records, and streamlined the way it processes Privacy Act requests. These proposed amendments serve to incorporate those changes into the Commission's regulations and to better align the Commission's processing of its Privacy Act with its Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Commission certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The factual basis for this certification is as follows: This rule is procedural in nature and will not impose substantive requirements that would be considered impacts within the scope of the Act.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Commission is an independent regulatory agency, and, as such, is exempt from the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the Commission has determined that this proposed rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Commission has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million per year; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of U.S. based enterprises.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements for which the Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) would be required.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The Commission has determined that the proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 515

    Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to revise part 25 CFR part 515 to read as follows:

    PART 515—PRIVACY ACT PROCEDURES Sec. 515.1 Purpose and scope. 515.2 Definitions. 515.3 Request for access to records. 515.4 Responsibility for responding to requests. 515.5 Responses to requests for access to records. 515.6 Request for amendment or correction of records. 515.7 Appeals of initial agency adverse determination. 515.8 Requests for an accounting of record disclosure. 515.9 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures. 515.10 Fees. 515.11 Penalties. 515.12 [Reserved] 515.13 Specific exemptions. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a

    § 515.1 Purpose and scope.

    This part contains the regulations the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission) follows in implementing the Privacy Act of 1974. These regulations should be read together with the Privacy Act, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The regulations in this part apply to all records contained within systems of records maintained by the Commission that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Commission. The Commission shall also process all Privacy Act requests for access to records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's FOIA regulations contained in 25 CFR part 517, which gives requesters maximum disclosure.

    § 515.2 Definitions.

    For the purposes of this subpart:

    (a) Individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

    (b) Maintain means store, collect, use, or disseminate.

    (c) Record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Commission, including education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history, and that contains the individual's name, or identifying number, symbol, or other identifier assigned to the individual, such as social security number, finger or voice print, or photograph.

    (d) System of records means a group of any records under the control of the Commission from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifier assigned to the individual.

    (e) Routine use means use of a record for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.

    (f) Working day means a Federal workday that does not include Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays.

    § 515.3 Request for access to records.

    (a) How made and addressed. Any individual may make a request to the Commission for access to records about him or herself. Such requests shall conform to the requirements of this section. The request may be made in person at 90 K Street NE., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002 during the hours of 9 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, in writing at NIGC Attn: Privacy Act Office, C/O Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, or via electronic mail addressed to [email protected]

    (b) Description of records sought. Each request for access to records must describe the records sought in enough detail to enable Commission personnel to locate the system of records containing them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, the request should describe the records sought, the time periods in which the records were compiled, any tribal gaming facility with which they were associated, and the name or identifying number of each system of records in which the records are kept.

    (c) Agreement to pay fees. Requests shall also include a statement indicating the maximum amount of fees the requester is willing to pay to obtain the requested information. The requester must send acknowledgment to the Privacy Act Officer indicating his/her willingness to pay the fees. Absent such an acknowledgment within the specified time frame, the request will be considered incomplete, no further work shall be done, and the request will be administratively closed.

    (d) Verification of identity. When making a request for access to records the individual seeking access must provide verification of identity. The requester must provide a full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The request must be signed and must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, which is a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In order to assist in the identification and location of requested records, a request may also, at the requester's option, include a social security number.

    (e) Verification of guardianship. When making a request as a parent or guardian of a minor or as the guardian of someone determined by a court to be incompetent, for access to records about that individual, the request must establish:

    (1) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record by stating the name, current address, date and place of birth, and, at the requester's option, the social security number of the individual;

    (2) The requester's own identity, as required in paragraph (d) of this section;

    (3) That the requester is the parent or guardian of the individual and proof of such relationship by providing a birth certificate showing parentage or a court order establishing guardianship; and

    (4) That the requester is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.

    (f) Verification in the case of third party information requests. Any individual who desires to have a record covered by this part disclosed to or mailed to another person may designate such person and authorize such person to act as his or her agent for that specific purpose. The authorization shall be in writing, signed by the individual whose record is requested, and notarized or witnessed as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (g) In-person disclosures. An individual to whom a record is to be disclosed in person, pursuant to this section, may have a person of his or her own choosing accompany him or her when the record is disclosed. If a requester is accompanied by another individual, the requester shall be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.

    § 515.4 Responsibility for responding to requests.

    (a) In general. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Commission ordinarily will include only records in its possession as of the date it begins its search for records. If any other date is used, the Privacy Act Office shall inform the requester of that date.

    (b) Authority to grant or deny requests. The Privacy Act Office shall make initial determinations either to grant or deny in whole or in part access to records.

    (c) Consultations and referrals. When the Commission receives a request for a record in its possession, the Privacy Act Office shall determine whether another agency of the Federal Government is better able to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act. If the Privacy Act Office determines that it is best able to process the record in response to the request, then it shall do so. If the Privacy Act Office determines that it is not best able to process the record, then it shall either:

    (1) Respond to the request regarding that record, after consulting with the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it and with any other agency that has a substantial interest in it; or

    (2) Refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to the agency best able to determine whether to disclose it, or to another agency that originated the record. Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to be best able to determine whether to disclose it.

    (d) Notice of referral. Whenever the Privacy Act Office refers all or any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it ordinarily shall notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name of each agency to which the request has been referred and of the part of the request that has been referred.

    § 515.5 Responses to requests for access to records.

    (a) Acknowledgement of requests. Upon receipt of a request, the Privacy Act Office ordinarily shall, within 20 working days, send an acknowledgement letter which shall confirm the requester's agreement to pay fees under § 515.9 and provide an assigned request number.

    (b) Grants of requests for access. Once the Privacy Act Office makes a determination to grant a request for access in whole or in part, it shall notify the requester in writing. The notice shall inform the requester of any fee charged under § 515.9 and the Privacy Act Office shall disclose records to the requester promptly on payment of any applicable fee. If a request is made in person, the Privacy Act Office will disclose the records to the requester directly, in a manner not unreasonably disruptive of its operations, on payment of any applicable fee and with a written record made of the grant of the request. If a requester is accompanied by another individual, the requester shall be required to authorize in writing any discussion of the records in the presence of the other person.

    (c) Adverse determinations of requests for access. If the Privacy Act Office makes any adverse determination denying a request for access in any respect, it shall notify the requester of that determination in writing. The notification letter shall be signed by the official making the determination and include:

    (1) The name and title of the person responsible for the denial;

    (2) A brief statement of the reason(s) for the denial, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied to the denial;

    (3) A statement that the denial may be appealed under § 515.7 and a description of the requirements of § 515.7.

    § 515.6 Request for amendment or correction of records.

    (a) How made and addressed. An individual may make a request for an amendment or correction to a Commission record about that individual by writing directly to the Privacy Act Office, following the procedures in § 515.3. The request should identify each particular record in question, state the amendment or correction that is sought, and state why the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request may include any documentation that would be helpful to substantiate the reasons for the amendment sought.

    (b) Privacy Act Office response. The Privacy Act Office shall, not later than 10 working days after receipt of a request for an amendment or correction of a record, acknowledge receipt of the request and provide notification of whether the request is granted or denied. If the request is granted in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Office shall describe the amendment or correction made and shall advise the requester of the right to obtain a copy of the amended or corrected record. If the request is denied in whole or in part, the Privacy Act Office shall send a letter signed by the denying official stating:

    (1) The reason(s) for the denial; and

    (2) The procedure for appeal of the denial under paragraph (c) of this section.

    (c) Appeals. A requester may appeal a denial of a request for amendment or correction in the same manner as a denial of a request for access as described in § 515.7. If the appeal is denied, the requester shall be advised of the right to file a Statement of Disagreement as described in paragraph (d) of this section and of the right under the Privacy Act for judicial review of the decision.

    (d) Statements of Disagreement. If the appeal under this section is denied in whole or in part, the requester has the right to file a Statement of Disagreement that states the reason(s) for disagreeing with the Privacy Act Office's denial of the request for amendment or correction. Statements of Disagreement must be concise, must clearly identify each part of any record that is disputed, and should be no longer than one typed page for each fact disputed. The Statement of Disagreement shall be placed in the system of records in which the disputed record is maintained and the record shall be marked to indicate a Statement of Disagreement has been filed.

    (e) Notification of amendment, correction, or disagreement. Within 30 working days of the amendment or correction of the record, the Privacy Act Office shall notify all persons, organizations, or agencies to which it previously disclosed the record, if an accounting of that disclosure was made, that the record has been amended or corrected. If a Statement of Disagreement was filed, the Commission shall append a copy of it to the disputed record whenever the record is disclosed and may also append a concise statement of its reason(s) for denying the request to amend the record.

    (f) Records not subject to amendment. Section 515.13 lists the records that are exempt from amendment or correction.

    § 515.7 Appeals of initial adverse agency determination.

    (a) Adverse determination. An initial adverse agency determination of a request may consist of: A determination to withhold any requested record in whole or in part; a determination that a requested record does not exist or cannot be located; a determination that the requested record is not a record subject to the Privacy Act; a determination that a record will not be amended; a determination to deny a request for an accounting; a determination on any disputed fee matter; and any associated denial of a request for expedited treatment under the Commission's FOIA regulations.

    (b) Appeals. If the Privacy Act Office issues an adverse determination in response to a request, the requester may file a written notice of appeal. The notice shall be accompanied by the original request, the initial adverse determination that is being appealed, and a statement describing why the adverse determination was in error. The appeal shall be addressed to the Privacy Act Appeals Officer at the locations listed in § 515.3 no later than 30 working days after the date of the letter denying the request. Both the appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Privacy Act Appeal.” Any Privacy Act appeals submitted via electronic mail should state “Privacy Act Appeal” in the subject line.

    (c) Responses to appeals. The decision on appeal will be made in writing within 30 working days of receipt of the notice of appeal by the Privacy Act Appeals Officer. For good cause shown, however, the Privacy Act Appeals Officer may extend the 30 working day period. If such an extension is taken, the requester shall be promptly notified of such extension and the anticipated date of decision. A decision affirming an adverse determination in whole or in part will include a brief statement of the reason(s) for the determination, including any Privacy Act exemption(s) applied. If the adverse determination is reversed or modified in whole or in part, the requester will be notified in a written decision and the request will be reprocessed in accordance with that appeal decision. The response to the appeal shall also advise of the right to institute a civil action in a Federal district court for judicial review of the decision.

    (d) When appeal is required. In order to institute a civil action in a Federal district court for judicial review of an adverse determination, a requester must first appeal it under this section.

    § 515.8 Requests for an accounting of record disclosure.

    (a) How made and addressed. Subject to the exceptions listed in paragraph (b) of this section, an individual may make a request for an accounting of the disclosures of any record about that individual that the Commission has made to another person, organization, or agency. The accounting contains the date, nature and purpose of each disclosure, as well as the name and address of the person, organization, or agency to which the disclosure was made. The request for an accounting should identify each particular record in question and should be made in writing to the Commission's Privacy Act Office, following the procedures in § 515.3.

    (b) Where accountings are not required. The Commission is not required to provide an accounting where they relate to:

    (1) Disclosures for which accountings are not required to be kept, such as those that are made to employees of the Commission who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties and disclosures that are made under section 552 of title 5;

    (2) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law enforcement activities in response to written requests from those law enforcement agencies specifying the law enforcement activities for which the disclosures are sought; or

    (3) Disclosures made from law enforcement systems of records that have been exempted from accounting requirements.

    (c) Appeals. A requester may appeal a denial of a request for an accounting in the same manner as a denial of a request for access as described in § 515.7 and the same procedures will be followed.

    (d) Preservation of accountings. All accountings made under this section will be retained for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.

    § 515.9 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures.

    (a) Court-ordered disclosures. When a record pertaining to an individual is required to be disclosed by a court order, the Privacy Act Office shall make reasonable efforts to provide notice of this to the individual. Notice shall be given within a reasonable time after the Privacy Act Office's receipt of the order—except that in a case in which the order is not a matter of public record, the notice shall be given only after the order becomes public. This notice shall be mailed to the individual's last known address and shall contain a copy of the order and a description of the information disclosed. Notice shall not be given if disclosure is made from a criminal law enforcement system of records that has been exempted from the notice requirement.

    (b) Emergency disclosures. Upon disclosing a record pertaining to an individual made under compelling circumstances affecting health or safety, the Privacy Act Office shall, within a reasonable time, notify that individual of the disclosure. This notice shall be mailed to the individual's last known address and shall state the nature of the information disclosed; the person, organization, or agency to which it was disclosed; the date of disclosure; and the compelling circumstances justifying disclosure.

    § 515.10 Fees.

    The Commission shall charge fees for duplication of records under the Privacy Act in the same way in which it charges duplication fees under § 517.9. No search or review fee may be charged for any record. Additionally, when the Privacy Act Office makes a copy of a record as a necessary part of reviewing the record or granting access to the record, the Commission shall not charge for the cost of making that copy. Otherwise, the Commission may charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of duplicating a copy.

    § 515.11 Penalties.

    Any person who makes a false statement in connection with any request for access to a record, or an amendment thereto, under this part, is subject to the penalties prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 494 and 495.

    § 515.12 [Reserved]
    § 515.13 Specific exemptions.

    (a) The following systems of records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (f):

    (1) Indian Gaming Individuals Records System.

    (2) Management Contract Individuals Record System.

    (b) The exemptions under paragraph (a) of this section apply only to the extent that information in these systems is subject to exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). When compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the overall responsibilities of the Commission, with respect to licensing of key employees and primary management officials for employment in an Indian gaming operation, the applicable exemption may be waived by the Commission.

    (c) Exemptions from the particular sections are justified for the following reasons:

    (1) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), because making available the accounting of disclosures to an individual who is the subject of a record could reveal investigative interest. This would permit the individual to take measures to destroy evidence, intimidate potential witnesses, or flee the area to avoid the investigation.

    (2) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(d), (e)(1), and (f) concerning individual access to records, when such access could compromise classified information related to national security, interfere with a pending investigation or internal inquiry, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, reveal a sensitive investigative technique, or pose a potential threat to the Commission or its employees or to law enforcement personnel. Additionally, access could reveal the identity of a source who provided information under an express promise of confidentiality.

    (3) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(2), because to require the Commission to amend information thought to be incorrect, irrelevant, or untimely, because of the nature of the information collected and the length of time it is maintained, would create an impossible administrative and investigative burden by continually forcing the Commission to resolve questions of accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness.

    (4) From 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) because:

    (i) It is not always possible to determine relevance or necessity of specific information in the early stages of an investigation.

    (ii) Relevance and necessity are matters of judgment and timing in that what appears relevant and necessary when collected may be deemed unnecessary later. Only after information is assessed can its relevance and necessity be established.

    (iii) In any investigation the Commission may receive information concerning violations of law under the jurisdiction of another agency. In the interest of effective law enforcement and under 25 U.S.C. 2716(b), the information could be relevant to an investigation by the Commission.

    (iv) In the interviewing of individuals or obtaining evidence in other ways during an investigation, the Commission could obtain information that may or may not appear relevant at any given time; however, the information could be relevant to another investigation by the Commission.

    Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, Chairman. Kathryn Isom-Clause, Vice Chair. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, Associate Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19749 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0233; FRL-9951-40-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; State Operating Permit Conditions for the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from the Reynolds Consumer Products LLC—Bellwood Printing Plant AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) for the purpose of removing a consent agreement and order (consent order) previously included in the Virginia SIP to address reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) control at Reynolds Consumer Product LLC (Reynolds) plant and include a state operating permit for the Reynolds plant in the SIP to continue to address RACT requirements. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. A more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation is included in a technical support document (TSD) prepared in support of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document or is also available electronically within the Docket for this rulemaking action. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0233 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 edited or removed 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:

    Gregory Becoat, (215) 814-2036, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20297 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 160614518-6518-01] RIN 0648-XE685 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Chambered Nautilus as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    90-Day petition finding, request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the chambered nautilus (Nautilus pompilius) as a threatened species or an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition, along with information readily available in our files, presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of this species to determine whether the petitioned action is in fact warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to the chambered nautilus from any interested party.

    DATES:

    Information and comments on the subject action must be received by October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, information, or data on this document, identified by the code NOAA-NMFS-2016-0098, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0098. Click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Maggie Miller, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA.

    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, etc.), 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).

    Copies of the petition and related materials are available on our Web site at http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/invertebrates/chambered-nautilus.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maggie Miller, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8403.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 31, 2016, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list the chambered nautilus (N. pompilius) as a threatened species or an endangered species under the ESA. Copies of the petition are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    ESA Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Provisions and Evaluation Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a “may be warranted” finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any distinct population segment (DPS) that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Because the chambered nautilus is an invertebrate, the DPS option does not apply. Under the ESA, a species or subspecies is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, we must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).

    At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references considered together with the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90-day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone precludes a positive 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests an extinction risk of concern for the species at issue.

    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, spatial structure, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range, habitat integrity or fragmentation), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion; then we assess the potential significance of that negative response.

    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by other organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone may not provide the rationale for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are also not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the standards on extinction risk and impacts or threats discussed above.

    Taxonomy of the Petitioned Chambered Nautilus

    The petition notes that the taxonomy of the nautiloids is controversial. Based on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, which has a disclaimer that it “is based on the latest scientific consensus available . . . [but] is not a legal authority for statutory or regulatory purposes,” there are presently five recognized species within the genus Nautilus: N. belauensis (Saunders, 1981), N. macromphalus (Sowerby, 1849), N. pompilius (Linnaeus, 1758), N. repertus (Iredale, 1944), and N. stenomphalus (Sowerby, 1849). However, a review and analysis of recent genetic and morphological data suggests that perhaps only two of these five species are valid: N. pompilius and N. macromphalus, with the other three species more parsimoniously placed within N. pompilius (Ward et al., 2016). While the taxonomy of the Nautilus genus may not be fully resolved, we find that the information provided by the petitioner and readily available in our files presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned entity, N. pompilius, constitutes a valid “species” and is thus is a type of entity that may be eligible for listing under the ESA.

    Range, Distribution and Life History

    The chambered nautilus is found in tropical, coastal reef, deep-water habitats of the Indo-Pacific. Its known range includes waters off American Samoa, Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, and it may also potentially occur in waters off China, Myanmar, Western Samoa, Thailand, and Vietnam (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 2016). Within its range, the chambered nautilus has a patchy distribution and is unpredictable in its area of occupancy. Based on multiple research studies, the presence of suitable habitat on coral reefs does not necessarily indicate the likelihood of chambered nautilus occurrence (CITES 2016). Additionally, the chambered nautilus is limited in its horizontal and vertical distribution throughout its range due to physiological constraints. Physiologically, the chambered nautilus cannot tolerate temperatures above approximately 25 °C or depths exceeding around 750-800 meters (m) (Ward et al., 1980; Carlson 2010). At depths greater than 800 m, the hydrostatic pressure will cause the shell of the nautilus to implode, thereby killing the animal (Ward et al., 1980). Based on these physiological constraints, the chambered nautilus is considered to be an extreme habitat specialist, found in association with steep-sloped forereefs with sandy, silty, or muddy-bottomed substrates. Within these habitats, the species ranges from around 100 m depths (which may vary depending on the water temperature) to around 500 m depths (CITES 2016). The chambered nautilus does not swim in the open water column (likely due to its vulnerability to predation), but rather remains near the reef slopes and bottom substrate, and thus can be best characterized as a nektobenthic or epibenthic species (Barord et al., 2014; CITES 2016).

    Chambered nautiluses are described as deep-sea scavenging generalists and opportunistic predators. They have up to 90 retractable appendages, or tentacles, that they use to dig in the substrate and feed on a variety of organisms, including fish, crustaceans, echinoids, nematodes, cephalopods, other marine invertebrates, and detrital matter (Saunders and Ward 2010). The chambered nautilus also has an acute sense of olfaction and can easily smell odors (such as prey) from significant distances (Basil et al., 2000).

    The general life history characteristics of the chambered nautilus are that of a rare, long-lived, late-maturing, and slow-growing marine invertebrate species, with likely low reproductive output. Circumferential growth rate for the chambered nautilus has been estimated to range from 0.053 mm/day to 0.23 mm/day, with growth rates slowing as the animal approaches maturity (Dunstan et al., 2010; Dunstan et al., 2011b); however, overall shell size appears to vary among regions, with smaller shell diameters (170-180 mm) noted around Fiji and the Philippines (Tanabe et al., 1990), and larger diameters (up to 222 mm) off Western Australia. Additionally, the species exhibits sexual dimorphism, with males consistently growing to larger sizes than females (Saunders and Ward 2010). Males also tend to dominate the sex ratios in populations, with observed proportions ranging from 69 to 95 percent in observed populations (Saunders and Ward 2010).

    Chambered nautilus longevity is at least 20 years, with age to maturity between 10 and 17 years (Dunstan et al., 2011b; Ward et al., 2016). Very little is known regarding nautilus reproduction in the wild. Observations of captive animals suggest that nautiluses reproduce sexually and have multiple reproductive cycles over the course of their lifetime. Based on data from captive N. belauensis and N. macromphalus individuals, female nautiluses may lay up to 10 to 20 eggs per year, which hatch after a lengthy embryonic period of around 10 to 12 months (Uchiyama and Tanabe 1999; Barord and Basil 2014). There is no larval phase, with juveniles hatching at around 22-23 mm in diameter, and potentially migrating to deeper and cooler waters (Barord and Basil 2014); however, live hatchlings have rarely been observed in the wild.

    Overall, given the life history traits and physiological habitat constraints of N. pompilius, chambered nautilus populations (discussed in more detail below) are extremely susceptible to depletion and vulnerable to local extirpations (CITES 2016).

    Analysis of Information Presented in the Petition Along With Information Readily Available in NMFS' Files

    The petition contains information on the chambered nautilus, including its taxonomy, morphological characteristics, geographic distribution, habitat, population abundance and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. According to the petition, all five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the chambered nautilus: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors.

    In the following sections, we summarize and evaluate the information presented in the petition, which we consider together with information readily available in our files on the status of N. pompilius, including demographic factors, and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that may be affecting its risk of global extinction. Based on this evaluation, we determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing under the ESA may be warranted for this species.

    Abundance and Population Trends

    The global abundance of the chambered nautilus is unknown, with no available historical baseline population data. In fact, the first study to estimate baseline population size and density for the species, in a given area, was only recently conducted by Dunstan et al., (2011a). This study examined the N. pompilius population at Osprey Reef, an isolated coral seamount off Australia's northeastern coast, with no history of nautilus exploitation. Based on data collected from 2000 to 2006, the authors estimated that the population at Osprey Reef consisted of between 844 and 4,467 individuals, with a density estimate of 13.6 individuals per square kilometer (km2) (Dunstan et al., 2011a). Subsequent research, conducted by Barord et al., (2014), provided density estimates of nautiluses (species not identified) from four locations in the Indo-Pacific: The Panglao region of the Bohol Sea, Philippines, with 0.03 individuals per km2, Taena Bank near Pago Pago harbor, American Samoa, with 0.16 individuals per km2, the Beqa Passage in Viti Levu, Fiji, with 0.21 individuals per km2, and the Great Barrier Reef along a transect from Cairns to Lizard Island, Australia, with 0.34 individuals per km2. With the exception of the Bohol Sea, these populations are located in areas where fishing for nautilus does not occur, suggesting that nautiluses may be naturally rare, or that other unknown factors, besides fishing, may be affecting abundance of these species. The authors also indicate that the population estimates from this study may, in fact, be overestimates as they used baited remote underwater video systems to attract individuals to the observation area (Barord et al., 2014). In either case, these very low population estimates suggest that chambered nautiluses are especially vulnerable to exploitation, with limited capacity to recover from depletion. This theory is further supported by the comparison between the population size in the Panglao region of the Bohol Sea, where nautilus fishing is occurring, and the unfished sites in American Samoa, Fiji, and Australia, with the Bohol Sea population estimated to be less than 20 percent of the smallest unfished population (Barord et al., 2014).

    In terms of current trends in abundance, populations are considered to be stable in areas where fisheries are absent (e.g., Fiji and Solomon Islands), although data to confirm this are lacking (CITES 2016). In the Osprey Reef population discussed above, Dunstan et al. (2010) used mark-and-recapture methods to examine the trend in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of individuals over a 12-year period. Analysis of the CPUE data showed a slight increase of 28 percent from 1997 to 2008, and while this increase was not statistically significant, the results indicate a stable N. pompilius population in this unexploited area (Dunstan et al., 2010). However, in locations where fisheries have operated or currently operate, anecdotal declines and observed decreases in catches of nautilus species are reported. Citing multiple personal communications, the 2016 proposal to include the Family Nautilidae in Appendix II of CITES (CITES 2016) noted declines of N. pompilius in Indian and New Caledonian waters, where commercial harvest occurred in the past for several decades, and in Indonesian waters, where harvest is suspected to be increasing. In fact, traders in Indonesia have observed a significant decrease in the number of nautiluses collected over the past 10 years, which may be an indication of a declining and depleted population (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). In the Philippines, Dunstan et al. (2010) estimated that the CPUE of Nautilus spp. from four main nautilus fishing locations in the Palawan region has decreased by around 80 percent over a period of less than 30 years. Furthermore, in Tawi Tawi, Cayangacillo, and Tañon Strait/Cebu, Philippines, fisheries that once existed for chambered nautilus have since been discontinued due to the rarity of the species, with Alcala and Russ (2002) noting the likely extirpation of N. pompilius from Tañon Strait in the late 1980s. The fact that the species has not yet recovered in the Tañon Strait, despite an absence of nautilus fishing in over two decades, further supports the susceptibility of the species to exploitation and its limited capability to repopulate an area after depletion.

    Overall, given the species' natural rarity throughout its range, its presence as small, sparsely distributed, and highly fragmented populations, and its low fecundity and limited dispersal capability, with geographic barriers to movement and strict habitat requirements, we find that even a small number of mortalities could potentially have significant negative population-level effects that may lead to regional extirpations (as may have already occurred in Tañon Strait) and potentially extinction. As such, we find that these current demographic risks could increase the species' vulnerability to present and future threats to the point where the species may be at a risk of extinction and thus warrant further investigation.

    Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors

    While the petition presents information on each of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors, we find that the information presented in the petition, together with information readily available within our files, regarding the overutilization of the chambered nautilus for commercial purposes is substantial enough to make a determination that a reasonable person would conclude that this species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened based on this factor alone. As such, we focus our discussion below on the evidence of overutilization for commercial purposes, with comments on the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to control the exploitation of chambered nautiluses, and present our evaluation of the information regarding these factors and their impact on the extinction risk of the species. However, we note that in the status review for this species, we will evaluate all ESA section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one or a combination of these factors are causing declines in the species or likely to substantially negatively affect the species within the foreseeable future to such a point that the chambered nautilus is at risk of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

    Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    Information presented in the petition and readily available in our files suggests that the primary threat to the chambered nautilus is overutilization for commercial purposes—mainly, harvest for the international nautilus shell trade. Chambered nautilus shells, which have a distinctive coiled interior, are traded as souvenirs to tourists and shell collectors and also used in jewelry and home décor items (where either the whole shell is sold as a decorative object or parts are used to create shell-inlay designs) (CITES 2016). The trade in the species is largely driven by the international demand for their shells and shell products since fishing for nautiluses has been found to have no cultural or historical relevance (Dunstan et al., 2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Nautilus meat is also not locally in demand (or used for subsistence) but rather sold or consumed as a by-product of fishing for the nautilus shells (De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). While all species of nautiluses are found in international trade, N. pompilius, being the most widely distributed, is the species most commonly traded (CITES 2016).

    Although most of the trade in chambered nautiluses originates from the range countries where fisheries exist or have existed for the species, particularly the Philippines and Indonesia, commodities also come from those areas with no known fisheries (such as Fiji and Solomon Islands). Other countries of origin for N. pompilius products include Australia, China, Taiwan, India, Malaysia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, and Vietnam (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Known consumer markets for chambered nautilus products include the Middle East (United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia), Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Hong Kong, Russia, Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan and India, with major consumer markets noted in the European Union (Italy, France, Portugal), the United Kingdom, and the United States (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). In fact, between 2005 and 2014, the United States imported more than 900,000 chambered nautilus products, comprising at least 104,476 individuals and equating to a little over 1,000 individuals traded annually (CITES 2016). The vast majority of these U.S. imports originated from the Philippines (85 percent of the traded commodities), followed by Indonesia (12 percent), China (1.4 percent), and India (1.3 percent) (CITES 2016).

    Because harvest of the chambered nautilus is primarily demand-driven for the international shell trade, with no historical or cultural importance, the intensive nautilus fisheries that develop to meet this demand tend to follow a boom-bust cycle that lasts around a decade or two before becoming commercially nonviable (Dunstan et al., 2010; De Angelis 2012; CITES 2016). Given that the chambered nautilus exists as small, isolated populations, harvest of the species may continue for many years within a region, with the fisheries serially depleting each population until the species is essentially extirpated from that region (CITES 2016). Commercial harvest of the species is presently occurring or has occurred in the Philippines, Indonesia, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, and also potentially in China, Palau, Thailand and Vanuatu (CITES 2016). However, based on the number of commodities entering the international trade, it is likely that the Philippines and Indonesia have the largest commercial fisheries for chambered nautilus, with multiple harvesting sites throughout these nations (CITES 2016). Although information on harvest levels and the status of chambered nautilus populations within this portion of its range is limited, the available data, discussed below, do provide evidence of the negative impact of these fisheries and overutilization of the species that speak to the likelihood of its risk of extinction in the future.

    As mentioned previously, significant declines of N. pompilius have been observed in both the Philippines and Indonesia, primarily a result of overutilization of the species. For example, in 1971, Haven (1972 cited in Haven (1977)) found that Tañon Strait, Philippines, was an abundant source of N. pompilius. From 1971 to 1972, around 3,200 individuals were captured for study (Haven 1977). Filipino fisherman also began fishing this location for nautilus shells around this time, with the numbers of fishermen tripling during subsequent years; however, by 1975, the impact of this harvest on the species was already evident (Haven 1977). Fishermen in 1975 reported having to move operations to deeper water as catches were now rare at shallower depths, and the number of individuals per trap had also decreased (Haven 1977). Additionally, although the number of fishermen had tripled in those 3 years, and therefore fishing effort for the species intensified, the catch did not see an associated increase, indicating a likely decrease in the abundance of the species within the area (Haven 1977). From October to November of 1975, fishermen reported around 220 trapped individuals, a number similar to the 300 individuals caught by Haven (1977) in the month of October in 1971 and prior to the establishment of the nautilus fishery. By the early 1980s, CITES (2016) reports that around 5,000 chambered nautiluses were trapped per year in Tañon Strait, but by 1987, the population was estimated to have declined by 97 percent, with the species considered to be commercially extinct and potentially extirpated from the area (Alcala and Russ 2002).

    This level of harvest (5,000 chambered nautilus individuals/year), which, based on the information from the Tañon Strait, appears to lead to local extirpations, is being greatly exceeded in a number of other areas throughout the chambered nautilus' range. In Tibiao, Antique province, in northwestern Panay Island, Philippines, del Norte-Campos (2005) estimated annual yield of the chambered nautilus to be around 12,200 individuals for the entire fishery (based on data from 2001-2002). Based on personal communication provided in CITES (2016), in the Palawan, Philippines nautilus fishery, 9,091 nautiluses were harvested in 2013 and 37,341 in 2014. This level of harvest is particularly concerning given the significant declines already observed in the Palawan nautilus fisheries. In four of the five main nautilus fishing areas in this province, Dunstan et al. (2010) estimated a decline in CPUE of the species ranging from 70 to 90 percent (depending on the fishing site) over the course of 6 to 24 years. Based on interviews of fishermen, when they began fishing for nautiluses, initial harvest in the majority of the fishing sites was estimated to be over 20,000 nautiluses/year (Dunstan et al., 2010), a level that was clearly unsustainable for the species and consequently led to significant declines in abundance of the species within these areas. The one main fishing region in Palawan that did not show a decline was the municipality of Balabac; however, the authors note that this fishery is relatively new (active for less than 8 years), with fewer fishermen, and, as such, may not have yet reached the point where the population crashes or declines become evident in catch rates (Dunstan et al., 2010). Given that the estimated annual catches in the Balabac municipality ranged from 4,000 to 42,000 individuals in 2008 (Dunstan et al., 2010), with more recent Palawan harvest levels reportedly over 37,000 in 2014 (CITES 2016), this level of annual harvest, based on the trends from the other Palawan fishing sites (Dunstan et al., 2010), may likely lead to significant population declines in chambered nautilus in the near future, increasing the species' risk of extirpation from this portion of its range. Already, “crashed fisheries” and, hence, severely depleted populations of nautiluses have been identified at Tawi Tawi (an island province in southwestern Philippines) and Cagayancillo (an island in the Palawan province) (Dunstan et al., 2010). From the available data in the petition and readily available in our files on the life history of the species, including current trends and evidence of a lack of recovery in populations that have not been fished for over 30 years, we find that present utilization of the species in this portion of its range may have significant negative effects on the viability of the chambered nautilus populations and, consequently, contribute to an extinction risk that is cause for concern and warrants further investigation.

    Overutilization of the chambered nautilus populations off Indonesia may also be a threat contributing to the species' risk of extinction that is cause for concern. Despite Indonesia's current prohibition (implemented in 1999) on the harvest and trade of the species, both domestic and internationally, it is apparent that both are still occurring throughout Indonesia (Nijman et al., 2015; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). In fact, based on the increasing number of chambered nautilus commodities originating from Indonesia, it is suggested that nautilus fishing has potentially shifted to Indonesian waters due to depletion of the species in the Philippines (CITES 2016). However, similar to the trend observed in the Philippines, a pattern of serial depletion of nautiluses due to harvesting in Indonesia is emerging, with both fishermen and traders noting a significant decline in the numbers of chambered nautiluses over the last 10 years (CITES 2016; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). For example, fishermen in North Lombok note that they used to trap around 10 to 15 nautiluses in one night, but currently catch only 1 to 3 a night (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Similarly, in Bali, fishermen reported nightly catches of around 10 to 20 nautiluses until 2005, after which yields have been much less (Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). While fishing for chambered nautiluses has essentially decreased in western Indonesia (likely due to a depletion of the stocks), the main trade centers for nautilus commodities are still located here (i.e., Java, Bali, Sulawesi and Lombok). The sources of nautilus shells for these centers now appears to originate from eastern Indonesian waters (including northeastern Central Java, East Java, and West Nusa Tengarra eastward) where it is thought that nautilus populations may still be abundant enough to support economically viable fisheries, and where enforcement of the current N. pompilius prohibition appears to be weaker (Nijman et al., 2015; Freitas and Krishnasamy 2016). Data collected from two large open markets in Indonesia (Pangandaran and Pasir Putih) and wholesale traders indicate that chambered nautiluses are still being offered for sale as of 2013, with one of the wholesalers noting that he exports merchandise to Malaysia and Saudi Arabia on a bimonthly basis (Nijman et al., 2015). Based on seizure data from 2005 to 2013, over 3,000 chambered nautiluses were confiscated by Indonesian authorities (Nijman et al., 2015). Additionally, De Angelis (2012), citing a personal communication, estimated that around 25,000 nautilus specimens were exported from Indonesia to China for the Asian meat market between 2007 and 2010. Given the ongoing demand for chambered nautilus products, the apparent disregard of current prohibition regulations by collectors and traders and lack of enforcement, the observed declining trends in N. pompilius fisheries, and the increasing number of nautilus commodities originating from Indonesia, we find that the available information in the petition, together with information readily available in our files, suggest current N. pompilius harvest levels within this portion of its range may be contributing to the overutilization of the species and increasing its risk of extinction that is cause for concern.

    Active nautilus fisheries also existed and still exist throughout most of the remaining extent of the species' known range, including in India, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, and potentially Papua New Guinea. In India, CITES (2016) states that the chambered nautilus has been exploited for decades. A 2007 survey found the species was being sold in 20 percent of the major coastal tourist markets in southern India, despite the species being protected from capture and trade by domestic law since 2000 (CITES 2016). In New Caledonia, intensive nautilus fisheries reportedly existed in the past. It is unclear whether commercial fisheries still exist today for the species; however, based on data from 2008, N. pompilius shells are still being sold to tourists (CITES 2016). In Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, targeted chambered nautilus fisheries may be present; however, these fisheries have yet to be investigated (NMFS 2014; CITES 2016). Overall, out of the 11 nations in which N. pompilius is known to occur, over half historically or current have targeted nautilus fisheries.

    We note that, while the species is afforded some protection in the southern portion of its range, particularly in waters off Australia where there is no commercial harvest for the species (CITES 2016), it is unclear whether these populations may be enough to protect the species from potential extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. This conclusion is based on the considerations described above, including the significant uncertainties associated with the species' life history and its high demographic risks, as supported by information presented in the petition together with information readily available in our files. The potential contribution of these populations to the species will be investigated further during the status review of the species.

    Although the petition identifies numerous other threats to the chambered nautilus, including habitat degradation, predation, climate change, and ocean acidification, we find that the information presented in the petition, together with information readily available in our files, suggest that overutilization of the species for commercial purposes, in and of itself, may be a threat impacting the chambered nautilus to such a degree that raises concern that this species may be at risk of extinction presently or in the foreseeable future. Due to the apparent lack of enforcement and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, particularly throughout the northern portion of the species' range, the ongoing demand for the species in the international shell trade, the significant demographic risks faced by the species (including extremely low productivity and rare, fragmented, and isolated populations with limited dispersal capability) and the evidence of substantial declines in populations and potential extirpations, we find that present harvest levels and associated mortality may be placing the species at such a risk of extinction that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that N. pompilius may warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

    Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information presented in the petition, and considering information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action of listing the chambered nautilus as a threatened or endangered species may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(3)), we will commence a status review of this species.

    During the status review, we will determine whether the chambered nautilus is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We now initiate this review, and thus, N. pompilius is considered to be a candidate species (69 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (May 31, 2017), the statute requires that we make a finding as to whether listing the chambered nautilus as an endangered or threatened species is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA. If listing is warranted, we will publish a proposed rule and solicit public comments before developing and publishing a final rule.

    Information Solicited

    To ensure that the status review is based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting information on whether the chambered nautilus is endangered or threatened. Specifically, we are soliciting information in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history in marine environments; (4) historical and current data on nautilus catch and bycatch in industrial, commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries worldwide; (5) impacts to known chambered nautilus habitats; (5) data on the trade of chambered nautilus products, including shells, meat, and live specimens; (6) impacts of the ecotourism industry on chambered nautilus behavior and survival; (7) predation rates on chambered nautilus; (8) any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the chambered nautilus or its habitat; (9) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore this species and its habitat; (10) population structure information, such as genetics data; and (11) management, regulatory, and enforcement information. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references is available upon request to the Office of Protected Resources (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 22, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20478 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 166 Friday, August 26, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Advocacy and Outreach Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 23, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 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.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 26, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. 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. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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.

    Office of Advocacy and Outreach

    Title: USDA/1994 Tribal Scholars Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0503-0016.

    Summary of Collection: The purpose of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 1994 Tribal Scholars Program is to strengthen the long-term partnership between USDA and the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions to increase the number of students studying and graduating in food, agricultural, natural resources, and other related fields of study, and to develop a pool of scientists and professionals to annually fill 50,000 jobs in the food, agricultural, and natural resources system. The USDA/1994 Tribal Scholars Program, within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, Office of Advocacy and Outreach, is an annual joint human capital initiative between USDA and the Nation's 1994 Land-Grant Institutions, also known as 1994 Tribal Colleges and Universities. This program offers a combination of paid work experience with a USDA sponsoring agency through an appointment under the Fellowship Experience Program. USDA Tribal Scholarship recipients are required to study in the food, and agricultural, and related sciences, as defined by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3103 (8)).

    Need and Use of the Information: Information will be collected to determine the eligibility of applicants to the USDA Tribal Scholars Program. Each applicant to the program will be required to apply to announcements of the USDA Tribal Scholars Program and submit an application with required documentation. The required documentation will include: (1) A resume; (2) Proof of acceptance or enrollment in school, a letter of acceptance, or proof of registration, or letter from school official on official letterhead; (3) A copy of the last high school or college transcript; and (4) Two letters of recommendation. The collected information is needed for identifying and tracking capital needs of USDA agencies from 1994 Land-Grant Institutions through an internship and an award of an annually reviewed and renewal scholarship with the objective of preparing the student to complete for placement into USDA's workforce.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 360.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20518 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3412-88-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 23, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required 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.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by September 26, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. 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. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    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.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: On-line Registration for FSA-Hosted Events and Conferences.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0226.

    Summary of Collection: The collect of information is necessary for people to register on-line to make payment and reservation to attend Farm Service Agency (FSA) hosted events and conferences. The respondents will need to submit the information on-line to pay and to make reservation prior to attending any conferences and events. Respondents that do not have access to the Internet can register by mail or fax.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSA will collect the name, organization, organizations address, country, phone number, State, payment options and special accommodations from respondents. The information collection element also include race, ethnicity, gender and veteran status. FSA will use the information to get payment, confirm and make hotel and other necessary arrangement for the respondents. FSA is adding new elements in the online registration format to assist individuals and to gather information to provide an appropriate FSA-hosted conference and events. The new elements include: Specifying a request for a type of disability services, identifying how they learned about the event, providing additional names to invite to the event, waiver for liability, and demographic information including gender, race, and ethnicity. The new elements will not increase the burden hours because it is all self-explanatory for the respondent to complete the online format.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; Farms: Business or other for-profit; Federal government, Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 900.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 225.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20542 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2016-0028] Notice of Request To Renew an Approved Information Collection (Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry Products) AGENCY:

    Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding the voluntary cooperative interstate shipment program. The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this information collection. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments.

    Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Docket Clerk, Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

    Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2016-0028. Comments received in response to this docket will be made available for public inspection and posted without change, including any personal information, to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to background documents or comments received, go to the FSIS Docket Room at Patriots Plaza 3, 355 E Street SW., Room 8-164, Washington, DC 20250-3700 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0143.

    Type of Request: Renewal of an approved information collection.

    Abstract: FSIS has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary (7 CFR 2.18, 2.53) as specified in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.). FSIS protects the public by verifying that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and correctly labeled.

    FSIS administers a voluntary cooperative inspection program under which State-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer employees are eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 683 and U.S.C. 472) (9 CFR 321.3, Part 332, 381.187, and Part 381 Subpart Z). In participating States, State-inspected establishments selected to take part in this program are required to comply with all Federal standards under the FMIA and the PPIA, as well as with all State standards. These establishments receive inspection services from State inspection personnel that have been trained in the enforcement of the FMIA and PPIA.

    Meat and poultry products produced under the program that have been inspected and passed by designated State personnel bear an official Federal mark of inspection and are permitted to be distributed in interstate commerce. FSIS provides oversight and enforcement of the program.

    States that are interested in participating in the cooperative interstate shipment program need to submit a request for an agreement to establish such a program through the appropriate FSIS District Office (9 CFR 332.4 and 381.514). In its request, a State must agree to comply with certain conditions in order to qualify for the interstate shipment program. The State must also: (1) Identify establishments in the State that the State recommends for initial selection into the program, if any, and (2) include documentation to demonstrate that the State is able to provide necessary inspection services to selected establishments in the State and conduct any related activities that would be required under a cooperative interstate shipment program.

    If a State determines that an establishment qualifies to participate in the cooperative interstate shipment program, and the State is able, and willing, to provide the necessary inspection services at the establishment, the State is to submit its evaluation of the establishment to the FSIS District Office that covers the State (74 FR 24729).

    FSIS, in coordination with the State, will then decide whether to select the establishments for the program.

    Establishments that qualify for this program have to meet all requirements under the FMIA or PPIA, and implementing regulations, including FSIS requirements for recordkeeping (9 CFR 332.5 and 381.515). Most State-inspected establishments will already have met these recordkeeping requirements, but some establishments will need to make minor adjustments to their recordkeeping in order to meet FSIS requirements.

    The FSIS selected establishment coordinator (SEC) is responsible for overseeing a State's cooperative inspection program. The SEC will visit each selected establishment in the State on a regular basis to verify that the establishment is operating in a manner that is consistent with the FMIA or PPIA and the implementing regulations (9 CFR 332.7 and 381.517).

    The approval for this information collection will expire on January 31, 2017. There are no changes to the existing information collection. FSIS has made the following estimates on the basis of an information collection assessment.

    Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that it will take each new State an average of 40 hours to prepare and submit a request to establish a cooperative interstate shipment program.

    FSIS estimates that it will take each State 24 hours to prepare and submit an evaluation for each new establishment entering the program. FSIS estimates that States will submit approximately 3 evaluations per year.

    FSIS estimates that 15 establishments per year will spend 16 hours to modify their recordkeeping procedures to comply with Federal standards and 5 minutes per establishment to file these records.

    FSIS estimates that it will take each new establishment 15 minutes to assist the SEC in locating locate the necessary records for review on the initial visit. Every selected establishment will spend 10 minutes assisting the SEC review of its records approximately once a month.

    Respondents: States and establishments.

    Estimated No. of Respondents: 20 states and 60 establishments.

    Estimated No. of Annual Responses per Respondent: FSIS estimates there will be one request per each new State to establish a cooperative interstate shipment program and approximately 3 evaluations of State-inspected establishments per State. There will be a one-time modification of records for each newly selected establishment whose recordkeeping does not comply with all Federal standards.

    There will be one initial SEC visit in which each newly selected establishment will need to provide the SEC with access to all required records. Each establishment selected for the program will need to provide the FSIS access to its records on an ongoing basis. The total number of estimated annual responses is 830.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,005 hours.

    Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250; (202)720-5627.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.

    Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe.

    Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How to File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410. Fax: (202) 690-7442. Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Done at Washington, DC, on August 19, 2016. Alfred V. Almanza, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20225 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Adjustment of Appendices for Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing for the 2016 Tariff-Rate Quota Year AGENCY:

    Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the revised appendices for Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing for the 2016 quota year reflecting the cumulative annual transfers from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 for certain dairy product import licenses permanently surrendered by licensees or revoked by the Licensing Authority.

    DATES:

    Effective August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Abdelsalam El-Farra, Dairy Import Licensing Program, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at (202) 720-9439; or by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Foreign Agricultural Service, under a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Agriculture, administers the Dairy Tariff-Rate Import Quota Licensing Regulation codified at 7 CFR 6.20-6.36 that provides for the issuance of licenses to import certain dairy articles under tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. These dairy articles may only be entered into the United States at the low-tier tariff by or for the account of a person or firm to whom such licenses have been issued and only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the regulation.

    Licenses are issued on a calendar year basis, and each license authorizes the license holder to import a specified quantity and type of dairy article from a specified country of origin. The Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, issues these licenses and, in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, monitors their use.

    The regulation at 7 CFR 6.34(a) states: “Whenever a historical license (Appendix 1) is not issued to an applicant pursuant to the provisions of § 6.23, is permanently surrendered or is revoked by the Licensing Authority, the amount of such license will be transferred to Appendix 2.” Section 6.34(b) provides that the cumulative annual transfers will be published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, this document sets forth the revised Appendices for the 2016 tariff-rate quota year.

    Issued at Washington, DC, the 13th day of July, 2016. Ronald Lord, Licensing Authority. BILLING CODE 3410-10-P EN26AU16.029 EN26AU16.030 EN26AU16.031
    [FR Doc. 2016-20248 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-C
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447) AGENCY:

    Willamette National Forest, USDA Forest Service

    ACTION:

    Notice of New Fee Site.

    SUMMARY:

    The Willamette National Forest is proposing recreation fees at six recreation sites. The Willamette National Forest proposes a $5/day fee for the use of facilities at three day use sites: Hackleman Old Growth Grove, Hardesty Trailhead, and McCredie Picnic Area. Two campgrounds have proposed fees: Alder Springs Campground at $10/night and Indigo Springs Campground at $12/night. For overnight use of a backcountry shelter, the Willamette National Forest proposes a nightly fee of $80 during the summer season and a per person fee of $7/night during the winter season. Funds from recreation fees will be used for the continued operation and maintenance of these sites and associated trails. These fees are only proposed and will be determined upon further analysis and public comment.

    DATES:

    Send any comments about these fee proposals by December 1, 2016 so comments can be compiled, analyzed and shared with a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. Fees may be implemented May, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tracy Beck, Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest, 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D, Springfield, OR, 97477

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Peterson, Recreation Program Manager, 541-225-6421 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    This new fee proposal will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Mountain View Shelter will be available for overnight rental. The proposed fee differs by season: a nightly fee of $80.00 during the summer season and a per person fee of $7.00/night during the winter season. Backcountry shelter rentals offer a unique experience and are a popular offering on National Forests. The shelter is not currently available for use during the spring, summer and fall season. In winter, the shelter is currently first come-first served yet often fills to capacity, causing visitors to ski or trek back to their vehicles. Reservations would enable visitors to plan ahead and know whether they will have a space in the shelter. The cabin offers views and a place for Nordic skiers to stay overnight or warm up during the day. Activities nearby include winter skiing, hiking and hunting. Access to the site in the winter is only by skis and by vehicle during the rest of the year. Fees will be used to maintain and operate the shelter.

    Indigo Springs Campground is currently a free site, with three campsites. Each campsite has a fire ring, picnic table, with garbage service and a vault restroom on-site. This campground is surrounded by a stand of old growth Douglas-fir and is close to the Middle Fork Trail. The springs for which the camp was named is nearby and can be enjoyed by walking an easy, 500 foot round-trip loop trail. Interpretive signs explain the role of the nearby historic Oregon Central Military Wagon Road and the role of the bull trout in the regional watershed ecosystem. The proposed fee is $12.00/night a campsite, and $6.00 per each additional vehicle per campsite.

    Alder Springs Campground is currently a free site, with six campsites. The campground is co-located with the Linton Lake Trailhead, which has an existing $5/day recreation fee. Campers currently use many of the same amenities as day users plus have the added benefit of their campsite, yet do this for free. The proposed fee addresses this inequity and is $10.00 for overnight camping, with a $5.00/night extra vehicle fee. This small, rustic campground is surrounded by towering Douglas fir trees. It is located on historic McKenzie Pass Highway (Hwy 242) about 90 minutes east of Eugene and provides easy access into the Three Sisters Wilderness.

    The Hardesty Trailhead is located on Highway 58, about 30 miles southeast of the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area. It was redeveloped in 2014, adding a vault restroom, picnic tables, hitching posts, and interpretation. It is a low elevation trailhead, providing year-round access to the Hardesty Trail and the South Willamette Trail, which provide access to the Goodman Creek and Eula Ridge trails. These trails are very popular with hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians.

    McCredie Picnic Area is located on Highway 58, about 10 miles east of the Oakridge, OR. It was redeveloped in 2014, adding a vault restroom, picnic tables, and interpretation. With picnic areas in view of the Salt Creek and trails to the water's edge, the easily accessible site provides a pleasant stopping point for travelers along Highway 58.

    Hackleman Old Growth Grove, located along Highway 20 about 39 miles east of Sweet Home, OR, has on-site interpretation, picnic tables, restrooms, and a fully accessible trail that travels through an old-growth grove of Douglas Fir trees.

    The proposed fee for Hardesty Trailhead, McCredie Picnic Area, and Hackleman Old Growth Grove is $5/day. Recreation passes, such as the Northwest Forest Pass, would also be accepted. Fees would help maintain and operate these sites, including adding garbage service.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Tracy Beck, Willamette National Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20291 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Inyo, Plumas, and Stanislaus National Forests; Mono, Inyo, Plumas, and Tuolumne Counties, California; Mammoth Base Land Exchange AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Inyo, Plumas, and Stanislaus National Forests intend to prepare and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate a proposed land exchange pursuant to section 206 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1716, and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues. The proposed exchange includes the conveyance of approximately 1,317.5 acres of a non-Federal land owned by Mammoth Main Lodge Redevelopment LLC (MMLR) to the United States in exchange for 30.6 acres of Federal land in the Inyo National Forest. The non-Federal parcels are located in Mono, Inyo, Plumas and Tuolumne Counties. The Federal parcels are located in Mono County.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 45 days from date of publication in the Federal Register. A public open house regarding this proposal will be held on September 8, 2016 (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further information on the open house).

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to: Edward Armenta, Forest Supervisor, c/o Janelle Walker, Winter Sports Specialist, Inyo National Forest, PO Box 148, Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546, FAX; (760) 924-5537 or by email to: [email protected] (please include “Mammoth Base Land Exchange EIS” in the subject line). Comments may also be submitted on the project Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.html?project=30428.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information related to the proposed project can be obtained from the project Web site, http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.html?project=30428, or by contacting Janelle Walker, Winter Sports Specialist, Inyo National Forest. Ms. Walker can be reached by phone at (760) 924-5523 or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Land Exchange

    (1) To acquire environmentally sensitive lands and an administrative site to better meet resource and other management goals of the National Forests as outlined in the respective Land and Resource Management Plans of the National Forests involved in this exchange; and

    (2) To exchange developed lands in the National Forest that encumber adequate management by the United States Forest Service and would better serve the community and economic needs of the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Mono County in private ownership.

    Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action is to complete a land exchange pursuant to section 206 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1716. Under the Proposed Action, the United States would convey approximately 30.6 acres of NFS lands within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest, and currently managed as part of a Ski Area Term Special Use Permit to MMLR. In exchange, MMLR would convey to the United States approximately 1,317.5 acres of privately owned lands (“inholdings”) located within the boundaries of the Inyo, Plumas and Stanislaus National Forests and one small parcel (approximately 1.66 acres) in Inyo County, California that is outside the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest.

    Federal Parcels

    Under the Proposed Action, two Federal parcels located within the municipal boundary limits of the Town of Mammoth Lakes—totaling approximately 30.6 acres—would be transferred to MMLR. The Federal parcels include an intensely developed tract containing structures that provide lodging and visitor services facilities at the main base area for the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, and an adjacent tract containing sewage ponds that receive and treat sewage from various Mammoth Mountain Ski Area facilities. The Federal parcels are located adjacent to California State Highway 203, approximately four miles west of the town center of Mammoth Lakes.

    Non-Federal Parcels

    Under the Proposed Action, 12 non-Federal parcels—totaling approximately 1,317.5 acres—would be transferred to the United States, to be managed by the United States Forest Service.

    Six of the non-Federal parcels are located inside the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. These parcels include the West Mono Lake Parcel (located inside the boundaries of the Congressionally designated Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area near the west shore of Mono Lake), the Lundy Canyon Parcel (patented mining claims located in or adjacent to the Hoover Wilderness northwest of Mono Lake), the Moran Springs Parcel (located in the Benton Range), Dexter Canyon Parcel (a large inholding southeast of Mono Lake), Madden Parcel (adjacent to Lake Mary Road in the Town of Mammoth Lakes), and the Pine Creek Parcel (located at the trailhead of the Pine Canyon Trail).

    The non-Federal parcel located outside the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest is located in Inyo County. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP)-Bishop Parcel is located in the City of Bishop, California, adjacent to the White Mountain Ranger District Office of the Inyo National Forest.

    One of the non-Federal parcels (Taylor Lake Parcel) is located inside the boundaries of the Plumas National Forest at Taylor Lake east of Greenville, California.

    Four of the non-Federal parcels are located inside the boundaries of the Stanislaus National Forest in the Clavey River watershed near Yosemite National Park.

    Additional information and maps of this proposal can be found on the project Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.html?project=30428

    Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official is Edward Armenta, Forest Supervisor for the Inyo National Forest.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The decision to be made is whether to authorize the Proposed Action as described above, modify the Proposed Action to address issues raised in public scoping, or to take no action at this time.

    Permits or Licenses Required

    Forest Service Special Use Permit

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed projects. A public meeting will be held on September 8, 2016 to share information and answer questions about the project. The meeting will be held in the town of Mammoth Lakes at the Council Chambers (Suite Z—437 Old Mammoth Road) from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

    This project will be subject to 36 CFR 254.8 Notice of Exchange Proposal. Individuals and entities who have submitted timely, specific written comments regarding a proposed project or activity during public comment periods, including this 45-day public scoping period, may file an objection (36 CFR 218.5(a)). Written comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection (36 CFR 218.25(b)(2)). For purposes of meeting the 36 CFR 218.5 eligibility requirements, the public scoping period will end 45 days from the date the Notice of Exchange Proposal is published in the Federal Register.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however those who only submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215.

    Dated: August 18, 2016. Edward E. Armenta, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20383 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest; Okanogan, Chelan and Skagit Counties, Washington; Pack Stock Outfitter Guide Special Use Permits Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare a supplement to a final environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the USDA, Forest Service will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to update and correct the Pack and Saddle Stock Outfitter-Guide Special Use Permit Issuance Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The Notice of Availability for the FEIS was published on March 8, 2013 (FR Vol. 78, No. 46, 15011). The Record of Decision for the FEIS was withdrawn in June 2013, after appeals were filed, and Regional Office review found portions of the analysis needed correction. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate a modification of FEIS Alternative 4 and make other corrections to provide pack stock outfitter and guide services on the Methow Valley, Chelan and Tonasket Ranger Districts of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

    DATES:

    The draft supplemental environmental impact statement is expected in October 2016 and the final supplemental environmental impact statement is expected February 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Zbyszewski, Project Team Leader, Methow Valley Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, (509) 996-4021, [email protected], or Paul Willard, Recreation Program Manager, Chelan Ranger District, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, (509)682-4960, [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact statements [40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)] and will not be conducted because of the limited nature of the additional analysis needed.

    The SEIS will be modified based on a new 2016 Needs Assessment and Extent Necessary Determination; the 2012 Needs Assessment was revised to more accurately calculate the extent of commercial services necessary in wilderness. FEIS Alternative 4 was modified to reduce the service days available in the Pasayten Wilderness to 1,640, and in the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth to 737 based on the 2016 Needs Assessment. The SEIS will also supplement, clarify, and update other information in the FEIS.

    The Responsible Official is Michael R. Williams, Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801.

    The Responsible Official will decide whether or not to issue term permits to the outfitters described in the proposed action presented in the FEIS and SEIS based on one or a combination of alternatives in the FEIS and/or SEIS. He will also decide what, if any, mitigation measures and monitoring are needed. The criteria that will be used to select among the alternatives are: (1) To what extent each alternative responds to applications for special use permits in a manner that provides stability to outfitter-guide businesses to allow financial commitments necessary to continue to provide public service; (2) the extent to which each alternative meets the minimum extent necessary for commercial services in Wilderness, to provide for wilderness appropriate activiteis, and protect wilderness character while providing pack and saddle stock outfitter-guide commercial services in the Pasayten and Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness areas; (3) the extent to which each alternative adesignates an amount of campsite barren core in wilderness used by the pack and saddle stock outfitter-guide that is compatible with party size, and (4) the effects of each alternative on the environment, particularly those aspects of the environment identified as Significant Issues.

    In the final SEIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal. The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest will be the Federal responsible official for this SEIS. The new Record of Decision will be based on both the FEIS and SEIS, and the Forest Supervisor's decision will be subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218.

    Dated: August 19, 2016. Michael R. Williams, Forest Supervisor, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20487 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Meetings AGENCY:

    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, September 12—14, 2016 at the times and location listed below.

    DATES:

    The schedule of events is as follows:

    Monday, September 12, 2016 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Technical Programs Committee 3:00-4:00 Ad Hoc Committee on Design Guidance Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:30 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues 11:00-11:30 Budget 11:30-Noon Planning and Evaluation 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Medical Diagnostic Equipment: CLOSED 2:30-4:00 Ad Hoc Committee on Information and Communication Technology: CLOSED Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:30 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Board Meeting ADDRESSES:

    Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information regarding the meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    At the Board meeting scheduled on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 14, 2016, the Access Board will consider the following agenda items:

    • Approval of the draft July 13, 2016 meeting minutes (vote)

    • Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Design Guidance; Frontier Issues; Medical Diagnostic Equipment (vote) and Information and Communication Technology

    • Technical Programs Committee

    • Budget Committee

    • Planning and Evaluation Committee

    • Election Assistance Commission Report

    • Executive Director's Report

    • Public Comment (final 15 minutes of the meeting)

    Members of the public can provide comments either in-person or over the telephone during the final 15 minutes of the Board meeting on Wednesday, September14, 2016. Any individual interested in providing comment is asked to pre-register by sending an email to [email protected] with the subject line “Access Board meeting—Public Comment” with your name, organization, state, and topic of comment included in the body of your email. All emails to register for public comment must be received by Wednesday, September 7, 2016. Registered commenters will be provided with a call-in number and passcode before the meeting. Commenters will be called on in the order by which they pre-registered. Due to time constraints, each commenter is limited to two minutes. Commenters on the telephone will be in a listen-only capacity until they are called on.

    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information). You may view the Wednesday, September 14, 2016 meeting through a live webcast from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at: www.access-board.gov/webcast.

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20470 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and services from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective on September 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 6/10/2016 (81 FR 37581-37582) and 7/1/2016 (81 FR 43191) the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6210-00-NIB-0006—Tube Light, LED, T8, Universal (Type A or B), 4100K, 2 Foot Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC Central Association for the Blind & Visually Impaired, Utica, NY Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: B-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6515-01-529-1187—Nasal Trumpet Mandatory for: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse Works, Orlando, FL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 5120-00-NIB-0163—Socket Set, Chrome, 1/4″ Drive Deep, Metric 6 Point Fasteners, 11 Pieces 5120-00-NIB-0164—Socket Set, Chrome, 1/4″ Drive Shallow, Metric 6 Point Fasteners, 11 Pieces 5120-01-429-3605—Socket Set, Chrome 3/8″ Drive Deep, Metric 6 Point Fasteners, 12 Pieces 5120-01-429-3550—Socket Set, Chrome, 1/2″ Drive Deep, Metric 12 Point Fasteners, 13 Pieces 5120-01-429-3569—Socket Set, Chrome, 1/2″ Drive Shallow, Metric 12 Point Fasteners, 13 Pieces Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Wiscraft, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Kansas City, MO Distribution: B-List Service Service Type: Dormitory Support Service Mandatory for: U.S. Air Force, Cannon Air Force Base (CAFB), Dormitory Campus, CAFB Fire Department, Base Confinement Area & Fire Department, Melrose AF Range, Cannon AFB, NM, 110 E Alison Avenue, Cannon AFB, NM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ENMRSH, Inc., Clovis, NM Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4855 27 SOCONS LGC Deletions

    On 7/15/2016 (81 FR 46061-46062) and 7/22/2016 (81 FR 47777-47778), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products and services 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 and services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products and services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7930-01-494-2985—Ecolab Omni-Pak, Floor Cleaner/Stripper, Heavy-Duty, Water Soluble, .5oz 7930-01-380-8404—EcoLab Water Soluble Cleaners/Detergents Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: GSA/FSS Greater Southwest Acquisition CTR (7FCO), Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7930-01-600-5752—Starter Kit, Disinfectant Cleaner-Degreaser Cartridge Concentrate 7930-01-600-5749—Refills, Disinfectant Cleaner-Degreaser Cartridge Concentrate Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activities: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Acquisition Center NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7930-01-380-8475—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 55 gal Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7930-01-380-8500—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 5 gal 7930-01-380-8350—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 1 gal Mandatory for: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 7045-01-392-6514—Greendisk Mandatory for: North Central Sight Services, Inc., Williamsport, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 6532-00-083-6534/Gown, Operating, Surgical 6532-00-083-6535—Gown, Operating, Surgical 6532-00-083-6356—Gown, Operating, Surgical 6532-00-104-9895—Gown, Hospital Mandatory for: Unknown Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Services Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory For: GSA, Southwest Supply Center, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Administrative Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Greater Chicagoland Service Center, 230 S Dearborn St #3700, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: VA Primary Care Clinic, 3715 Municipal Dr., McHenry, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: Veterans Affairs, Department of, NAC Service Type: Employment Placement Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency, National Human Resource Offices, Fort Belvoir, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency, DLA Support Services—DSS Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: General Services Administration, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Public Building Service Property Development, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Central Field Office, 536 S. Clark Street, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Parts Machining Service Mandatory for: Naval Supply Center (Bldg 467): Puget Sound, 467 W Street, Bremerton, WA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Assembly, Kit Camouflage Supp. Service Mandatory for: Department of the Army, Red River Army Depot, 469 Avenue L, Texarkana, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northeregion Contract OFC Service Type: Operation of Postal Service Center Service, Luke Air Force Base, 14185 Falcon St, Luke AFB, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Service Type: Switchboard Operation Service Mandatory for: Cannon Air Force Base, Cannon AFB, NM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ENMRSH, Inc., Clovis, NM Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4855 27 SOCONS LGC Service Type: Transportation/Vehicle Operation Service Mandatory for: Brooks Air Force Base, Brooks AFB, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA8901 311 ABG PKB Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: Chaplain's Office, Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Administrative Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Tampa Property Management Office, 501 E Polk Street, Tampa, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind, Tampa, FL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Storage & Distribution of Tape, Webbing Mandatory for: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, 2800 S 20th St, Philadelphia, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Type: Fabrication of Tool Box Liners Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center: P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Repair of Small Hand Tools Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center: P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind, Tampa, FL Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Parts Machining Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy
    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20536 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes service previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 9/25/2016.

    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 OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465-01-608-7503—Bag, Sleeping, Outer, Extreme Cold Weather (ECW OSB) U.S. Marine Corps, Regular 8465-01-623-2346—Bag, Sleeping, Outer, Extreme Cold Weather (ECW OSB) U.S. Marine Corps, Extra Long Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirements of Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List Product Name(s)—NSN(s): 8465-01-608-7507—Sack, Extreme Cold Weather Compression Stuff Sack, (ECW CSS) U.S. Marine Corps, One size fits all Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc., Seattle, WA Mandatory Purchase For: 50% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: C-List Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 8405-01-540-1280—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-SMALL X-SHORT 8405-01-540-1318—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-SMALL SHORT 8405-01-540-1328—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-SMALL REGULAR 8405-01-540-1339—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-SMALL LONG 8405-01-540-1350—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, SMALL X-SHORT 8405-01-540-1356—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, SMALL SHORT 8405-01-540-1363—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, SMALL REGULAR 8405-01-540-1375—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, SMALL X-LONG 8405-01-540-1430—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, SMALL LONG 8405-01-540-1464—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, LARGE XX-LONG 8405-01-540-1475—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-LARGE XX-LONG 8405-01-540-1436—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM X-SHORT 8405-01-540-1467—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-LARGE SHORT: 8405-01-540-1471—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-LARGE REGULAR 8405-01-540-1446—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM SHORT 8405-01-540-1447—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM REGULAR 8405-01-540-1450—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM LONG 8405-01-540-1451—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM X-LONG 8405-01-540-1472—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-LARGE LONG 8405-01-540-1473—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-LARGE X-LONG 8405-01-540-1455—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, MEDIUM XX-LONG 8405-01-540-1496—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-LARGE REGULAR 8405-01-540-1508—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-LARGE XX-LONG 8405-01-540-1458—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, LARGE SHORT 8405-01-540-1459—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, LARGE REGULAR 8405-01-540-1461—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, LARGE LONG 8405-01-540-1462—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, LARGE X-LONG 8405-01-540-1501—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large Long 8405-01-540-1506—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large X-Long Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support 8405-01-573-8838—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Regular 8405-01-573-8898—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Long 8405-01-574-6613—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Short 8405-01-574-6616—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Regular 8405-01-590-7676—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 X Short 8405-01-590-7835—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 37 Short 8405-01-573-8152—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Short 8405-01-573-8399—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Regular 8405-01-573-8370—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Short 8405-01-573-8362—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium X Short 8405-01-573-8350—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Long 8405-01-573-8253—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small X Long 8405-01-573-8244—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Regular 8405-01-573-8239—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Short 8405-01-573-8226—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small X Short 8405-01-573-8216—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Long 8405-01-573-8170—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Regular 8405-01-573-8831—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Short 8405-01-573-8443—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large XX Long 8405-01-573-8439—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large X Long 8405-01-573-8432—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Long 8405-01-573-8426—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Regular 8405-01-573-8421—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Short 8405-01-573-8417—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium XX Long 8405-01-573-8410—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium X Long 8405-01-573-8404—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Long 8405-01-573-9066—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large XX Long 8405-01-573-9065—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large X Long 8405-01-573-9016—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large Long 8405-01-573-9005—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large Regular 8405-01-573-8987—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large XX Long 8405-01-573-8924—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large X Long 8405-01-573-7890—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small X Short 8405-01-574-6864—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Regular 8405-01-574-6879—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium X Long 8405-01-574-6934—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Short 8405-01-574-6948—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Long 8405-01-574-7294—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large XX Long 8405-01-574-7747—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Regular 8405-01-574-8158—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large XX Long 8405-01-574-8175—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large Long 8405-01-574-8189—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large XX Long 8405-01-574-6039—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small X Short 8405-01-574-6047—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Short 8405-01-574-6588—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Regular 8405-01-574-6593—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Long 8405-01-574-6605—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small X Short 8405-01-574-6720—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small X Long 8405-01-574-6836—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Long 8405-01-574-6841—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium X Short 8405-01-574-6852—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Short 8405-01-574-6868—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Long 8405-01-574-6896—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium XX Long 8405-01-574-6944—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Regular 8405-01-574-7016—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large X Long 8405-01-574-7301—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Short 8405-01-574-7750—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Long 8405-01-574-7764—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large X Long 8405-01-574-8168—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large Regular 8405-01-574-8184—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large X Long 8405-01-590-7671—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 25 X Short 8405-01-590-7672—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 25 Short 8405-01-590-7679—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 Short 8405-01-590-7681—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 Regular 8405-01-590-7682—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 X Short 8405-01-590-7699—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 Short 8405-01-590-7726—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 Regular 8405-01-590-7747—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 37 Short 8405-01-590-7755—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 37 Regular 8405-01-590-7795—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 X Short 8405-01-590-7771—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 25 X Short 8405-01-590-7775—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 25 Short 8405-01-590-7811—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 Short 8405-01-590-7822—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 X Short 8405-01-590-7819—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 Regular 8405-01-590-7827—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 Short 8405-01-590-7832—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 Regular 8405-01-590-7837—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 37 Regular Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support 8405-01-540-1554—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 37 Regular 8405-01-540-1532—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 X-Short 8405-01-540-1549—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 37 Short 8405-01-540-1544—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 Regular 8405-01-540-1511—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 25 X-Short 8405-01-540-1513—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 25 Short 8405-01-540-1540—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 Short 8405-01-540-1527—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 Regular 8405-01-540-1522—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 Short 8405-01-540-1521—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 X-Short Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc., Miami, FL Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support 8405-01-540-1280—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Small X-Short 8405-01-540-1318—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Small Short 8405-01-540-1328—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Small Regular 8405-01-540-1339—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Small Long 8405-01-540-1350—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Small X-Short 8405-01-540-1356—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Small Short 8405-01-540-1363—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Small Regular 8405-01-540-1375—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Small X-Long 8405-01-540-1430—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Small Long 8405-01-540-1464—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Large XX-Long 8405-01-540-1475—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Large XX-Long 8405-01-540-1436—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium X-Short 8405-01-540-1467—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Large Short 8405-01-540-1471—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Large Regular 8405-01-540-1446—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium Short 8405-01-540-1447—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium Regular 8405-01-540-1450—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium Long 8405-01-540-1451—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium X-Long 8405-01-540-1472—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Large Long 8405-01-540-1473—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, X-Large X-Long 8405-01-540-1455—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Medium XX-Long 8405-01-540-1496—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large Regular 8405-01-540-1508—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large XX-Long 8405-01-540-1458—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Large Short 8405-01-540-1459—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Large Regular 8405-01-540-1461—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Large Long 8405-01-540-1462—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, Large X-Long 8405-01-540-1501—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large Long 8405-01-540-1506—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Blue Digital Camouflage, XX-Large X-Long Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support 8405-01-573-8838—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Regular 8405-01-573-8898—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Long 8405-01-574-6613—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Short 8405-01-574-6616—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Regular 8405-01-590-7676—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 X Short 8405-01-590-7835—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 37 Short 8405-01-573-8152—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Short 8405-01-573-8399—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Regular 8405-01-573-8370—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Short 8405-01-573-8362—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium X Short 8405-01-573-8350—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Long 8405-01-573-8253—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small X Long 8405-01-573-8244—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Regular 8405-01-573-8239—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small Short 8405-01-573-8226—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Small X Short 8405-01-573-8216—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Long 8405-01-573-8170—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small Regular 8405-01-573-8831—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large Short 8405-01-573-8443—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large XX Long 8405-01-573-8439—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large X Long 8405-01-573-8432—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Long 8405-01-573-8426—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Regular 8405-01-573-8421—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Large Short 8405-01-573-8417—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium XX Long 8405-01-573-8410—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium X Long 8405-01-573-8404—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, Medium Long 8405-01-573-9066—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large XX Long 8405-01-573-9065—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large X Long 8405-01-573-9016—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large Long 8405-01-573-9005—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, XX Large Regular 8405-01-573-8987—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large XX Long 8405-01-573-8924—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Large X Long 8405-01-573-7890—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type II, Desert, X Small X Short 8405-01-574-6864—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Regular 8405-01-574-6879—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium X Long 8405-01-574-6934—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Short 8405-01-574-6948—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Long 8405-01-574-7294—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large XX Long 8405-01-574-7747—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Regular 8405-01-574-8158—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large XX Long 8405-01-574-8175—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large Long 8405-01-574-8189—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large XX Long 8405-01-574-6039—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small X Short 8405-01-574-6047—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Short 8405-01-574-6588—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Regular 8405-01-574-6593—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Small Long 8405-01-574-6605—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small X Short 8405-01-574-6720—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small X Long 8405-01-574-6836—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Small Long 8405-01-574-6841—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium X Short 8405-01-574-6852—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Short 8405-01-574-6868—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium Long 8405-01-574-6896—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Medium XX Long 8405-01-574-6944—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large Regular 8405-01-574-7016—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, Large X Long 8405-01-574-7301—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Short 8405-01-574-7750—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large Long 8405-01-574-7764—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, X Large X Long 8405-01-574-8168—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large Regular 8405-01-574-8184—Trousers, NWU, Men's, Type III, Woodland, XX Large X Long 8405-01-590-7671—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 25 X Short 8405-01-590-7672—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 25 Short 8405-01-590-7679—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 Short 8405-01-590-7681—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 29 Regular 8405-01-590-7682—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 X Short 8405-01-590-7699—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 Short 8405-01-590-7726—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 33 Regular 8405-01-590-7747—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 37 Short 8405-01-590-7755—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type II, Desert, 37 Regular 8405-01-590-7795—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 X Short 8405-01-590-7771—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 25 X Short 8405-01-590-7775—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 25 Short 8405-01-590-7811—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 Short 8405-01-590-7822—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 X Short 8405-01-590-7819—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 29 Regular 8405-01-590-7827—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 Short 8405-01-590-7832—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 33 Regular 8405-01-590-7837—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Type III, Woodland, 37 Regular Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support 8405-01-540-1554—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 37 Regular 8405-01-540-1532—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 X-Short 8405-01-540-1549—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 37 Short 8405-01-540-1544—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 Regular 8405-01-540-1511—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 25 X-Short 8405-01-540-1513—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 25 Short 8405-01-540-1540—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 33 Short 8405-01-540-1527—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 Regular 8405-01-540-1522—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 Short 8405-01-540-1521—Trousers, NWU, Women's, Blue Digital Camouflage, 29 X-Short Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Services Service Type: CD-ROM Replication—Program 5588-S Service Mandatory for: Government Printing Office, US Government Publishing Office, Columbus, OH Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: Government Printing Office Service Type: CD-ROM Replication—Program A890-M Service Mandatory for: Government Printing Office, 710 North Capitol & H Street NW., Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: Government Printing Office Service Type: CD-ROM Replication—Program 2239S Service Mandatory for: Government Printing Office, Philadelphia Regional Printing Procurement Office, Southhampton, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: Government Printing Office Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Southwest Supply Center, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX; Tarrant County Association for the Blind, Fort Worth, TX; East Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Tyler, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Employment Placement Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency: National Human Resource Offices (HRO), Locations—Columbus, OH; Richmond, VA; Battle Creek, MI; Philadelphia, PA; New Cumberland, PA; Fort Belvoir, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Northeast Distribution Center: Federal Supply Service (3FS), Federal Supply Service (3FS) Burlington, NJ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Bestwork Industries for the Blind, Inc., Cherry Hill, NJ Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Mattress Resizing Service Mandatory for: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Mandatory for: McCoy Federal Building, 100 W Capitol St, Jackson, MS Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS Contracting Activity: Department of Housing and Urban Development Service Type: Order Processing Service Mandatory for: National Institute of Health, 31 Center Dr, Bethesda, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Health and Human Services, Department of, Dept of HHS Service Type: Data Entry/Data Base Management Service Mandatory for: GSA, Washington: Federal Supply Service Bureau, L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Mailroom Operation Service Mandatory for: Department of Housing and Urban Development, 600 E Broad St, Richmond, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: Health and Human Services, Department of, Dept of HHS Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: GSA, Federal Supply Service Bureau: Service Acquisition Center, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: GSA, Federal Supply Service Bureau: Fleet Management Division, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Customer Service Representatives Service Mandatory for: GSA, Springfield: Customer Supply and Industrial Products Center, GSA Franconia Bldg. A, Springfield, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, FPDS AGENCY COORDINATOR Service Type: Storage, Handling & Distribution of CLI Promotional Service Mandatory for: Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Service Type: Food Service Attendants Service Mandatory for: CRTC Dining Facility, 1401 Robert B. Miller Jr. Drive, Garden City, GA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Trace, Inc., Boise, ID Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA6643 AF Reserve CMD HQ AFRC PK

    The Commission is publishing a correction to its Notice published in the Federal Register on Friday, August 19, 2015 as follows. The correction adds an additional mandatory source of supply, Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI, but does not change the date published for public comments to be submitted to the U.S. AbilityOne Commission.

    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 Peckham Vocational Industries, Inc., Lansing, MI 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 Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20535 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned Patents AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7 (a)(1)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent 9,193,739, issued November 24, 2015, entitled, “Induction of highly specific antibodies to a hapten but not to a carrier peptide by immunization” and an exclusive within a field of use, royalty-bearing, revocable license to Patent Cooperation Treaty application PCT/US/2014/045940, filed July 9, 2014, entitled, “Methods for Enhancing the Immunostimulation Potency of Aluminum Salt-adsorbed Vaccines” to Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., having its principal place of business at 401 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Santa Monica, CA 90401.

    ADDRESSES:

    Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For licensing issues, Mr. Barry Datlof, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-0033. For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Anyone wishing to object to grant of this license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see ADDRESSES).

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20489 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Army Education Advisory Subcommittee Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open Subcommittee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors, a subcommittee of the Army Education Advisory Committee. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The U.S. Army War College Board of Visitors Subcommittee will meet from 8:15 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. on October 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Avenue, Carlisle, PA, Command Conference Room, Root Hall, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. G.K. Cunningham, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the subcommittee, in writing at Office of the Provost, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (717) 245-3356.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subcommittee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to provide the subcommittee with an overview of the U.S. Army War College Academic Campaign Plan and the annual year 17 curriculum, discuss Middle States and JPME II accreditation matters, and address other administrative matters.

    Proposed Agenda: The subcommittee will review and evaluate information related to the continued academic growth, accreditation, and development of the U.S. Army War College. General deliberations leading to provisional findings will be referred to the Army Education Advisory Committee for deliberation by the Committee under the open-meeting rules.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first to arrive basis. Attendees are requested to submit their, name, affiliation, and daytime phone number seven business days prior to the meeting to Dr. G.K. Cunningham, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public attending the subcommittee meetings will not be permitted to present questions from the floor or speak to any issue under consideration by the subcommittee.

    Because the meeting of the subcommittee will be held in a Federal Government facility on a military base, security screening is required. A photo ID is required to enter base. Please note that security and gate guards have the right to inspect vehicles and persons seeing to enter and exit the installation. Root Hall is fully handicap accessible. Wheelchair access is available in front at the main entrance of the building. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Dr. G.K Cunningham, the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the subcommittee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the subcommittee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Dr. G.K. Cunningham, the subcommittee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the subcommittee for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the subcommittee. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the subcommittee until its next meeting.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least seven business days in advance to the subcommittee's Alternate Designated Federal Official, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Alternate Designated Federal Official will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Subcommittee Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Subcommittee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three minutes during the period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Alternate Designated Federal Official.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20490 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0091]; [Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 26] Submission for OMB Review; Anti-Kickback Procedures AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning anti-kickback procedures. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 31239 on May 18, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405-0001. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-219-0202 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.203-7, Anti-Kickback Procedures, requires that all contractors have in place and follow reasonable procedures designed to prevent and detect in its own operations and direct business relationships, violations of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks. Whenever prime contractors or subcontractors have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of the statute may have occurred, they are required to report the possible violation in writing to the contracting agency inspector general, the head of the contracting agency if an agency does not have an inspector general, or the Department of Justice. The information is used to determine if any violations of the statute have occurred.

    There is no Governmentwide data collection process or system which identifies the number of alleged violations of 41 U.S.C. chapter 87, Kickbacks that are reported annually to agency inspectors general, the heads of the contracting agency if an agency does not have an inspector general, or the Department of Justice.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 100.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 100.

    Hours per Response: 20.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,000.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0091, Anti-Kickback Procedures, in all correspondence.

    Dated: August 22, 2016. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20431 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and To Announce Public Scoping Meetings for the Fallon Range Training Complex Modernization: Expansion of Land Ranges, Airspace Modifications, and Public Land Withdrawal Renewal AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental consequences of maintaining and modernizing the Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) in Nevada, which would include land range expansion through additional land withdrawal and land acquisition, airspace modifications, and public land withdrawal renewal. The Navy's action proponent for this proposal is Commander, United States Pacific Fleet (PACFLT). The Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service will participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

    DATES AND ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for public scoping meeting dates, times, and addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest; Attention: Amy P. Kelley, Code EV21.AK; 1220 Pacific Highway; Building 1, 5th Floor; San Diego, California 92132.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Since the initial operation of Naval Air Station Fallon in the 1940s and the formal establishment of the FRTC in 1977, the ranges and airspace of the FRTC have been extensively used by the DoN and other Services to conduct air warfare and ground training, including live-fire training activities. The FRTC is the DoN's premier integrated strike warfare training complex, supporting combat elements of PACFLT, United State (U.S.) Fleet Forces Command, U.S. Marine Corps, Naval Special Warfare Command, and others. It is located in the high desert of northern Nevada, 65 miles east of the city of Reno, Nevada, and is comprised of: Special Use Airspace (SUA), including restricted areas, Military Operations Areas (MOAs), and Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAAs); land training ranges; fixed and mobile land targets, and control facilities; threat electronic warfare, early warning radars, and surface-to-air missile systems; and instrumentation facilities.

    The current FRTC bombing ranges (B-16, B-17, B-19, and B-20) have not changed substantially in size or configuration since the 1990s. However, warfare technology, to include dynamic improvements to stand-off weapons, platform sensors, threat systems, and strike tactics, and the accuracy of applications that produce and manage safety footprints for air-to-ground weapons training, have continued to evolve. In response to these changes, and to formalize FRTC training requirements, the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (the DoN's primary authority on naval aviation training and tactics development), together with subject matter training experts from the Naval Special Warfare Command, conducted a training capabilities study. This study analyzed the capabilities that should be provided at the FRTC to meet evolving DoN training needs in air warfare, strike warfare, and Naval special warfare. It concluded that training capabilities currently available at the FRTC do not, and will not, meet the real-world training needs identified by Fleet and Unified Commanders. Therefore, to minimize the identified shortcomings and provide the responsive and realistic training capabilities needed to meet evolving aviation and ground training requirements, PACFLT proposes to maintain and modernize the capabilities of the FRTC, including its land ranges, airspace, and infrastructure. The proposed modernization would have the benefit of maintaining and enhancing the safety and security of local and regional populations and infrastructure.

    PACFLT's proposed action includes the renewal of the existing 202,859-acre public land withdrawal that expires on November 6, 2021; the withdrawal and reservation for military use of approximately 604,744 acres of additional public land to expand existing land ranges; acquisition of approximately 65,160 acres of non-federal land to expand existing land ranges; expansion of associated SUA, as well as reconfiguration of existing airspace; and modification of range infrastructure to support expansion and modernization. The aviation and ground training to be conducted in the modernized FRTC would be of the same general types and at the same tempos as analyzed by PACFLT in Alternative 2 of the Final EIS for Military Readiness Activities at Fallon Range Training Complex, Nevada (December 2015). Specific details concerning the proposed land expansion and SUA reconfiguration may be found on the project Web site at www.FRTCModernization.com.

    The EIS will also assess the potential environmental effects of the no action alternative. Under the no action alternative, there would be no renewal of the existing land withdrawal, which expires on November 6, 2021, and there would be no range expansion, airspace changes, or modification of range infrastructure. As a result, the DoN would reassess the military mission of NAS Fallon and the FRTC.

    In addition to the proposed action and the no action alternative, the EIS will also assess the potential environmental effects of other action alternatives. Public comments submitted during the scoping process will inform PACFLT's development of other action alternatives for analysis in the EIS.

    Federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, Native American Tribes and Nations, and interested persons are encouraged to provide comments to PACFLT to identify specific community interests, issues, or topics of environmental concern that PACFLT should consider in the EIS. Resource areas to be addressed in the EIS will include soils; air quality/climate; water quality; airborne noise; biological resources; land use and recreation; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and the protection of children; transportation; cultural resources; Native American traditional resources; and public health and safety.

    The public scoping process starts with the publication of this Notice of Intent. Seven open house information sessions are scheduled to receive oral or written comments on issues to be addressed in the EIS:

    1. Monday, October 3, 2016, 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Fallon Convention Center, 100 Campus Way, Fallon, NV 89406.

    2. Tuesday, October 4, 2016, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Pershing County Community Center, 820 6th Street, Lovelock, NV 89419.

    3. Tuesday, October 4, 2016, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Evelyn Mount Northeast Community Center, 1301 Valley Road, Reno, NV 89512.

    4. Wednesday, October 5, 2016, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Emma Nevada Town Hall, 135 Court Street, Austin, NV 89310.

    5. Thursday, October 6, 2016, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Eureka Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room, 431 McCoy Street, Eureka, NV 89316.

    6. Friday, October 7, 2016, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Hawthorne Convention Center, 950 E Street, Hawthorne, NV 89415.

    7. Friday, October 7, 2016, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Gabbs School Gymnasium, 511 E Avenue, Gabbs, NV 89409.

    Each of the seven information sessions will begin with a brief presentation about the project, followed by an open house with information stations staffed by PACFLT and DoN representatives. Additional information concerning each open house, as well as further project information, is available on the EIS Web page: http://www.FRTCModernization.com.

    All comments, provided orally or in writing at the scoping meetings, or submitted via the project Web site or the U.S. Postal Service will be taken into consideration during EIS preparation. All comments must be postmarked or received online no later than November 25, 2016. Comments should be mailed to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest; Attention: Amy P. Kelley, Code EV21.AK; 1220 Pacific Highway; Building 1, 5th Floor; San Diego, California 92132.

    Dated: August 18, 2016. C. Pan, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20502 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Executive Order 12114, the United States Department of the Navy (Navy) has prepared and filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS/SOEIS) for employment of SURTASS LFA sonar.

    DATES AND ADDRESSES:

    The public comment period for the SURTASS LFA sonar Draft SEIS/SOEIS will be open for 45 days, from August 26 to October 11, 2016. The Final SEIS/SOEIS is expected to be completed by June 2017. Written comments on the SURTASS LFA sonar Draft SEIS/SOEIS may be submitted by mail to: SURTASS LFA sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203-1632, or by Email: [email protected] The Draft SEIS/SOEIS is available for download via the project Web site: http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. Comments must be postmarked or received by October 11, 2016, to ensure they are considered in the Final SEIS/SOEIS.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    SURTASS LFA sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203-1632, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In continuance of the Navy's commitment to responsible stewardship of the marine environment and building upon analyses and information included in the Navy's 2001 Final Overseas Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS/EIS) published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2001 (66 FR 8788), 2007 Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2007 (72 FR 25302), 2012 Final SEIS/SOEIS published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2012 (77 FR 34041), and 2015 Final SEIS/SOEIS published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5109), the Navy has prepared a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with continued employment of SURTASS LFA sonar systems. Hereafter, “SURTASS LFA sonar systems” is inclusive of both the LFA and Compact LFA sonar systems, each having similar acoustic transmission characteristics.

    The Navy proposes to continue employing up to four SURTASS LFA sonar systems onboard up to four Navy surveillance ships for routine training, testing, and military operations in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans and the Mediterranean Sea, including certain geographic limitations on operation of SURTASS LFA sonar and implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures. The Draft SEIS/SOEIS evaluates the environmental impacts associated with two action alternatives and a No-Action Alternative. The primary difference between the action alternatives is that the Navy's preferred alternative reduces the annual permitted allowance of LFA sonar transmissions from 432 hours (Alternative 1) to 255 hours (Alternative 2) per ship. The Draft SEIS/SOEIS and associated analyses will also be used to support consultations associated with required regulatory permits and authorizations effective in 2017.

    The Draft SEIS/SOEIS was distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and organizations, Native Alaskan and Native Tribal governments and organizations, and other interested parties. The Draft SEIS/SOEIS is available for public viewing and downloading at the following project Web site: http://www.surtass-lfa-eis.com. Compact disc copies of the Draft SEIS/SOEIS are available upon request from: SURTASS LFA Sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203-1632, Email: [email protected] Compact discs of the Draft SEIS/OEIS are available for public review at the following public libraries:

    1. Jacksonville Public Library, 303 N. Laura Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202;

    2. Camden County Public Library, 1410 Hwy 40 E, Kingsland, GA 31548;

    3. Ben May Main Library, 701 Government Street, Mobile, AL 36602;

    4. Meridian-Lauderdale County Public Library, 2517 7th Street, Meridian, MS 39301;

    5. New Orleans Public Library, 219 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70112;

    6. Houston Public Library, 500 McKinney Street, Houston, TX 77002;

    7. New Hanover County Public Library, 201 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC 28401;

    8. Anne Arundel County Public Library, 1410 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401;

    9. Charleston County Public Library, 68 Calhoun Street, Charleston, SC 29401;

    10. Mary D. Pretlow Anchor Branch Library, 111 W. Ocean View Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23503;

    11. Portland Public Library, 5 Monument Square, Portland, ME 04101;

    12. Providence Public Library, 150 Empire Street, Providence, RI 02903;

    13. Boston Public Library, 700 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116;

    14. The Seattle Public Library, 1000 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104;

    15. Los Angeles Public Library, 630 W. 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071;

    16. San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, CA 94102;

    17. Oregon State University, 250 Winter Street NE., Salem, OR 97301;

    18. Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508;

    19. Hawaii State Library, 478 South King Street, Honolulu, HI 96813;

    20. Nieves M. Flores Memorial Public Library, 254 Martyr Street, Hagåtña, Guam 96910; and

    21. The Feleti Barstow Public Library, Pago Pago, American Samoa, 96799.

    Written comments on the Draft SEIS/SOEIS can be submitted by mail: SURTASS LFA Sonar SEIS/SOEIS Program Manager, 4350 Fairfax Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203-1632, or by Email: [email protected] All written comments must be postmarked by October 11, 2016 to ensure that they become part of the official record. All timely comments will be addressed in the Final SEIS/SOEIS. No public hearings or meetings will be held.

    Dated: August 18, 2016. C. Pan, Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20500 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated From DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intention to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for its proposal to disposition depleted uranium oxide (DUOX) conversion product from its depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facilities at the Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, sites at up to three offsite low-level waste disposal facilities. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0359-S1; DOE/EIS-0360-S1) will analyze potential environmental impacts from the proposed action to identify a final disposition location or locations for the DUOX conversion product from both operating DUF6 conversion facilities.

    The proposed scope of the draft SEIS includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts from activities associated with the transportation to and disposition of depleted uranium oxide at three proposed disposition location alternatives: the DOE-owned low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada; the EnergySolutions, LLC (formerly known as Envirocare of Utah, Inc.) low-level waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah; and the newly identified location at the Waste Control Specialists, LLC (WCS) low-level waste disposal facility in Andrews, Texas.

    ADDRESSES:

    Questions concerning the project or requests to be placed on the document distribution list can be sent to: Ms. Jaffet Ferrer-Torres, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy, EM-4.22, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; or to [email protected] Additional information regarding the SEIS is available at: http://www.energy.gov/em/disposition-uranium-oxide-conversion-depleted-uranium-hexafluoride.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on DOE's DUF6 long-term management and disposal program, please contact Ms. Jaffet Ferrer-Torres, U.S. Department of Energy at the above ADDRESSES.

    For information on DOE's NEPA process, please contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756; or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The use of uranium as fuel for nuclear power plants or for military applications requires increasing the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope found in natural uranium. Industrial uranium enrichment in the United States began as part of atomic bomb development during World War II. Uranium enrichment for both civilian and military uses was continued by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and its successor agencies, including DOE. Uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion was carried out at three locations: the Paducah Site in Kentucky, the Portsmouth Site in Ohio, and the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

    DUF6 results from the uranium enrichment process. The DUF6 that remains after enrichment typically contains 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent uranium-235 and has been stored as a solid in large metal cylinders at the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facilities. The DUF6 must be converted into a more stable form for disposal. The conversion process results in DUOX and aqueous hydrogen fluoride 1 (HF). DOE's existing inventory has over 760,000 metric tons (MT) (1 MT = 1,000 kilograms, approximately 2,205 pounds) of DUF6. Approximately 54,000 MT, or 7% of this total, has already been converted at the end of calendar year 2015. DUF6 is stored as a solid in steel cylinders that each hold approximately 10 to 14 MT of material. These cylinders are stacked two layers high in outdoor areas known as “yards.” The Paducah Site has approximately 44,000 DUF6 cylinders, and the Portsmouth Site has approximately 19,000 DUF6 cylinders, for a total of about 63,000 cylinders. All DUF6 cylinders produced at facilities in Tennessee were previously transported to the Portsmouth Site. Operating at planned capacity, the conversion plants would produce approximately 10,800 MT (11,900 tons) of DUOX annually at Portsmouth and 14,300 MT (15,800 tons) of DUOX annually at Paducah. The duration to convert the inventory of DUF6 to DUOX is expected to be 18 years for the Portsmouth DUF6 inventory and 25 years for Paducah's larger DUF6 inventory.

    1 The HF produced during conversion will be recycled into commercial product.

    Relationship to Existing NEPA Analyses

    This SEIS represents the third phase of an environmental review process being used to evaluate and implement the DUF6 long-term management program. As a first step and pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and DOE NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR part 1021, respectively, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF6 inventory in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF 6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999 (64 FR 19999; April 23, 1999). In the DUF6 PEIS Record of Decision (ROD) (64 FR 43358; August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities or disposal at that time, but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review.

    In June 2004, DOE issued two EISs for construction and operation of DUF6 conversion facilities and other actions at its Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio sites (69 FR 34161; June 18, 2004). Both the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky Site (DOE/EIS-0359) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio Site (DOE/EIS-0360) were prepared as a second phase of the environmental review process to evaluate and implement DOE's DUF6 long-term management program. These EISs evaluated the potential environmental impacts of transportation and disposition of depleted uranium oxide at two potential off-site locations: at the DOE-owned low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at the Nevada Test Site (now known as NNSS), and at Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (now known as EnergySolutions, LLC), a commercial low-level waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah. RODs were published for both of these EISs on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44649, 69 FR 44654). However, DOE deferred a decision on the transportation and disposition of the conversion product and committed to addressing that action at a later date.

    In 2007, DOE prepared a draft Supplement Analysis (SA), in accordance with DOE NEPA implementing regulations at 10 CFR 1021.314, in order to determine whether there were substantial changes to the proposal or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that require preparation of a Supplemental EIS to decide disposition locations committed to in the 2004 RODs. DOE made the Draft Supplement Analysis for Location(s) to Dispose of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS-0359-SA-1 and DOE/EIS-0360-SA-1) publicly available on April 3, 2007 (72 FR 15869). The comments received associated with the scope of the draft SA suggested consideration of WCS's Andrews, Texas, site as a reasonable alternative, which will be considered in this SEIS. DOE determined that more time was needed to allow for resolution of regulatory questions at the disposal sites and did not issue a final SA.

    In August 2014, the WCS facility near Andrews, Texas, was granted a license amendment by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that would allow disposal of bulk uranium. As a result, DOE assumes, for purposes of planning, that WCS may be a new reasonable alternative as a disposal site for depleted uranium oxide conversion product. After due consideration of the existing DOE NEPA analyses summarized above, and any changes in the disposition activities currently being considered, DOE determined in March 2016 that a Supplemental EIS is warranted given that there are substantial changes to the proposal (in this case, a new alternative disposal site is under consideration), or potentially significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns given the time lapse since the 2004 EISs.

    Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    The purpose and need for this action is to dispose of DUOx that results from converting DOE's DUF6 inventory to a more stable chemical form. This need follows directly from the decisions presented in the 2004 RODs for construction and operation of DUF6 conversion facilities and other NEPA actions at its Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio sites, that deferred DOE's decision related to the transportation to and disposal of depleted uranium oxide at potential off-site facilities.

    Alternatives Considered

    The proposed scope of the draft SEIS includes an analysis of the potential impacts from three action alternatives and the No Action alternative (in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14). Under the No Action alternative, transportation to and disposal of the conversion product at an offsite low-level waste disposal facility would not occur and refilled cylinders of DUOx conversion product would remain at the DUF6 conversion facility sites at DOE's Paducah and Portsmouth sites. The SEIS will also analyze and compare the potential impacts from three action alternatives that include transportation to and disposal of DUOx at three proposed alternative locations, including government-owned and privately-owned facilities: (1) The DOE-owned Area 5 waste disposal facility at the NNSS; (2) the EnergySolutions LLC, low-level waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah; and (3) the newly identified location at the WCS federal low-level waste disposal facility in Andrews, Texas.

    The SEIS analysis will include a review of available environmental data and information; comparative analyses of potential environmental and human health and safety impacts of DUOx disposal at the three alternative locations (including updated information for the two offsite disposal locations previously identified and studied in the 2004 EISs); analyses of the potential environmental impacts of transporting DUOx by rail or truck to each alternative site; and an evaluation of the No Action alternative.

    Identification of Environmental Issues

    The SEIS will examine potential public health and safety effects and environmental impacts from the proposed action. This notice is intended to inform agencies and the public of DOE's proposal. Although the following is not intended to be all inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts, these general categories of impacts will be considered in the SEIS: Land use; geology, soils, and geologic hazards, including seismicity; water resources (surface water and groundwater); biological resources; protected, threatened and endangered species, including species of special concern; human health and safety (both routine operations and potential accidents); air quality; noise; cultural and historic resources; waste management; environmental justice; and socioeconomics.

    Public Participation in the SEIS Process

    A public scoping process is optional for DOE Supplemental EISs (10 CFR 1021.311(f)), and there will be none for this project. However, DOE will provide opportunities for public review and comment, including public hearings, on the draft SEIS.

    SEIS Preparation and Schedule

    DOE expects to issue the draft SEIS in 2016.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 19, 2016. Frank Marcinowski, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20501 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2119-000] Hartree Partners, LP; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Hartree Partners, LP's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 8, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 19, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20435 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-117-000.

    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.

    Description: Second Supplement to May 10, 2016 Application of Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation for Authorization under FPA Section 203 to Acquire Jurisdictional Assets.

    Filed Date: 8/16/16.

    Accession Number: 20160816-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-168-000.

    Applicants: NRG Renew LLC, Four Brothers Holdings, LLC, Granite Mountain Renewables, LLC, Iron Springs Renewables, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of NRG Renew LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160818-5339.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-136-000.

    Applicants: Boulder Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Boulder Solar II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2980-007; ER10-2983-007.

    Applicants: Castleton Power, LLC, Castleton Energy Services, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Castleton Power, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1933-004; ER13-1816-004; ER11-2935-006; ER10-2423-007; ER10-2414-005; ER10-2412-005; ER10-2411-005; ER10-2410-004; ER10-2409-004; ER10-2408-004; ER10-2406-005; ER10-2404-007; ER10-2399-004; ER10-2398-004.

    Applicants: Blackstone Wind Farm, LLC, Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC, Flat Rock Windpower LLC, Flat Rock Windpower II LLC, Headwaters Wind Farm LLC, High Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Marble River, LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm II LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm III LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm IV LLC, Meadow Lake Wind Farm LLC, Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC, Paulding Wind Farm II LLC, Sustaining Power Solutions LLC.

    Description: Supplement to August 10, 2016 Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Blackstone Wind Farm, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1922-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-08-19_Amendment to tariff revisions for MPFPs to be effective 8/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2441-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: DSA SBVMWD Waterman Hydroelectric Project to be effective 10/18/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160818-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2442-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Fast Track GIA and Service Agreement for SCE—PPA Project to be effective 8/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160818-5271.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2443-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: NextEra Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC MBR Application to be effective 8/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160818-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2444-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance re: revenue allocation—sale of historic fixed price TCCs to be effective 10/18/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2446-000.

    Applicants: 4C Acquisition, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 4CA Transfer of Functional Control Agreement to be effective 10/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2447-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-19_SA 2837 Termination of NSP-North Star Solar PV LLC E&P (J385) to be effective 9/11/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2448-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Boone Transmission Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2449-000.

    Applicants: Boulder Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Initial rate filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2450-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 287—Letter of Concurrence to be effective 10/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2451-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Forward Capacity Market Enhancements to be effective 10/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5220.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2452-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Generator Special Facilities Service Agreement No. 83 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES16-53-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc. for authorization to issue securities and authorization to engage in methods of issuance other than competitive bidding and negotiated offers.

    Filed Date: 8/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160819-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/9/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 19, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20434 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9028-7] 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 Filed 08/15/2016 Through 08/19/2016 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. 20160188, Final, NHTSA, NAT, Phase 2 Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Review Period Ends: 09/26/2016, Contact: James Tamm 202-493-0515 EIS No. 20160189, Final, BLM, WY, Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Review Period Ends: 09/26/2016, Contact: Tom Sunderland 307-332-8400 EIS No. 20160190, Draft, NMFS, OR, Analyze Impacts of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Proposed Approval of the Continued Operation of 10 Hatchery Facilities for Trout, Salmon, and Steelhead Along the Oregon Coast, as Described in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans Pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, Comment Period Ends: 10/26/2016, Contact: Lance Kruzic 541-957-3381 EIS No. 20160191, Draft, NOAA, HI, Enhancing Protections for Hawaiian Spinner Dolphins to Prevent Disturbance, Comment Period Ends: 10/24/2016, Contact: Susan Pultz 808-725-5150 EIS No. 20160192, Draft Supplement, USN, Other, Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar, Comment Period Ends: 10/11/2016, Contact: LCDR Mark Murnane 703-695-2866 Dated: August 23, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20537 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0474; FRL-9950-66] Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals; Establishment of a Federal Advisory Committee; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), EPA is giving notice that, pursuant to section 2625(o) of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the Agency is establishing the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). The purpose of the SACC is to provide independent advice and expert consultation, at the request of the EPA Administrator, with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches supporting implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Copies of the SACC charter will be filed with the appropriate congressional committees and the Library of Congress. The 14 members of the SACC will be selected from interested and available members of the existing EPA Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC). In addition, EPA invites the public to nominate experts to be considered for the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.

    DATES:

    Nominations and comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your nominations and comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0474, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Knott, DFO, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-0103; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, disposal, and/or interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What is EPA's authority?

    This committee is being established under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, and pursuant to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.

    II. Purpose and Function of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals

    The SACC is being established under FACA section 9(a), and pursuant to section 2625(o) of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to provide advice and recommendations on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches.

    EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) manages programs under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq. Under these laws, EPA evaluates new and existing chemical substances and their risks, and finds ways to prevent or reduce pollution before it is released into the environment. OPPT also manages a variety of environmental stewardship programs that encourage companies to reduce and prevent pollution.

    The SACC will be composed of approximately 14 members who will serve as Special Government Employees or Regular Government Employees (RGEs). The SACC expects to meet in person or by electronic means (e.g., webinar) approximately 3 to 4 times a year, or as needed and approved by the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Meetings will be held in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The charter will be in effect for 2 years from the date it is filed with Congress. After the initial 2-year period, the charter will be renewed as authorized in accordance with section 14 of FACA (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, Section 14). A copy of the charter will be available on the EPA Web site and in the docket.

    III. Nominations Sought

    Potentially, 9 of the 14 members of the SACC will be selected from interested and available members of the existing EPA Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC). Brief biographical sketches for CSAC members are posted on the CSAC Web site at https://www.epa.gov/csac/chemical-safety-advisory-committee-members. CSAC members who are interested and available for the SACC include:

    1. Holly Davies, Ph.D., Senior Toxicologist, Department of Ecology, State of Washington, Olympia, WA.

    2. William Doucette, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

    3. Panos G. Georgopoulos, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences—School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.

    4. Kathleen Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.

    5. John Kissel, Ph.D., Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

    6. Jaymie Meliker, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Program in Public Health, Department of Family, Population, & Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY.

    7. Kenneth Portier, Ph.D., Vice President, Statistics and Evaluation Center, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA.

    8. Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology and Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA.

    9. Kristina Thayer, Ph.D., Deputy Division Director of Analysis and Director, Office of Health Assessment and Translation, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC.

    In addition to the 9 interested and available members of CSAC, EPA anticipates selecting 5 new members for the SACC. Nominations for membership are being solicited through publication of this document in the Federal Register and through other sources. Any interested person or organization may nominate him or herself or any qualified individual to be considered for the SACC. Nominations should include candidates who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to chemical risk assessment and pollution prevention. In particular, the nominees should include representation of the following disciplines, including, but not limited to: Human health and ecological risk assessment, biostatistics, epidemiology, pediatrics, physiologically-based pharmacokinetics (PBPK), toxicology and pathology (including neurotoxicology, developmental/reproductive toxicology, and carcinogenesis), and chemical exposure to susceptible life stages and subpopulations (including women, children, and others). EPA values and welcomes diversity and encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    IV. Selection Criteria

    In addition to scientific expertise, in selecting members, EPA will consider the differing perspectives and breadth of collective experience needed to address EPA's charge to the SACC, as well as the following:

    • Background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of scientific viewpoints on the committee, including professional experiences in government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups, as the EPA Administrator determines to be advisable (e.g., geographical location; social and cultural backgrounds; and professional affiliations);

    • Skills and experience working on committees and advisory panels including demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively in a committee setting;

    • Absence of financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a loss of impartiality;

    • Willingness to commit adequate time for the thorough review of materials provided to the committee; and

    • Availability to participate in committee meetings.

    The names, affiliations and brief biographical sketches of the interested and available nominees will be published in the Federal Register for a 30 day public comment period. This same information for those who are selected by EPA to serve on the SACC will be available on the EPA Web site at https://www.epa.gov/csac.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2625 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et seq.

    Dated: August 17, 2016. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20550 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0411; FRL-9950-21] Mercury Compounds; Prohibition of Export AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA was directed by Congress to publish in the Federal Register a list of mercury compounds that are prohibited from export, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Act), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Act was enacted on June 22, 2016. Effective January 1, 2020, the statute prohibits export of: Mercury (I) chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide, unless those mercury compounds are exported to member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for environmentally sound disposal, on the condition that no mercury or mercury compounds so exported are to be recovered, recycled, or reclaimed for use, or directly reused, after such export. EPA is not soliciting comments on this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Sue Slotnick, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-1973; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture or export any of the five listed mercury compounds. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS code 325180), e.g., manufacturers of basic inorganic chemicals (except industrial gases and synthetic dyes and pigments);

    • All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing (NAICS code 325998), e.g., manufacturers of chemical products (except basic chemicals, resins, synthetic rubber; cellulosic and noncellulosic fiber and filaments; pesticides, fertilizers, and other agricultural chemicals; pharmaceuticals and medicines; paints, coatings and adhesives; soap, cleaning compounds, and toilet preparations; printing inks; explosives; custom compounding of purchased resins; and photographic films, papers, plates, and chemicals);

    • Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing (NAICS code 334516), e.g., manufacturers of instruments and instrumentation systems for laboratory analysis of the chemical or physical composition or concentration of samples of solid, fluid, gaseous, or composite material; or

    • Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 424690), e.g., merchant wholesale distributors of chemicals and allied products (except agricultural and medicinal chemicals, paints and varnishes, fireworks, and plastics materials and basic forms and shapes).

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    As directed in TSCA section 12(c)(7)(B), 15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(B), EPA is publishing a list of mercury compounds prohibited from export under TSCA section 12(c), as amended. EPA must publish this list not later than 90 days after June 22, 2016 (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(B)). Effective January 1, 2020, the statute prohibits export of: Mercury (I) chloride or calomel; mercury (II) oxide; mercury (II) sulfate; mercury (II) nitrate; and cinnabar or mercury sulphide (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(A)(i)-(v)). The respective Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Numbers (CASRN) associated with the enumerated chemical substances are: 10112-91-1, 21908-53-2, 7783-35-9, 10045-94-0, and 1344-48-5. The statute also provides that EPA, on determining that exporting any additional mercury compound for the purpose of regenerating elemental mercury is technically feasible, may add by rule such mercury compound to the published list (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(A)(vi)). In addition, any person may petition EPA to add a mercury compound to this published list (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(C)). The statute provides an exception to the export prohibition for export of listed mercury compounds to member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for environmentally sound disposal, on the condition that no mercury or mercury compounds so exported are to be recovered, recycled, or reclaimed for use, or directly reused, after such export (15 U.S.C. 2611(c)(7)(D)). EPA is not soliciting comments on this notice.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2611(c)

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20534 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0498; FRL-9951-53-OGC] Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement to settle lawsuits filed by CTA Construction and Environmental, LLC, and National Electric Coil, Inc. (“Petitioners”), in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: CTA Construction and Environmental, LLC, et al., v. EPA, Nos. 15-72796 and 15-72810. On September 15, 2015, Petitioners filed petitions for review challenging, generally, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) July 15, 2015, administrative compliance order (“Amended Order”) issued by EPA under the CAA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and challenging, specifically, the CAA provisions of the Amended Order. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Petitioners will voluntarily dismiss their petitions for review of the Amended Order, with prejudice, in exchange for EPA's agreement that EPA will not seek administrative or civil penalties from the Petitioners for the CAA violations alleged in the Amended Order.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0498, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by email to [email protected]; mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1272; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    The proposed settlement agreement would settle Petitioners' petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging, under CAA section 307(b)(1), the CAA provisions of the Amended Order. The proposed settlement agreement would require Petitioners to voluntarily dismiss their petitions for review of the Amended Order, with prejudice, in exchange for EPA's agreement that EPA will not seek administrative or civil penalties from the Petitioners for the CAA violations alleged in the Amended Order. The proposed settlement agreement also provides for each party to bear its own litigation costs.

    For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to the agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement Agreement A. How can I get a copy of the proposed settlement agreement?

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0498 which contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: August 18, 2016. Lorie J. Schmidt, Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20403 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1035] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 25, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1035.

    Title: Part 73, Subpart F International Broadcast Stations.

    Form No.: FCC Forms 309, 310 and 311.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents/Responses: 225 respondents; 225 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2-720 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion, semi-annual, weekly and annual reporting requirements.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 334, 336 and 554.

    Total Annual Burden: 20,096 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $97,025.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a three year extension of the information collection titled “Part 73, Subpart F International Broadcast Stations” under OMB Control No. 3060-1035. This information collection is used by the Commission to assign frequencies for use by international broadcast stations, to grant authority to operate such stations and to determine if interference or adverse propagation conditions exist that may impact the operation of such stations. The Commission collects this information pursuant to 47 CFR part 73, subpart F. If the Commission did not collect this information, it would not be in a position to effectively coordinate spectrum for international broadcasters or to act for entities in times of frequency interference or adverse propagation conditions. Therefore, the information collection requirements are as follows:

    FCC Form 309—Application for Authority To Construct or Make Changes in an International, Experimental Television, Experimental Facsimile, or a Developmental Broadcast Station—The FCC Form 309 is filed on occasion when the applicant is requesting authority to construct or make modifications to the international broadcast station.

    FCC Form 310—Application for an International, Experimental Television, Experimental Facsimile, or a Developmental Broadcast Station License—The FCC Form 310 is filed on occasion when the applicant is submitting an application for a new international broadcast station.

    FCC Form 311—Application for Renewal of an International or Experimental Broadcast Station License—The FCC Form 311 is filed by applicants who are requesting renewal of their international broadcast station licenses.

    47 CFR 73.702(a) states that six months prior to the start of each season, licensees and permittees shall by informal written request, submitted to the Commission in triplicate, indicate for the season the frequency or frequencies desired for transmission to each zone or area of reception specified in the license or permit, the specific hours during which it desires to transmit to such zones or areas on each frequency, and the power, antenna gain, and antenna bearing it desires to use. Requests will be honored to the extent that interference and propagation conditions permit and that they are otherwise in accordance with the provisions of section 47 CFR 73.702(a).

    47 CFR 73.702(b) states that two months before the start of each season, the licensee or permittee must inform the Commission in writing as to whether it plans to operate in accordance with the Commission's authorization or operate in another manner.

    47 CFR 73.702(c) permits entities to file requests for changes to their original request for assignment and use of frequencies if they are able to show good cause. Because international broadcasters are assigned frequencies on a seasonal basis, as opposed to the full term of their eight-year license authorization, requests for changes need to be filed by entities on occasion.

    47 CFR 73.702 (note) states that permittees who during the process of construction wish to engage in equipment tests shall by informal written request, submitted to the Commission in triplicate not less than 30 days before they desire to begin such testing, indicate the frequencies they desire to use for testing and the hours they desire to use those frequencies.

    47 CFR 73.702(e) states within 14 days after the end of each season, each licensee or permittee must file a report with the Commission stating whether the licensee or permittee has operated the number of frequency hours authorized by the seasonal schedule to each of the zones or areas of reception specified in the schedule.

    47 CFR 73.782 requires that licensees retain logs of international broadcast stations for two years. If it involves communications incident to a disaster, logs should be retained as long as required by the Commission.

    47 CFR 73.759(d) states that the licensee or permittee must keep records of the time and results of each auxiliary transmitter test performed at least weekly.

    47 CFR 73.762(b) requires that licensees notify the Commission in writing of any limitation or discontinuance of operation of not more than 10 days.

    47 CFR 73.762(c) states that the licensee or permittee must request and receive specific authority from the Commission to discontinue operations for more than 10 days under extenuating circumstances.

    47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319 cover certifications of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and how the public will be protected from radio frequency radiation hazards.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20516 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1092] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before October 25, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1092.

    Title: Interim Procedures for Filing Applications Seeking Approval for Designated Entity Reportable Eligibility Events and Annual Reports.

    Form Numbers: FCC Forms 609-T and 611-T.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for profit institutions; and State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 1,100 respondents; 2,750 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .50 hours to 6 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 308(b), 309(j)(3) and 309(j)(4).

    Total Annual Burden: 7,288 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $2,223,375.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality. On a case by case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this expiring information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after this comment period to obtain the three year clearance from them. FCC Form 609-T is used by Designated Entities (DEs) to request prior Commission approval pursuant to Section 1.2114 of the Commission's rules for any reportable eligibility event. The data collected on the form is used by the FCC to determine whether the public interest would be served by the approval of the reportable eligibility event.

    FCC Form 611-T is used by DE licensees to file an annual report, pursuant to Section 1.2110(n) of the Commission's rules, related to eligibility for designated entity benefits.

    The information collected will be used to ensure that only legitimate small businesses reap the benefits of the Commission's designated entity program. Further, this information will assist the Commission in preventing companies from circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility rules by allowing us to review: (1) The FCC 609-T applications seeking approval for “reportable eligibility events” and (2) the FCC Form 611-T annual reports to ensure that licensees receiving designated entity benefits are in compliance with the Commission's policies and rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20520 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act System of Records AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission

    ACTION:

    Notice of amendment to system of records; three new routine uses.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission or Agency) has amended an existing system of records, FCC/OMD-17, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Requests, subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the Federal Register notice of the existence and character of records maintained by the agency (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)). The FCC's Office of the Managing Director (OMD) will use FOIAonline, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home, an online portal that permits the public to file initial Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and appeals. FOIAonline also permits the public to search various fields of data (as designated by the FCC) concerning FOIA requests, appeals, and responsive records. The FCC began participating in FOIAonline in February 2015. The system has been operational since then without incident.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before September 26, 2016. This action will become effective on October 5, 2016 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or to [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected], and to obtain a copy of the Narrative Statement, which includes details of the proposed alterations to this system of records.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FCC previously gave notice of this system of records, FCC/OMD-17, by publication in the Federal Register on April 5, 2006 (65 FR 17234, 17261). This notice serves to update and amend FCC/OMD-17, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Requests, as a result of an increased use of automated information technology and new program guidance.

    FCC/OMD-17 SYSTEM NAME:

    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Requests.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    FOIA and Privacy Act request files are maintained at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Information related to FOIA requests and appeals is also stored in the FOIAonline database, available at https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of individuals covered by this system include, but are not limited to individuals who submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requests, or administrative appeals; and individuals who are the subject of FOIA and Privacy Act requests and appeals or whose personally identifiable information is contained in records covered by this system.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    These records contain information about individuals most commonly including name, home address, email address, telephone or cell phone numbers, and less frequently may include date of birth, social security number, and driver's license number.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    5 U.S.C. 552 and 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    PURPOSE(S):

    The Commission's Performance Evaluation and Records Management staff (PERM) of the Office of Managing Director collects and maintains the information in this system through FOIAonline (https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home), an online portal for filing FOIA requests and appeals. PERM also maintains FOIA request files, including responses to FOIA requests and appeals, and correspondence with requesters. The records are required to permit the Commission to effectively, efficiently, and appropriately process and respond to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals. These records are also necessary for defending Commission action in litigation challenging FOIA and Privacy Act responses by the agency; for compiling mandatory reports and responses to inquiries from Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The records are also used to respond to congressional inquiries from both Congressional committees and from individual members of Congress inquiring on behalf of a constituent.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows. In each of these cases, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the records is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the records were collected:

    1. Public Access—The FCC authorizes public access to FOIA requests and appeals through FOIAonline (https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home) to the names of FOIA requesters, dates related to the processing of the request, and a description of the records sought by the requester (excluding any personally identifiable information in the description of the records, such as telephone or cell phone numbers, home or email addresses, social security numbers), unless the requester asks for the redaction of any personally identifiable information (PII). This information may also be used to create a publicly available log of requests.

    2. Determinations on Access—To assist the FCC in making an access determination, a record from the system may be shared with (a) the person or entity that originally submitted the record to the agency or is the subject of the record or information; or (b) another Federal entity.

    3. Adjudication and Litigation—To the Department of Justice (DOJ), or other administrative body before which the FCC is authorized to appear, when: (a) The FCC or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity where DOJ or the FCC has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ or the FCC is deemed by the FCC to be relevant and necessary to the litigation.

    4. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.

    5. Congressional Inquiries—To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    6. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for use in its records management inspections; to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for oversight purposes; to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.

    7. National Archives and Records Administration—To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.

    8. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm; and

    9. For Non-Federal Personnel—To disclose information to contractors performing or working on a contract for the Federal Government.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Information in this system includes both paper and electronic records. The paper records, documents, and files are maintained in file cabinets that are located in the OMD/PERM FOIA Public Liaison's office suite and the Office of General Counsel, and in the bureaus and offices of the FCC staff who provide the responses to FOIA/Privacy Act requests. The electronic records, files, and data are stored in FOIAonline and in the FCC's computer network.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records in this system of records are most often retrieved by the control number for the request, but may be retrieved by an individual's name, organization, or request description. Records concerning initial requests under the FOIA and the Privacy Act are maintained by the FOIA Public Liaison in FOIAonline. Inquiries regarding these records should be addressed to the FOIA Public Liaison, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    Records concerning administrative appeals for access requests under the FOIA and records concerning administrative appeals for access requests and accountings of disclosure requests under the Privacy Act are maintained by the FCC's Office of General Counsel and in FOIAonline. Inquiries regarding these records should be addressed to the General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or to [email protected].

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Access to the file cabinets containing paper records in this system are maintained in the FOIA Public Liaison's office and in the bureau or office suites accessible through card-coded main doors. The FOIA file cabinets in the office of the FOIA Public Liaison are locked at the end of the business day. Access to these FOIA files is restricted to authorized supervisors and staff who are responsible for responding to the FOIA requests or appeals.

    The electronic records, files, and data are housed in FOIAonline and in the FCC's computer network. Access to the electronic files is restricted to staff in the bureaus and offices who are responsible for responding to FOIA requests, and to the Information Technology Center (ITC) staff and contractors who maintain the FCC's computer network. Other FCC employees and contractors may be granted access on a “need-to-know” basis. The FCC's computer network databases are protected by the FCC's IT privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal IT privacy standards, including those required by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 4.2, Items 020, 040, 050, 070, and 090.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    FOIA Public Liaison, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOIAonline is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Collection, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by writing to FOIA Public Liaison, Office of Managing Director (OMD), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, email: [email protected]. Individuals must furnish reasonable identification by showing any two of the following: Social security card; driver's license; employee identification card; Medicare card; birth certificate; bank credit card; or other positive means of identification, or by signing an identity statement stipulating that knowingly or willfully seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. Individuals requesting access to records concerning themselves must also comply with the FCC's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and access to records (5 CFR part 0, subpart E).

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Access to information about FOIA requests and appeals is available through FOIAonline, https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Individuals wishing additional information about records in this system should follow the Notification Procedure above.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Individuals wishing to contest information pertaining to him or her in the system of records should follow the Notification Procedure above.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The sources for the information in this system of records are the individuals making requests under FOIA or the Privacy Act; the individuals who are the subjects of FOIA or Privacy Act requests; the attorneys or representatives of the requesters and the subjects of the requests; communication between FCC organizational units (bureaus and offices), and the investigative materials and related documentation and decisions involved in appeals, amendments, and litigation concerning FOIA responses, etc.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20515 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1521] Supervisory Rating System for Financial Market Infrastructures AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) granted the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) enhanced authority to supervise financial market utilities that are designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (financial market utilities are defined to comprise a subset of the entities that, outside the United States, are generally called financial market infrastructures or FMIs). In addition, the Board may have direct supervisory authority over other FMIs subject to its jurisdiction. The Board has approved the use of the ORSOM (Organization; Risk Management; Settlement; Operational Risk and Information Technology (IT); and Market Support, Access, and Transparency) rating system in reviews of FMIs by the Board and, under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Banks (collectively, the Federal Reserve).

    DATES:

    The Board will begin using the FMI rating system on October 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart Sperry, Deputy Associate Director (202) 452-2832 or Kristopher Natoli, Manager (202) 452-3227, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems; Evan H. Winerman, Counsel (202) 872-7578, Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    FMIs are multilateral systems that transfer, clear, settle, or record payments, securities, derivatives, or other financial transactions among participants or between participants and the FMI operator. FMIs include payment systems, central securities depositories, securities settlement systems, central counterparties, and trade repositories. FMIs can strengthen the markets that they serve and play a critical role in fostering financial stability. If not properly managed, however, they can pose significant risks to the financial system and be a potential source of contagion, particularly in periods of market stress. For example, improperly managed FMIs can be sources of financial shocks or channels through which shocks are transmitted across domestic and international financial markets.

    The Federal Reserve supervises certain FMIs that provide payment, clearing, and settlement services for critical U.S. financial markets. Specifically, under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve is the Supervisory Agency for certain designated financial market utilities (DFMUs).1 These DFMUs are subject to risk-management standards set out in Regulation HH.2 In addition, the Federal Reserve may have supervisory authority over FMIs that are operated by state member banks, Edge or agreement corporations, or bank holding companies. Furthermore, the Board supervises FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks, such as the Fedwire Funds Service.3 These latter two categories of FMIs are expected to meet the risk-management standards set out in the Board's Payment System Risk (PSR) policy.4 The risk management standards set out in both Regulation HH and the PSR policy are based on the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI).5

    1 The term financial market utility (FMU) is defined in Title VIII as “any person that manages or operates a multilateral system for the purpose of transferring, clearing, or settling payments, securities, or other financial transactions among financial institutions or between financial institutions and the person” (12 U.S.C. 5462(6)). FMUs are a subset of FMIs; for example, trade repositories are excluded from the definition of an FMU. Pursuant to section 804 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) is required to designate those FMUs that the Council determines are, or are likely to become, systemically important. Such a designation by the Council makes an FMU subject to the supervisory framework set out in Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    The term Supervisory Agency is defined in Title VIII as the “Federal agency that has primary jurisdiction over a designated financial market utility under Federal banking, securities, or commodity futures laws” (12 U.S.C. 5462(8)). Currently, the Board is the Supervisory Agency for two DFMUs: (i) The Clearing House Payments Company, L.L.C., on the basis of its role as operator of the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS), and (ii) CLS Bank International (CLS).

    2 12 CFR 234.3.

    3See Sections 11(a)(1) and 11(j) of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1) and 248(j).

    4 The Board's PSR policy is available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/files/psr_policy.pdf.

    5 The PFMI, published by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (now the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures) and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions in April 2012, is widely recognized as the most relevant set of international risk-management standards for payment, clearing, and settlement systems.

    The ORSOM (Organization; Risk Management; Settlement; Operational Risk and IT; and Market Support, Access, and Transparency) rating system is a supervisory tool that the Federal Reserve will use to provide a consistent internal framework for performing FMI assessments across the Federal Reserve's FMI portfolio.6 The ORSOM rating system will be applied to DFMUs for which the Board is the Supervisory Agency pursuant to Title VIII, other FMIs over which the Board has supervisory authority because they are members of the Federal Reserve System, and FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks.7 The Federal Reserve will convey the annual rating to a DFMU's management and board of directors. The rating system is designed to link supervisory assessments and messages to the regulations and guidance that form the foundation of the supervisory program, such as Regulation HH and the PSR policy. The Board issued a notice requesting comments on all aspects of the rating system.8

    6 The ORSOM rating system replaces the Federal Reserve's existing rating system, which is referred to as SCIISO. SCIISO stands for Supervision and organization; Compliance, Internal controls and audit; Information technology/electronic data processing; Settlements and liquidity; and General Organization. SCIISO was originally developed to facilitate the Federal Reserve's supervision of the Depository Trust Company, but subsequently was adapted and applied to The Clearing House Payments Company LLC as operator of the CHIPS payment system, CLS Bank International, and the Warehouse Trust Company LLC. The Federal Reserve did not seek public comment when SCIISO was introduced.

    7 At present, the first group includes CLS and CHIPS, the second group includes the Depository Trust Company, and the third group includes Fedwire Funds Service and Fedwire Securities Service.

    8 80 FR 70211 (Nov. 13, 2015).

    Summary of Public Comments and Analysis

    The Board received two public comment letters on the notice and request for comment. The Board considered these comments in developing its final FMI rating system. Except as noted herein, the Board is adopting the rating system's text as proposed.9

    9 The Board is also making several technical edits, which are not specifically addressed in the discussion below.

    Overall Approach

    The Board proposed to use the ORSOM rating system as a supervisory tool for providing a consistent internal framework for performing annual FMI assessments across the Federal Reserve's FMI portfolio, which includes DFMUs for which the Board is the Supervisory Agency pursuant to Title VIII, other FMIs over which the Board has supervisory authority because they are members of the Federal Reserve System, and FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks. Commenters were generally supportive of the Board's effort to establish a consistent approach to rating FMIs. Both commenters, however, raised two general concerns about the Board's overall approach: (1) That the rating system would create new obligations beyond those that already exist in Regulation HH and (2) that an FMI's rating would depend excessively on supervisory judgment.

    The Board's FMI rating system is an internal supervisory tool that is intended to assist supervisors in assessing FMIs against regulatory requirements, but it does not create any new obligations or requirements for FMIs. In establishing a consistent internal framework for discussing FMI assessments, the FMI rating system instructs supervisory staff to consider relevant regulations and related guidance. The explanatory language provided for each of the rating system's categories is intended to describe generally the range of issues covered in each category's relevant regulations and guidance. The Board has revised the ratings system to address concerns that it expands on already-applicable requirements. For example, the Board has added clarifying language to the rating system's Introduction section and made technical edits throughout to align each category's explanatory language more closely with Regulation HH's text.

    With regard to the role that supervisory judgment plays in determining an FMI's rating, the Board believes that the rating system must provide examiners with the ability to use their expertise and judgment when determining an FMI's rating. An FMI's category and composite ratings reflect many factors that may vary in importance for each FMI. Supervisory staff's judgment will be guided by the relevant regulations and guidance, as well as by the Board's internal processes for ensuring consistent treatment of similarly situated FMIs.

    The Board agrees with commenters that supervisory staff should explain the supervisory judgment underlying an FMI's rating. The rating system is designed to facilitate a clear and logical discussion of the FMI's condition with the FMI's management and board of directors. Supervisory staff will continue its current practice of explaining the factors that determine an FMI's rating.

    Alignment With Regulation HH

    Commenters requested that the Board make multiple changes to the rating system that would align the rating system more closely with the text of Regulation HH. The rating system is fundamentally derived from, and should reflect, the requirements of Regulation HH and the PSR policy. Therefore, the Board made technical clarifications throughout the rating system to align explanatory language more closely with Regulation HH's text. Examples include changing the explanatory language in the Board and Management Oversight subcomponent of the Organization category to specify that the requirement for independent validation focuses on risk-management models; the Risk Management category to reflect verbatim Regulation HH's requirement pertaining to recovery and orderly wind-down plans; and the Settlement category to reflect verbatim Regulation HH's requirement that FMIs provide clear and certain final settlement.

    Both commenters raised concerns regarding the explanatory language in the Market Support, Access and Transparency category, which states that “the analysis under this category considers . . the efficiency with which [the FMI] consumes resources in providing its services.” Commenters believed that this language was vague. The Board is retaining this language in the ratings system guidance because Regulation HH requires that a DFMU operate efficiently.10 The Board explained this concept in preamble text to the notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to these provisions of Regulation HH, stating that “efficiency generally encompasses what a DFMU chooses to do, how it does it, and the resources required by the DFMU to perform its functions.” 11 As the Board explained further, “there is an inherent tradeoff between safety (that is, risk management) and efficiency (that is, direct and indirect costs) in the design and management of a designated FMU.” 12 The Board noted that “[a] designated FMU's design; operating structure; scope of payment, clearing, and settlement activities; and use of technology can influence its efficiency and can ultimately provide incentives for market participants to use, or not use, the designated FMU's services. In certain cases, inefficiently designed systems may increase operational costs to the point that it would be cost prohibitive for participants to use the designated FMU. As a result, the inefficiency could drive market participants toward less-safe alternatives, such as bilateral clearing or settlement on the books of the participants.” 13

    10See 12 CFR 234.3(a)(21).

    11 79 FR 3666, 3685 (Jan. 22, 2014).

    12Id. at 3685-86.

    13Id.

    References to Relevant Statutes, Regulations and Guidance

    One commenter requested that the Board provide more specific examples of the relevant guidance to which examiners would refer when determining an FMI's rating. For each category, the Board has, to the extent possible, specified the relevant statutes, regulations, and guidance that factor into that category's rating. In the case of the Operational Risk and IT category, the Board refers to “FFIEC and relevant industry guidance.” In assessing an FMI's performance under Regulation HH's requirements with respect to operational risk and cybersecurity policies and procedures,14 the Board will be guided by leading information, communication and technology (ICT) and information and cyber security standards and guidelines. Some of these standards and guidelines are reflected in Federal Reserve and FFIEC guidance, as well as guidance supporting the PFMI (such as CPMI-IOSCO's forthcoming Guidance on Cyber Resilience for Financial Market Infrastructures). The Board believes that in light of the rapidly evolving IT and cyber risk landscapes, further specification of relevant industry guidance would date itself quickly. Further, as the Board has stated, the rating system is an internal supervisory tool that does not create new regulatory requirements. DFMUs subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve as the Supervisory Agency under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act should adhere to, and will be assessed against, Regulation HH's provisions, and examiners will clearly communicate with the FMIs the standards against which they are being rated.

    14 12 CFR 234.3(a)(17).

    Board and Management Responsiveness

    The proposed text of the Board and Management Oversight stated that “[t]his rating evaluates how effectively the board of directors and senior management guide and manage the FMI, and ensure that the FMI operates in a safe and sound manner; specific considerations in this regard include management's responsiveness to supervisory concerns.” One commenter requested the Board confirm its understanding that this language refers to issues that the Board identifies and that the FMI agrees to address and not to issues that are subject to a formal appeals process. FMI ratings are an internal tool for Federal Reserve supervisors, and, unlike ratings of insured depository institutions and their holding companies, do not carry any automatic implications with respect to supervisory or regulatory interventions or requirements. Therefore, the Board does not have a formal appeals process for its supervisory ratings at this time.

    The Board expects FMI management to respond appropriately to supervisory concerns. Title VIII requires the Board to prescribe risk management standards governing DFMUs' operations related to payment, clearing, and settlement activities, and to conduct annual examinations of relevant DFMUs for which it is the Supervisory Agency to determine, among other things, their safety and soundness, as well as their compliance with Title VIII and any rules and orders prescribed thereunder. If supervisory staff believes that a DFMU's board and management are failing to respond to supervisory concerns and thereby undermining the DFMU's safety and soundness or threatening financial stability, supervisory staff will incorporate that determination into its assessment of board and management oversight, regardless of whether the board and management disagree with supervisory staff's conclusions.

    Text of the Supervisory Rating System for FMIs Introduction

    Under the ORSOM rating system for financial market infrastructures (FMIs), the Federal Reserve develops a rating for each of the ORSOM categories and rolls those category ratings into an overall composite rating. The rating system is designed to (1) be clearly tied to relevant Federal Reserve regulations and guidance, (2) facilitate a clear and logical discussion of the FMI's condition with the FMI's management and board of directors, (3) be easily understood and used by both supervisors and FMIs, (4) be flexible, (5) facilitate comprehensive and consistent assessments across the Federal Reserve's FMI portfolio, and (6) promote financial stability by ensuring that systemically important FMIs understand and are held to the Federal Reserve's rigorous risk-management standards. Importantly, the rating system is an internal supervisory tool that does not create new regulatory requirements; the explanatory language provided for each of the ratings system's categories is intended to describe generally the range of issues covered in each category's relevant regulations and guidance.

    Additionally, the rating system is designed to allow for supervisory judgment and discretion, and should not be viewed as establishing a formula for determining an FMI's rating. Each of the assigned ratings, including the composite rating, should reflect supervisory judgment about the importance of the individual categories and issues as they pertain to the FMI. Relevant provisions of Regulation HH and the Payment System Risk (PSR) policy, which are reflected in each rating category, help to organize and structure each category's rating. The criticality of categories and issues, however, may differ among FMIs because of factors such as their differing services, risk profiles, and operational and organizational structures. An FMI's rating will also take into account the FMI's responsiveness to supervisory concerns and the demonstrated effectiveness of any measures that the FMI has implemented to address the root cause of those concerns.

    Categories

    The ORSOM rating system consists of the following five categories, which were selected to highlight broadly the risk management issues that FMIs face, to guide supervisory examinations, and to provide a structure for organizing assessment letters:

    • Organization • Risk Management • Settlement • Operational Risk and IT • Market Support, Access, and Transparency

    Analysis of the issues considered under each category should be consistent with Regulation HH, the PSR policy, and relevant guidance, such as supervision and regulation (SR) letters and guidance of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). The categories' order is not a reflection of their relative importance. The weight prescribed to either a category or a category's components is a matter of supervisory judgment and expertise, and may differ among FMIs. In addition, supervisory staff's assessment of an FMI should take into account the categories' interrelationships and the FMI's entire risk management framework, and should integrate knowledge derived from all available sources, including examination work, continuous monitoring efforts, and other relevant sources (for example, the processes set forth in Regulation HH and Board policy regarding advance notice of material changes proposed by designated financial market utilities (DFMUs) and the Federal Reserve Banks' Fedwire services, respectively, and lessons learned from market events). Finally, an FMI's category rating should reflect consideration of the demonstrated effectiveness of any remediation measures that the FMI has implemented to address the root cause of supervisory concerns.

    Organization

    The foundations of an FMI's risk management framework are its management and governance structures, which include the board of directors' and management's authority, responsibilities, and reporting. The Organization category evaluates the FMI's overarching objectives, and the ability of the FMI's board and management to implement them. This category also considers the relationships among the FMI's relevant stakeholders and their influence on the FMI's business strategy. Further, analysis under this category considers the independence and effectiveness of the FMI's internal audit function and its ability to inform the board and management about the robustness of the FMI's risk management and control processes. As a result, the Organization category contains two subcomponents, Board and Management Oversight, and Internal Audit. The FMI's assessment under these subcomponents is reflected in a single category rating.1

    1 The Board and Management Oversight and the Internal Audit subcomponents are not individually rated; they represent matters examiners should consider when assigning the Organization category rating. Depending on the issues at the FMI, examiners should use their judgment in weighting each of these subcomponents in their assessment of the Organization category overall.

    Board and Management Oversight

    The Board and Management Oversight subcomponent addresses the organization and conduct of the FMI's board of directors and senior management. It assesses the structure and effectiveness of the FMI's legal and compliance risk monitoring and management framework. This rating evaluates how effectively the board of directors and senior management guide and manage the FMI, and ensure that the FMI operates in a safe and sound manner; specific considerations in this regard include management's responsiveness to supervisory concerns. This rating component also evaluates the board's effectiveness at establishing the FMI's objectives, strategy, and risk tolerances, and management's effectiveness at ensuring that the FMI's activities are consistent with them. Specific considerations in this regard include the board's effectiveness in setting strategic objectives, developing a risk-management framework, creating clear and responsive corporate governance structures, and establishing corporate risk tolerances. This rating also evaluates the effectiveness of the FMI's governance program for risk models and its use of independent validation mechanisms to validate the FMI's risk-management model methodologies and output.

    Relevant statutes, regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(1)-(3) (excluding (a)(2)(iv)(I)) • Regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) 2 and sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

    2 The BSA is codified at 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 1829b, and 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959. Federal Reserve supervised institutions that are subject to the BSA include state member banks (Regulation H, 12 CFR 208), bank holding companies (Regulation Y, 12 CFR 225), Edge and agreement corporations, and foreign banking organizations operating in the United States (Regulation K, 12 CFR 211). The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has published regulations implementing the BSA at 31 CFR Part X.

    • PSR policy: Legal Basis (Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures (PFMI) 1), Governance (PFMI 2, excluding references to internal audit), Framework for Comprehensive Management of Risks (PFMI 3, excluding references to internal audit) Internal Audit

    The Internal Audit subcomponent reflects the ability and independence of the FMI's internal audit function to assess risk and to inform the board and management. An FMI should have an effective internal audit function with sufficient resources and independence from management to provide a rigorous and unbiased assessment of the FMI's risk profile and risk exposure, including financial and operational risk, as well as the effectiveness of risk management and controls. The Internal Audit subcomponent assesses the internal audit function's day-to-day management, including its annual risk assessment, audit program, quality of work papers, quality assurance, planning and reporting, and training.3

    3 The Internal Audit subcomponent does not assess the board's effectiveness at establishing and overseeing an internal audit function at the FMI; that is assessed in the Board and Management Oversight subcomponent.

    Relevant regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(2)(iv)(I) • Audit guidance applicable to the FMI (for example, Institute of Internal Auditors, FFIEC, SR Letters, Bank for International Settlements, and ISACA) • PSR policy: Governance (PFMI 2, as it pertains to internal audit), Framework for Comprehensive Management of Risks (PFMI 3, as it pertains to internal audit), Operational Risk (PFMI 17, as it pertains to internal audit) Risk Management

    The Risk Management category evaluates the effectiveness of the FMI's risk management, including the availability to the FMI of acceptable financial resources to contain and manage losses and liquidity pressures, and the FMI's ability to meet its obligations in the event of a participant's default. Further, the rating assesses whether the FMI has developed a risk-management framework that includes integrated plans for the FMI's recovery and orderly wind-down, and the viability of its capital plan. The rating also considers the FMI's ability and practices in safeguarding its own assets and those of its participants, and the FMI's ability to ensure those assets are readily available and convertible into cash with minimum losses. In addition, the Risk Management rating assesses the FMI's awareness, mitigation, or management of the material risks that its participants' customers and other FMIs indirectly introduce.

    Relevant regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(4)-(7), (14)-(16), (19)-(20) • PSR policy: Credit risk (PFMI 4), Collateral (PFMI 5), Margin (PFMI 6), Liquidity risk (PFMI 7), Segregation and Portability (PFMI 14), General Business Risk (PFMI 15), Custody and Investment Risks (PFMI 16), Tiered Participation Arrangements (PFMI 19), and FMI Links (PFMI 20) Settlement

    Final settlement is the irrevocable and unconditional transfer of an asset or financial instrument, or the discharge of an obligation by an FMI or its participants in accordance with the underlying contract's terms. Settlement risk, which is the risk that settlement will not take place as expected, is a key risk that FMIs and their participants face. Failure to settle a transaction on time and in full can create liquidity and credit problems for an FMI or its participants, with potential systemic implications. This is especially true during a participant default event. Well-designed, clearly articulated, and effectively disclosed default management rules are imperative to maintaining market confidence in the event of a participant default.

    The Settlement category focuses on the risk-management tools that an FMI uses to ensure settlement takes place as expected, and the default management procedures the FMI follows in the event of a participant default. The rating assesses the FMI's ability to provide clear and certain final settlement, and its ability to manage the risks related to money settlements and the delivery of physical assets. The rating also includes central securities depositories' abilities to safeguard the rights of securities issuers and holders, and to ensure the integrity of the securities issues that they hold in custody. Finally, this category includes assessing the adequacy of the FMI's participant default rules and procedures, and the steps that the FMI takes to ensure that it is prepared to execute them.

    Relevant regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(8)-(13) • PSR Policy: Settlement Finality (PFMI 8), Money Settlements (PFMI 9), Physical Deliveries (PFMI 10), Central Securities Depositories (PFMI 11), Exchange-of-Value Settlement Systems (PFMI 12), and Participant Default Rules and Procedures (PFMI 13) Operational Risk and IT

    FMIs face significant operational and IT risks in their provision of post-trade services. Operational risk entails deficiencies in information systems, internal processes, and personnel, or disruptions from external events that may result in the reduction, deterioration, or breakdown of services provided by an FMI. FMIs are expected to ensure that, through the development of appropriate systems, controls, and procedures, their operations and IT infrastructure are reliable, secure, and have adequately scalable capacity. FMIs' information security practices and controls are expected to be strong and effective. FMIs should protect and secure the systems, media, and facilities that process and maintain information vital to their operations in the context of a continually changing threat landscape. Further, FMIs are expected to have robust business continuity plans that allow for the rapid recovery and timely resumption of critical operations. FMIs are expected to test and update these plans regularly.

    The Operational Risk and IT category focuses on the FMI's operational reliability and its ability to support the safe and continuous functioning of the markets that it serves. This category considers the FMI's operational risk management framework and IT infrastructure, including the adequacy of the FMI's operational risk management governance, internal controls, physical and information security, data management, capacity management, and business continuity plan.

    Relevant regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(17) • PSR Policy: Operational Risk (PFMI 17, excluding references to internal audit) • Interagency Paper on Sound Practices to Strengthen Resilience of the U.S. Financial System • FFIEC, relevant industry IT & cybersecurity guidance, and CPMI-IOSCO guidance supporting the PFMI. Market Support, Access, and Transparency

    FMIs should be designed and operated to meet the needs of their participants and the markets that they serve. Access to FMIs' services is often necessary for meaningful participation in the markets that they serve, and FMIs' efficiency and effectiveness can influence financial activity and market structure. Also, access to, and understanding of, relevant information about an FMI fosters confidence among participants and the public.

    The Market Support, Access, and Transparency category focuses on the FMI's efforts to support the markets it serves, to ensure fair and open access to its services (while balancing the FMI's safety and efficiency), and to provide participants with the information necessary to understand the risks and responsibilities attendant with their participation in the FMI. Analysis under this category considers, among other things, the FMI's implementation of risk-based, objective participation requirements; its member monitoring framework; the efficiency with which it consumes resources in providing its services; and the adequacy of its disclosure of its rules, its key procedures, and its legal, governance, risk management, and operating framework.

    Relevant regulations and guidance include—

    • Regulation HH § 234.3(a)(18), (21)-(23) • PSR policy: Access and Participation Requirements (PFMI 18), Efficiency and Effectiveness (PFMI 21), Communication Procedures and Standards (PFMI 22), Disclosure of Rules, Key Procedures, and Market Data (PFMI 23), Disclosure of Market Data by Trade Repositories (PFMI 24) Category Ratings

    FMIs receive a rating for each ORSOM category based on an evaluation of the FMI against that category's key attributes as described herein. Regulation HH prescribes risk-management standards for DFMUs for which the Board or another federal banking agency is the Supervisory Agency under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Other FMIs subject to Federal Reserve supervision—for example, other DFMUs over which the Board has supervisory authority because they are members of the Federal Reserve System, and FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks—are subject to the Federal Reserve Act and the expectations set out in the Federal Reserve's PSR policy. An FMI's rating should be consistent with the expectations set forth in Regulation HH, the PSR policy, and relevant supervisory guidance, such as SR letters and FFIEC guidance.4 The rating scale ranges from 1 to 5, with a rating of 1 indicating the strongest performance and, therefore, the level of least supervisory concern. A rating of 5 indicates the most critically deficient level of performance and, therefore, the greatest level of supervisory concern. Importantly, an FMI's category rating should reflect supervisory judgment and expertise as to the materiality of any issues identified based on the resulting effect those issues have on the safety and soundness of the FMI, the growth of systemic risks, or the stability of the broader financial system.5

    4 DFMUs subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act should adhere to, and will be assessed against, Regulation HH's provisions and any other regulation directly applicable to that DFMU, and any supervisory guidance would be applicable only insofar as it is consistent with Regulation HH and other directly applicable regulations.

    5See Dodd-Frank Act Section 805, 12 U.S.C. 5464(b).

    A common set of definitions for each rating level is applied across all of the ORSOM categories. These general definitions focus on broad supervisory interests, which are—

    • the extent to which any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are issues of concern for the safety and soundness of the FMI or the stability of the broader financial system.

    • the immediacy with which the FMI is expected to remedy the issues, and the extent to which close supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts, or supervisory action, is needed.6

    6 FMIs are responsible for remedying supervisory concerns. Supervisory action in this context refers to the range of supervisory measures that relevant laws authorize the Federal Reserve to take. These include issuing a matter requiring attention or matter requiring immediate attention; entering into a memorandum of understanding with the FMI; or more severe enforcement action measures as authorized under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act or other relevant laws.

    Supervisors may identify multiple issues with differing degrees of concern. In such cases, supervisors typically should assign the category a rating that reflects their judgment of the severity of the most serious concerns identified. For example, if a payment system meets the majority of supervisory standards for the Settlement category, but only partly observes the risk management standard pertaining to settlement finality, then, because of that issue's criticality to a payment system, the payment system's rating for the Settlement category should reflect its weaknesses with regard to that key risk management standard.

    1: Strong

    • Any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are not issues of concern with respect to the category's supervisory guidance. For example, the FMI observes all of the key risk management standards in Regulation HH or the PSR policy, as applicable.7

    7 The applicable standards are based on the Federal Reserve's source of authority. DFMUs for which the Federal Reserve acts as the Supervisory Agency under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to Regulation HH. Other FMIs subject to Federal Reserve supervision, for example, by virtue of being members of the Federal Reserve System, are subject to the Federal Reserve Act and the expectations set out in the Federal Reserve's PSR policy. The applicable standards in both Regulation HH and the PSR policy are based on the PFMI. The Board has stated that it does not intend for differences in language in the two documents to lead to inconsistent policy results.

    • The FMI can correct any issues identified in the normal course of business and focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is not needed.

    2: Satisfactory

    • Any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are not presently issues of concern with respect to the category's supervisory guidance, but may become so if left uncorrected. For example, the FMI either observes or broadly observes the key risk management standards in Regulation HH or the PSR policy, as applicable.

    • The FMI can correct any issues identified in the normal course of business, but limited, focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts may be needed.

    3: Fair

    • One or more issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are issues of concern with respect to the category's supervisory guidance. For example, the FMI, at a minimum, broadly observes most of the key risk management standards in Regulation HH or the PSR policy, as applicable, but may partly observe some of them.

    • The FMI should correct one or more of the issues of concern identified within a defined period, focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is likely needed, and supervisory action may be needed.

    4: Marginal

    • One or more issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are substantial issues of concern with respect to the category's supervisory guidance. For example, the FMI only partly observes many key risk management standards in Regulation HH or the PSR policy, as applicable, and may not observe some of them.

    • The FMI should correct one or more of the issues of concern identified immediately, focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is needed, and supervisory action is likely.

    5: Unsatisfactory

    • One or more issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are critical and immediate issues of concern with respect to the category's supervisory guidance. For example, the FMI does not observe key risk management standards in Regulation HH or the PSR policy, as applicable.

    • The FMI must correct one or more of the issues of concern identified immediately, and immediate supervisory action and monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts are needed.

    Composite Ratings

    An FMI's composite rating indicates whether and to what extent the issues identified, in the aggregate, give cause for supervisory concern. Like the category ratings, an FMI's composite rating ranges from 1 to 5. A rating of 1 indicates the strongest performance and, therefore, the level of least supervisory concern, and a rating of 5 indicates a critically deficient level of performance and, therefore, the greatest level of supervisory concern. An FMI's composite rating should not represent a formulaic combination of its category ratings, such as an arithmetic average. Rather, the ratings definitions provide factors that supervisory staff should consider when viewing an FMI's performance against the totality of relevant regulations and supervisory guidance.

    1: Strong

    • As reflected in its category ratings, an FMI with a composite rating of 1 is substantially sound in every respect and does not give cause for supervisory concern.

    • Any issues identified do not reflect a pattern of risk management or governance failures and, either individually or cumulatively, are not issues of concern for the safety and efficiency of either the FMI or the markets that it supports.

    • The FMI can correct any issues identified in the normal course of business and focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is not needed.

    2: Satisfactory

    • As reflected in its category ratings, an FMI with a composite rating of 2 is sound in most respects and does not presently give cause for supervisory concern.

    • Any issues identified do not reflect a pattern of risk management or governance failures and, either individually or cumulatively, are not presently issues of concern for the safety and efficiency of either the FMI or the markets that it supports, but may become so if left uncorrected.

    • The FMI can correct any issues identified in the normal course of business, but limited, focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts may be needed.

    3: Fair

    • As reflected in its category ratings, an FMI with a composite rating of 3 is sound in many respects, but gives cause for some supervisory concern, and supervisory action may be necessary.

    • Any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are issues of concern for the safety and efficiency of either the FMI or the markets that it supports.

    • The FMI should correct one or more of the issues of concern identified within a defined period and focused monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is likely needed.

    4: Marginal

    • As reflected in its category ratings, an FMI with a composite rating of 4 is unsound in one or more respects and gives cause for substantial supervisory concern, which will likely lead to supervisory action.

    • Any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are substantial issues of concern for the safety and efficiency of either the FMI or the markets that it supports.

    • The FMI should correct one or more of the issues of concern identified immediately and focused supervisory monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts is needed.

    5: Unsatisfactory

    • As reflected in its category ratings, an FMI with a composite rating of 5 is considered critically unsound and gives cause for substantial and immediate supervisory concern and action.

    • Any issues identified, either individually or cumulatively, are critical and immediate issues of concern for the safety and efficiency of either the FMI or the markets that it supports.

    • The FMI must correct one or more of the issues of concern identified immediately, and immediate supervisory action and monitoring of the FMI's remediation efforts are needed.

    Administrative Law Matters Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to address concerns related to the effects of agency rules on small entities, and the Board is sensitive to the impact its rules may impose on small entities. The RFA requires agencies either to provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis with a final rule or to certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Board received no comments on its initial regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the supervisory rating system for FMIs. The rating system will apply to FMUs that are designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act as systemically important, for which the Board is the Supervisory Agency, and which are subject to Regulation HH. In addition, the supervisory rating system for FMIs will apply to other DFMUs over which the Board has supervisory authority because they are members of the Federal Reserve System, and FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks, pursuant to the PSR policy. Based on current information, none of the FMIs are “small entities” for purposes of the RFA, and so, the rating system likely will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The following final regulatory flexibility analysis, however, has been prepared in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, based on current information.

    1. Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule. The Board is implementing the ORSOM rating system in order to carry out its supervisory responsibilities regarding FMIs under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act and other applicable law, as discussed above. As noted above, the ORSOM rating system is a supervisory tool that the Federal Reserve will use to provide a consistent internal framework for performing FMI assessments across the Federal Reserve's FMI portfolio, including DFMUs for which the Board is the Supervisory Agency pursuant to Title VIII, other FMIs that are members of the Federal Reserve System, and FMIs that are operated by the Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve will convey the annual ORSOM rating to a DFMU's management and board of directors. The rating system is designed to link supervisory assessments and messages to the regulations and guidance that form the foundation of the supervisory program, such as Regulation HH and the PSR policy.

    2. Significant issues raised by comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Board received no public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility act analysis, nor did it receive comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    3. Small entities affected by the rule. Pursuant to regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201), a small entity includes an establishment engaged in (i) financial transaction processing, reserve and liquidity services, and/or clearinghouse services with an average annual revenue of $38.5 million or less (NAICS code 522320); (ii) securities and/or commodity exchange activities with an average annual revenue of $38.5 million or less (NAICS code 523210); and (iii) trust, fiduciary, and/or custody activities with an average annual revenue of $38.5 million or less (NAICS code 523991). Based on current information, the Board does not believe that any of the FMIs that would be subject to the ORSOM rating system would be small entities pursuant to the SBA regulation.

    4. Projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. The ORSOM rating system does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements on the relevant FMIs. Although the rating system reflects risk management standards set out in Regulation HH, the PSR policy, and other applicable rules and guidance, the ORSOM rating system itself does not impose any compliance requirements.

    5. Steps to minimize significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes/discussion of significant alternatives. The rating system will not have an economic impact on small entities. The Board is not aware of any significant alternatives to the rating system that accomplish the objectives of reflecting the relevant risk management standards in the supervisory rating system.

    Competitive Impact Analysis

    As a matter of policy, the Board subjects all operational and legal changes that could have a substantial effect on payment system participants to a competitive impact analysis, even if competitive effects are not apparent on the face of the proposal. Pursuant to this policy, the Board assesses whether the changes “would have a direct and material adverse effect on the ability of other service providers to compete effectively with the Federal Reserve in providing similar services” and whether any such adverse effect “was due to legal differences or due to a dominant market position deriving from such legal differences.” If, as a result of this analysis, the Board identifies an adverse effect on the ability to compete, the Board then assesses whether the associated benefits—such as improvements to payment system efficiency or integrity—can be achieved while minimizing the adverse effect on competition.

    DFMUs are subject to the supervisory framework established under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act. At least one DFMU that is subject to Regulation HH competes with a similar service provided by the Reserve Banks. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the Board has general supervisory authority over the Reserve Banks, including the Reserve Banks' provision of payment and settlement services (Federal Reserve priced services). This general supervisory authority is much more extensive in scope than the authority provided under Title VIII over DFMUs. In practice, Board oversight of the Reserve Banks goes well beyond the typical supervisory framework for private-sector entities, including the framework provided by Title VIII.

    The Board is committed to applying risk-management standards to the Reserve Banks' Fedwire Funds Service and Fedwire Securities Service that are at least as stringent as the applicable Regulation HH standards applied to DFMUs that provide similar services. The risk management and transparency expectations in part I of the PSR policy, which applies to the Federal Reserve priced services, are consistent with those in Regulation HH. The ORSOM rating system will be applied equally to both DFMUs subject to Regulation HH and to the other FMIs subject to the Board's authority, including the Federal Reserve priced services, subject to the PSR policy. Therefore, the Board does not believe the rating system will have any direct and materia