Federal Register Vol. 81, No.173,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 173 (September 7, 2016)

Page Range61583-61972
FR Document

81_FR_173
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 61663 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 61725 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 61721 - In the Matter of Preston Royalty Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 61681 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 61671 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 61680 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 61666 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations: Preliminary Determinations of Critical CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 61663 - Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 61664 - Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 61703 - Notice of Office of Urban Indian Health Programs Strategic PlanPDF
81 FR 61708 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 61712 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: ConnectHome Use and Benefits Telephone SurveyPDF
81 FR 61706 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 61636 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of U-47700 Into Schedule IPDF
81 FR 61616 - Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VAPDF
81 FR 61628 - Privacy Act RegulationsPDF
81 FR 61683 - Notice of Termination; 10002 Miami Valley Bank, Lakeview, OhioPDF
81 FR 61683 - Notice of Termination, 10046 TeamBank, N.A., Paola, KansasPDF
81 FR 61646 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS Case 2012-D022)PDF
81 FR 61682 - Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee TeleconferencePDF
81 FR 61669 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote SensingPDF
81 FR 61617 - Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 61730 - Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 61619 - Ocean Dumping: Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of Charleston, South CarolinaPDF
81 FR 61615 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WAPDF
81 FR 61715 - Notice of September 19, 2016, Meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 61675 - Stanford University Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 61674 - Rutherford Farm, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 61675 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 61612 - Petition To Initiate Rulemaking; Ensuring That Companies With a History of Financial Insolvency, and Their Subsidiary Companies, Are Not Allowed To Self-Bond Coal Mining OperationsPDF
81 FR 61616 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8PDF
81 FR 61719 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Diverse Actuation System Cabinet ChangesPDF
81 FR 61719 - President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities: Meeting #72PDF
81 FR 61721 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee onPDF
81 FR 61719 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 61671 - Performance Review Board (PRB)PDF
81 FR 61670 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 61670 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 61595 - Russian Sanctions: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity ListPDF
81 FR 61731 - Announcement of Fiscal Year 2016 Low or No Emission Grant Program Project SelectionsPDF
81 FR 61726 - Regents Park Funds, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 61674 - 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; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 61733 - Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements, Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 61662 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 61662 - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 61625 - Mariana Archipelago Fisheries; Remove the CNMI Medium and Large Vessel Bottomfish Prohibited AreasPDF
81 FR 61677 - Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Freeport LNG Train 4 Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
81 FR 61674 - Columbia Basin Hydropower; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 61679 - Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 61681 - Privacy Act of 1974: Notice of Altered Systems of RecordsPDF
81 FR 61676 - Virginia Electric and Power Company v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. PJM Settlement, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 61714 - Notice of Public Meeting, Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, IdahoPDF
81 FR 61731 - Notice of Availability of the Southern California Metroplex Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of DecisionPDF
81 FR 61730 - Release of Waybill DataPDF
81 FR 61713 - Receipt of an Incidental Take Permit Application for Participation in the Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in OklahomaPDF
81 FR 61714 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 61669 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61672 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Repayment Plan Selection FormPDF
81 FR 61684 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID)PDF
81 FR 61684 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH)PDF
81 FR 61715 - Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
81 FR 61706 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61737 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8038-TPDF
81 FR 61739 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8610 and Schedule A (Form 8610)PDF
81 FR 61734 - Agency Request for Emergency Approval of an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 61671 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61739 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61736 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 61738 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Notice 2006-97PDF
81 FR 61738 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 61737 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue ProcedurePDF
81 FR 61725 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Certain Rules Relating to Flexible Exchange OptionsPDF
81 FR 61724 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 6.67(c) by Revising the Clearing Member Requirements for Entering an Order into the Electronic Order Capture SystemPDF
81 FR 61730 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 955NY(c) by Revising the Clearing Member Requirements for Entering an Order Into the Electronic Order Capture SystemPDF
81 FR 61727 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 61722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Prior Rule Change, SR-PHLX-2016-38PDF
81 FR 61673 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2017 National SupplementPDF
81 FR 61708 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 61708 - West Virginia; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 61639 - Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NYPDF
81 FR 61730 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61658 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened WildlifePDF
81 FR 61683 - Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 61704 - Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: The Development of an Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) for the Treatment of Human CancersPDF
81 FR 61705 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 61705 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 61717 - Records Management; General Records Schedule (GRS); GRS Transmittal 26PDF
81 FR 61703 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 61639 - Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting SubrecipientsPDF
81 FR 61583 - MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements UpdatePDF
81 FR 61683 - Notice of Termination; 10346 San Luis Trust Bank, FSB; San Luis Obispo, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 61690 - Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Zika Virus; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 61685 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requests for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments CategorizationPDF
81 FR 61685 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Establishment Registration and Listing; Eligibility Determination for Donors; and Current Good Tissue PracticePDF
81 FR 61700 - Request for Comment on the Status of VinpocetinePDF
81 FR 61647 - Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review; Expanding Access to Rate ReliefPDF
81 FR 61615 - Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 61723 - Voya ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 61632 - Standards for Safeguarding Customer InformationPDF
81 FR 61709 - Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Revision of Section 203(k) Consultant Fee Schedule-Solicitation of CommentPDF
81 FR 61715 - Final Environmental Impact Statement Non-Federal Oil and Gas RegulationsPDF
81 FR 61833 - Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Oil and Gas Production Safety SystemsPDF
81 FR 61941 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting DevicesPDF
81 FR 61741 - Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With International Standards (RRR)PDF

Issue

81 173 Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Meetings: Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, 61662 2016-21425 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61671-61672 2016-21389 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement RULES Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf: Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems, 61834-61939 2016-20967 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 61684 2016-21399 Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, 61684-61685 2016-21400 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61663 2016-21670 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA, 61615-61616 2016-21448 Safety Zones: North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA, 61616 2016-21476 Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8, 61616-61617 2016-21439 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Hudson River; Yonkers to Kingston, NY, 61639 2016-21371 NOTICES Meetings: Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 61706-61707 2016-21479 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61671 2016-21537 Council Inspectors Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act Regulations, 61628-61632 2016-21473 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions, 61646-61647 2016-21463 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

RULES Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas; Technical Amendment, 61615 2016-21254
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of U-47700 Into Schedule I, 61636-61638 2016-21477 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies National Supplement, 61673-61674 2016-21378 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Repayment Plan Selection Form, 61672-61673 2016-21401 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated From DOE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, 61674 2016-21428
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Ocean Dumping: Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of Charleston, SC, 61619-61625 2016-21454 Pesticide Tolerances: Chlorantraniliprole, 61617-61619 2016-21458 NOTICES Meetings: Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Teleconference, 61682-61683 2016-21462 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements; Update, 61583-61595 2016-21356 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Southern California Metroplex, 61731 2016-21413 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receiverships: 10346 San Luis Trust Bank, FSB, San Luis Obispo, CA, 61683 2016-21354 Miami Valley Bank, Lakeview, OH, 61683 2016-21466 TeamBank, N.A., Paola, KS, 61683 2016-21465 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: West Virginia; Amendment No. 7, 61708 2016-21372 Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council; Teleconference; Rescheduled, 61708 2016-21376 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 61675-61676, 61680-61681 2016-21442 2016-21527 2016-21555 Complaints: Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co., LLC, 61679-61680 2016-21419 Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC, PJM Settlement, Inc., 61676-61677 2016-21417 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Freeport LNG Development, LP; Freeport LNG Train 4 Project, 61677-61679 2016-21421 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Rutherford Farm, LLC, 61674-61675 2016-21443 Stanford University Power, LLC, 61675 2016-21444 License Applications: Columbia Basin Hydropower, 61674 2016-21420 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 61681-61682 2016-21418 Federal Financial Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council NOTICES Meetings: Appraisal Subcommittee, 61683 2016-21367 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting Devices, 61942-61972 2016-20934 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 61632-61636 2016-21231 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Fiscal Year 2016 Low or No Emission Grant Program Project; Announcements of Selections, 61731-61733 2016-21430 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From Federal List, 61658-61661 2016-21368 NOTICES Incidental Take Permits: Participation in Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, 61713 2016-21408 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Establishment Registration and Listing; Eligibility Determination for Donors; Current Good Tissue Practice, 61685-61690 2016-21351 Requests for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Categorization, 61685 2016-21352 Emergency Use Authorizations: In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Zika Virus, 61690-61700 2016-21353 Status of Vinpocetine, 61700-61703 2016-21350 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Resource Advisory Committee, 61662-61663 2016-21423 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

PROPOSED RULES Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients, 61639-61646 2016-21359 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Tissue Recovery Through Utilization Survey, 61703 2016-21360
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities, 61708-61709 2016-21482 ConnectHome Use and Benefits Telephone Survey, 61712-61713 2016-21480 Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Consultant Fee Schedule, 61709-61712 2016-21226 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Office of Urban Indian Health Programs Strategic Plan, 61703-61704 2016-21485 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Russian Sanctions: Addition of Certain Entities to Entity List, 61595-61612 2016-21431 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61737-61740 2016-21386 2016-21388 2016-21392 2016-21394 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Regulation Project, 61736-61739 2016-21385 2016-21387 Revenue Procedure, 61737-61738 2016-21384 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey, 61666-61668 2016-21501 Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 61664-61666 2016-21490 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From People's Republic of China, 61663-61664 2016-21499 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Central California Resource Advisory Council, 61714 2016-21407 Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho, 61714-61715 2016-21414 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules; Availability, 61717-61718 2016-21361 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: President's Committee on Arts and Humanities, 61719 2016-21437 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting Devices, 61942-61972 2016-20934 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61733-61734 2016-21426 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 61705-61706 2016-21363 2016-21364 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 61705 2016-21365 Prospective Grants of Exclusive Patent Licenses: Development of Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor for Treatment of Human Cancers, 61704 2016-21366 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Mariana Archipelago Fisheries: Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Medium and Large Vessel Bottomfish Prohibited Areas; Removal, 61625-61627 2016-21422 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61669 2016-21405 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing, 61669-61670 2016-21461 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 61670-61671 2016-21432 2016-21433 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Non-Federal Oil and Gas Regulations, 61715 2016-21186 Meetings: Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council, 61715 2016-21447 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Diverse Actuation System Cabinet Changes, 61719-61721 2016-21438 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on APR 1400, 61719 2016-21435 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors, 61721 2016-21436 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard, 61715-61717 2016-21398 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Performance Review Board Appointments:, 61671 2016-21434 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Hazardous Materials: Harmonization With International Standards (RRR), 61742-61831 2016-20580 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Regents Park Funds, LLC, et al., 61726-61727 2016-21429 Voya ETF Trust, et al., 61723-61724 2016-21248 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 61725 2016-21585 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 61727-61729 2016-21380 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 61722-61723 2016-21379 NYSE Arca, Inc., 61724-61725 2016-21382 NYSE MKT, LLC, 61725, 61730 2016-21381 2016-21383 Trading Suspension Orders: Preston Royalty Corp., 61721-61722 2016-21584 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61706 2016-21395 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office RULES Ensuring That Companies With a History of Financial Insolvency, and Their Subsidiary Companies, Are Not Allowed To Self-Bond Coal Mining Operations, 61612-61615 2016-21440 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Rail Transportation of Grain: Rate Regulation Review; Expanding Access to Rate Relief, 61647-61658 2016-21305 NOTICES Meetings: Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee, 61730 2016-21456 Release of Waybill Data, 61730 2016-21411 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61730-61731 2016-21370 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Transportation Statistics Bureau

Transportation Statistics Transportation Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 61734-61736 2016-21390 Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 61742-61831 2016-20580 Part III Interior Department, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement , 61834-61939 2016-20967 Part IV Transportation Department, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 61942-61972 2016-20934 Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 61942-61972 2016-20934 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.

81 173 Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 135 [Docket No.: FAA-2006-24981; Amdt. Nos. 61-138, 91-344, and 135-134] RIN 2120-AK63 MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

This action relocates and updates the content of SFAR No. 108 to the newly created subpart N of part 91 in order to improve the safety of operating the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU-2B series airplane. SFAR No. 108 will be eliminated from the Code of Federal Regulations on November 7, 2017, after which time all MU-2B operators must comply with this subpart. The FAA is relocating the training program from the SFAR No. 108 appendices to advisory material in order to allow the FAA to update policy while ensuring significant training adjustments still go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The FAA is also correcting and updating several inaccurate maneuver profiles to reflect current FAA training philosophy and adding new FAA procedures not previously part of the MU-2B training under SFAR No. 108. This rule will require all MU-2B training programs to meet the requirements of this subpart and to be approved by the FAA to ensure safety is maintained. As a result of this action, operators, training providers, and safety officials will have more timely access to standardized, accurate training material.

DATES:

This rule is effective on September 7, 2016, except for the removal of SFAR No. 108 to part 91 which is effective on November 7, 2017. The compliance date for this final rule is November 7, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 7, 2016.

Submit comments on or before November 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2006-24981 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Joseph Hemler, Commercial Operations Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-820, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522; telephone (202) 267-1100; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Although the FAA is inviting comments, we have made the determination to adopt this final rule without prior notice and public comment in order to mitigate the safety risks where current Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 108 conflicts with the FAA's current policy and guidance. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT), 44 FR 1134 (February 26, 1979), provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General Requirements.” Under that section, Congress charged the FAA with prescribing regulations that set the minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it will set the minimum level of safety for operation of the Mitsubishi MU-2B.

SFAR No. 108 contained inaccurate MU-2B flight training profiles, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that the FAA remedy these inaccuracies as soon as is practical due to serious safety concerns (NTSB Rec. A-14-96 and -97). The FAA concludes that immediate action is necessary to correct the inaccuracies in SFAR No. 108 and, therefore, finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Further, the FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective immediately upon publication.

I. Final Rule With Request for Comments

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108 mandated training, experience, and operating requirements to improve the safety of operating the MHI MU-2B series airplane. The SFAR contained inaccurate training maneuver profiles and is misaligned with current FAA flight training policy. This action corrects safety-related inaccuracies in the regulation and streamlines the process for updating MU-2B flight training requirements by removing them from regulations and placing them in advisory material. This change will permit the FAA to be more responsive by issuing guidance should any inaccuracies be discovered or should training requirements or policy need to be revised and updated in the future. As a result of this action, pilots, operators, training providers, and safety officials will have more timely and accurate training material.

II. Background A. Background

In 2008, the FAA published SFAR No. 108 to mandate flight training and experience requirements for operators of the MHI MU-2B twin-turboprop aircraft. The rule became effective in 2009 and did not have an expiration date. The flight training and experience requirements were based on an FAA safety evaluation of the aircraft, which has unique control surfaces and characteristics. There is a fleet of approximately 300 aircraft operating today in accordance with 14 CFR parts 91 and 135. In the 20 years leading up to SFAR No. 108, the MU-2B series aircraft experienced 80 accidents with 40 fatalities. Since the effective date of SFAR No. 108, there have only been two fatal accidents. In addition to experience and annual training requirements for pilots, SFAR No. 108 mandated training curriculum and flight profiles for operators and training providers.

Following the issuance of SFAR No. 108 on February 5, 2008, with a compliance date of February 5, 2009, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America (MHIA) and Turbine Aircraft Services (TAS), an industry party, began an evaluation to identify errors in flight profiles published in SFAR No. 108. At that time, minor spelling errors and technical items were identified. Additionally, MHIA and TAS notified the FAA of at least one error in procedure in the One Engine Inoperative Maneuvering Loss of Directional Control (Vmc Demonstration) profile.

Additionally, since the publication of SFAR No. 108, the FAA has approved the use of Continued Descent Final Approach (CDFA) procedures in all training programs, including the training programs for the MU-2B. The MU-2B FAA Flight Standardization Board (FSB) 1 subsequently included CDFA profiles in its FSB Report for use in MU-2B training programs. Because the FAA did not include CDFA procedures in SFAR No. 108, pilots were not permitted to train on these procedures or operate the aircraft consistent with them.

1 An FSB's primary responsibility is to determine requirements for pilot type ratings, to develop minimum training recommendations, and to ensure flight crew member competency. 8900.1, Volume 8, Chapter 2, Section 5.

In 2012, the FAA revised its stall recognition and recovery procedures for all aircraft and all training programs by removing the emphasis to ensure a “minimum loss of altitude” when performing stall training maneuvers and by emphasizing a positive reduction in angle of attack procedure as the proper stall recovery method (Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109). The FAA also introduced the use of “startle factor” training through the use of the autopilot during stall recognition and recovery practice in all aircraft training programs. However, the FAA did not include the “startle factor” training in SFAR No. 108.

Both MHIA and TAS requested by letter in early 2012 that the FAA change the MU-2B flight training profiles in SFAR No. 108 and make them consistent with the new stall recognition and recovery procedures. They also suggested the FAA remove the flight training maneuver profiles from SFAR No. 108, for ease of subsequent modification in the event of regulatory or training procedural changes made by the FAA. The FAA recognized that proper stall recognition and recovery is a safety-of-flight concern and concurred that distributing information on how to recover from a stall was essential to proper MU-2B training and safety of flight.

B. Statement of the Problem

There were a number of conflicts between SFAR No. 108 and best practices and FAA guidance, which demonstrate a better safety record. The FAA's Kansas City Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) 2 and MHI have documented that the SFAR conflicted with new and revised FAA training requirements, policy, guidance and safe operating practices set forth in the Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS), Commercial Pilot PTS, FAA Notice N8900.205, Enhanced Stall and Stick Pusher Training; Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training, and AC 120-108, Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA). SFAR No. 108 conflicted with FAA guidance in the following instances:

2 The AEG serves as Flight Standard Service (AFS) technical subject matter experts for operational and engineering activities. 8900.1, Volume 8, Chapter 2, Section 2.

First, SFAR No. 108 mandated power and trim settings for the demonstration of a one-engine-inoperative maneuver with loss of directional control. Those settings did not meet the safety standards of current FAA guidance and best practices. The “One Engine Inoperative Maneuvering—Loss of Directional Control” profile in the SFAR differed from current FAA guidance and best practices described in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3A).

Second, CDFA Procedures published in AC 120-108 and published in the MU-2 FSB Report, Revision 4, were not included in the training profiles in SFAR No. 108. Though published in the MU-2 FSB Report, Revision 4, CDFA procedures were not included in the SFAR No. 108 flight training profiles and therefore operators could not use these procedures while operating an MU-2B.

Third, SFAR No. 108 stall-recovery profiles required operators to perform all stall recoveries with a “minimal loss of altitude.” This was inconsistent with stall recovery guidance because the FAA now emphasizes successful recovery from a stall over minimizing the loss of altitude which can lead to a secondary stall. Recent changes to the FAA's stall training policy in AC 120-109 and PTS created conflicts with several flight profiles.

Finally, as identified by Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) of the Flight Standards Service and MHI, SFAR No. 108 mandates several airspeeds in appendix D flight profiles that are incorrect.

C. NTSB Recommendations

On October 23, 2014, NTSB urged the FAA to take action on the safety recommendations derived from the NTSB's investigation of a Mitsubishi MU-2B-25 airplane accident in Owasso, Oklahoma. (NTSB Rec. A-14-96 and -97). These recommendations addressed operational training and checklist usage for Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes.

The NTSB's investigation found that since SFAR No. 108 became effective in 2008, the FAA has revised its general stall recovery guidance and procedures for stall and stick pusher training for pilot certification and evaluation contained in AC 120-109, dated August 6, 2012. Advisory Circular 120-109 introduced a procedure for stall recovery that conflicted with related instruction provided in the SFAR. Therefore, the NTSB recommended in NTSB recommendation A-14-96 that the FAA revise, as soon as is practical, the “Approach to Stall” flight profile currently contained in SFAR No. 108 so that it is consistent with AC 120-109.

The NTSB also recommended in recommendation A-14-97 that “the FAA separate the flight training profiles from the SFAR such that any updates to the profiles can be made without having to go through the rulemaking process.” The FAA interprets this recommendation from the NTSB to mean that the more prescriptive rule in SFAR No. 108 should be revised to a more flexible rule, such as a performance standard. This change will allow flight training profiles to be updated more rapidly in response to improved training best practices and guidance, thus improving operational safety of the MU-2B aircraft.

III. Discussion of Final Rule

In order to provide a more flexible regulatory framework for MU-2B training, the FAA is removing all appendices to SFAR No. 108 which contained many prescriptive requirements. With implementation of this rule, all MU-2B training must take place under an FAA approved MU-2B training program. Approval of all MU-2B training programs will be based on whether that program meets the standards of § 91.1705(h).

The following figure describes the changes made from SFAR No. 108 as a result of this final rule and this references the specific sections in the codifications of these requirements in part 91.

Figure 1—Summary of Changes to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108 Made by This Final Rule Old section/paragraph The new part 91, Subpart N reference Description of change Section 1, Applicability § 91.1701 Applicability Provides new compliance dates.
  • References approved MU-2B training program.
  • Section 2, Compliance and eligibility § 91.1703 Compliance and Eligibility No substantive changes.
  • Minor language change in paragraph (b) for clarity.
  • Paragraph (g) revised to reference approved training program, adds a cross-reference to § 91.1705(h).
  • Section 3, Required pilot training
  • Paragraphs (a) through (g)
  • § 91.1705 Required Pilot Training No change other than to revise cross-references and reference approved training programs.
    Table 1, Manufacturer's checklists § 91.1705(g) No change. Section 4, Aeronautical experience § 91.1711 Training Program Approval No change. Section 5, Instruction, checking and evaluation § 91.1713 Instruction, Checking, and Evaluation No change. Section 6, Currency requirements and flight review § 91.1715 Currency Requirements and Flight Review No change. Section 7, Operating requirements § 91.1717 Operating Requirements No change. Section 8, Credit for prior training § 91.1719 Credit for Prior Testing Updated to give credit for previous training under SFAR No. 108. Section 9, Incorporation by reference § 91.1721 Incorporation by Reference Revised to address current incorporation by reference requirements. Section 10, Expiration No Expiration No change. Appendix A, MU-2B General Training Requirements § 91.1707(a), § 91.1707(b), § 91.1707(c) Removed.
  • Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 moved to § 91.1707.
  • Appendix B, MU-2B Ground Training Curriculum Contents § 91.1705(h)(1) Removed.
  • Training program standard added to § 91.1705(h)(1).
  • Appendix C, MU-2B Final Phase Check and Flight Training Requirements § 91.1705(h)(3) Removed.
  • Phase check requirements added to § 91.1705(h)(3).
  • Appendix D, MU-2B Maneuver Profiles § 91.1705(h)(2) Removed.
  • Training program standard added to § 91.1705(h)(2).
  • The following discussion describes the training program standard established for MU-2B training and contained in subpart N of part 91. These standards are found in § 91.1705(h), and an example of a training program implementing these standards may be found in Advisory Circular accompanying this rule.

    Paragraph 91.1705(h) contains the training program standard which replaces the prescriptive content of the former SFAR No. 108's appendices. Paragraph 91.1705(h) requires all MU-2B training programs to include a ground training curriculum, a flight training curriculum, differences training for operators of modified MU-2B aircraft, icing training, and training program hours for ground and flight training. The standard in § 91.1705(h) will allow for updates to MU-2B training programs and allow training providers to keep training programs up to date with current best practices while ensuring that the programs meet the FAA's safety standards. By placing the specific guidance regarding training program content in an AC, the FAA will ensure that the training program specific guidelines can be updated as agency safety philosophy regarding training evolves. However, the requirements for the training program will be retained in the regulations, ensuring that significant training adjustments would go through notice and comment rulemaking.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(1), an MU-2B training program must include a ground training curriculum sufficient to ensure pilot knowledge of MU-2B aircraft systems and procedures necessary for safe operation and proficient pilot knowledge of MU-2B aircraft. The FAA has replaced the prescriptive list of specific items listed in Appendix B to SFAR No. 108 with this performance standard.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(2), an MU-2B training program must also include a flight training curriculum with flight training maneuver profiles sufficient in number and detail to ensure pilot proficiency in all MU-2B operations for each MU-2B Model in accordance with MU-2B aircraft limitations, procedures, and MU-2B cockpit checklist 3 procedures applicable to the MU-2B Model being trained. Examples of MU-2B flight training maneuver profiles may be found in the FAA recommended MU-2B training program in the appendix of Advisory Circular (AC) AC 91-MU2B Mitsubishi MU-2B Training Program.

    3 The MU-2B checklists were incorporated by reference into SFAR No. 108 by the Final Rule published on 02/06/2008, 73 FR 7034.

    The FAA has included in subpart N of part 91 a list of specific maneuvers that an MU-2B training program must include in order to ensure pilots are adequately prepared for the unique safety challenges of operating an MU-2B. SFAR No. 108 was more prescriptive because it required these maneuvers in addition to requiring operators to follow all specific airspeeds and the order of procedures of the flight training maneuver profiles. The revised regulation allows for maneuver profiles to be updated with developing training and operational best practices. In order to obtain FAA approval, an MU-2B training program must contain the following flight training maneuver profiles for the MU-2B Model being trained:

    • Normal takeoff with 5- and 20- degrees of flaps;

    • Takeoff engine failure with 5- and 20- degrees of flaps;

    • Takeoff engine failure on a runway or a rejected takeoff;

    • Takeoff engine failure after liftoff when unable to climb. This maneuver may be completed in classroom or a flight training device only;

    • Steep turns;

    • Slow flight maneuvers;

    • One engine inoperative maneuvering with a loss of directional control;

    • Approach to stall in clean configuration and with wings level;

    • Approach to stall in takeoff configuration with 15- to 30- degrees bank;

    • Approach to stall in landing configuration with gear down and 40-degrees of flaps;

    • Accelerated stall with no flaps;

    • Emergency descent at low speed;

    • Emergency descent at high speed;

    • Unusual attitude recovery with the nose high;

    • Unusual attitude recovery with the nose low;

    • Normal landing with 20- and 40- degrees flaps;

    • Go around and rejected landing;

    • No flaps or 5- degrees flaps landing;

    • One engine inoperative landing with 5- and 20- degrees of flaps;

    • Crosswind landing;

    • Instrument landing system (ILS) and missed approach;

    • Two engine missed approach;

    • One engine inoperative ILS and missed approach;

    • One engine inoperative missed approach;

    • Non-precision and missed approach;

    • Non-precision CDFA and missed approach;

    • One engine inoperative non-precision and missed approach;

    • One engine inoperative non-precision CDFA and missed approach;

    • Circling approach at weather minimums;

    • One engine inoperative circling approach at weather minimums.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(3), an MU-2B training program must also include a final phase check sufficient to document pilot proficiency in the flight maneuvers as specified in the approved training programs phase check. This standard replaces the final phase check requirements in former Appendix C to the SFAR No. 108.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(4), an MU-2B training program must also include differences training sufficient to ensure pilot proficiency in each model of the MU-2B aircraft operated by a pilot who operates multiple MU-2B model variants concurrently. The differences training requirement is unchanged from the prior version of SFAR No. 108. Due to the age of the MU-2B fleet currently in operation, many MU-2B aircraft have been modified from the original factory configuration. Therefore, the FAA will continue to mandate differences training in order to ensure that those operators who operate multiple versions of the MU-2B aircraft are adequately trained to safely operate various MU-2B configurations. MU-2B differences requirements have been removed from Appendix A of SFAR No. 108 and are now specified in § 91.1705(h)(4). Section 91.1705(h)(4) only includes differences for factory type design MU-2 aircraft while other applicable MU-2 differences are required by other FAA approved training programs (e.g. part 135 and 142 operations) and AC 91-MU2B. The hours requirement for Differences Training can be found in § 91.1707(c). Differences other than factory type design MU-2B differences applicable to MU-2B aircraft are highly recommended for part 91 MU-2B training. Due to the magnitude of these changes to the MU-2B fleet, additional training is necessary to ensure pilot proficiency.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(5), an MU-2B training program must also include icing training sufficient to ensure pilot knowledge and safe operation of the MU-2B aircraft in icing conditions as established by Airworthiness Directive 1997-20-14 or an Alternate Means of Compliance to Airworthiness Directive 2000-09-15, as amended.

    As required by § 91.1705(h)(6), an MU-2B ground and flight training program must include the training hours identified by § 91.1707(a) for ground instruction, § 91.1707(b) for flight instruction and § 91.1707(c) for differences training. These training hours are identical to SFAR-108 training hours which were initially determined by the FAA's MU-2B FSB as the number of hours necessary to ensure the safe operation of the MU-2B aircraft.

    As required by § 91.1707(e), an MU-2B training program must include examples of endorsements for compliance with § 91.1705(f) appropriate to the content of that specific MU-2B training program's compliance with the standards of SFAR No. 108. Section 91.1705(f) describes the endorsement required under § 91.1705 (a) and (b) must be made by:

    (1) A certificated flight instructor under part 61 or part 141 meeting the qualifications of § 91.1713; or

    (2) a training center evaluator authorized by the FAA to conduct MU-2B evaluation events at a part 142 Training Center meeting the qualifications of § 91.1713 or,

    (3) for persons operating the MU-2B for a part 119 certificate holder within the last 12 calendar months, the part 119 certificate holder's flight instructor if that instructor is authorized by the FAA meets the requirements of § 91.1713.

    This section has been revised to include endorsements made by an authorized simulator instructor at an FAA 142 Training Center.

    As required by § 91.1709(a), to obtain approval for an MU-2B training program, training providers must submit a proposed training program to the Administrator. Only training programs approved by the Administrator may be used to satisfy the standards of subpart N of part 91. Training providers may submit for approval the most current version of the appendix to AC 91-MU2B, which the FAA has determined meets the standards of this subpart.

    Parts 135, 141, and 142 training providers must submit their proposed training program to their Principal Operations Inspector (POI) or Training Center Program Manager (TCPM) for approval and inclusion in their approved training curriculum.

    Part 91 training providers do not have an established process for seeking approval of a training program; therefore, part 91 training providers must submit for approval a proposed training program to their jurisdictional FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). The term `part 91 training providers' refers to training providers providing training under part 61 authority for a part 91 operation. Part 91 training providers may submit for approval the most current version of the appendix to AC 91-MU2B which the FAA has determined meets the standards of subpart N of part 91. The FAA FSDO will issue a Letter of Authorization (LOA) to the training provider if the proposed training program meets the standards of subpart N of part 91. For MU-2B training providers providing training under part 91, training programs will be approved for 24 months, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. For more details on how to submit an MU-2B training program for approval, please see AC 91-MU2B.

    Under § 91.1709(a)(3), the Administrator may require revision of an approved MU-2B training program at any time. A training provider must present its approved training program and FAA approval documentation to any representative of the Administrator, upon request.

    IV. Advisory Circular

    The FAA is publishing an approved MU-2B training program as an appendix in the AC 91-MU2B Mitsubishi MU-2B Training Program. This AC may be used by training providers to meet the requirements of subpart N of part 91. Training providers may also use this AC as a reference for developing their own MU-2B training programs to submit for FAA approval pursuant to § 91.1709. The AC includes the SFAR No. 108 flight training maneuver profiles with appropriate revisions consistent with current training policy and guidance.

    The following updates have been made to the MU-2B flight training profiles which have been removed from SFAR No. 108 and moved to AC 91-MU2B.

    One Engine Inoperative Maneuvering Loss of Directional Control

    The flight training maneuver profiles A-7, B-7, C-7 in the former Appendix D of SFAR No. 108 were incorrect regarding the procedures for setting power and trim for the demonstration of the one-engine-inoperative maneuver with a loss of directional control. The appendix D profile called for the MU-2B aircraft to be configured and trimmed for single engine flight prior to starting the maneuver. The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook calls for the aircraft to be trimmed for two-engine flight at a slow airspeed and then for the power to be configured for single engine flight without re-trimming. Setting the configuration of the aircraft in the manner SFAR No. 108 required results in the rudder forces required prior to reaching the Velocity Minimum Control (Vmc) being less than the actual rudder forces required to maintain zero sideslip flight. The consequence of setting the configuration in that manner promotes an adverse training condition causing the pilot to under-control the aircraft in the event of an actual Vmc experience. The FAA has revised these maneuver profiles to reflect the proper settings and relocated them to the AC. Section 91.1705(h)(2) retains the requirement that MU-2B pilots train on this item.

    Continued Descent Final Approach (CDFA)

    An Advisory Circular (AC) published on January 20, 2011, for all aircraft operators, AC 120-108, would enhance the operational safety of an MU-2B aircraft during a non-precision instrument approach. The only non-precision approaches contained in the former version of SFAR No. 108 were those that use the “dive and drive” method, which consists of descending immediately after the final approach fix to the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) and then leveling off until reaching the next step down fix or the missed approach point, as appropriate. This SFAR 108 procedure, when accomplished with one engine inoperative, required that the landing gear remain retracted until the pilot had visual contact with the landing runway environment. This SFAR 108 procedure could have resulted in the pilot forgetting to extend the landing gear prior to landing and was seen by many as an unstabilized approach. It also could have resulted in under shooting the visual approach path to the runway, causing a possible controlled-flight-into-terrain (CFIT) accident.

    The SFAR 108 “dive and drive” procedure, with gear extension restrictions, was originally approved for the MU-2 by the FAA in 2006 during the FSB review of the MU-2 single engine capabilities. Demonstrations showed a limited or negative climb capability for the MU-2 with the gear in the down position during single engine operations. Since most single engine non-precision approaches result in the need to maintain altitude for a period of time prior to final descent to the landing runway, the FAA determined that a non-standard landing gear configuration would be necessary to safely accomplish the level off. The “dive and drive” procedure is described in the AC 120-108.

    The revised procedure allows the pilot the option to extend the landing gear at the normal, final approach fix location and to fly a calculated glide path to the missed approach point, or derived decision altitude. This revised procedure prevents the need to maintain altitude at the MDA with the gear down which, in turn, improves safety. The FAA recognizes this new procedure and the FSB and Aircraft Evaluations Group (AEG) have now revised and published Revision 4 of the FSB Report for the MU-2. This version of the FSB Report contains provisions for incorporating the new procedures into MU-2B training and operation.

    The CDFA procedure was not contained in the SFAR No. 108 flight training profiles. The FAA is adding CDFA procedures to the list of required flight training procedures as an additional procedure in § 91.1705(h)(2). These new profiles, in addition to the existing profiles, have been relocated to AC 91-MU2B.

    Stall Procedures

    Advisory Circular 120-109 introduced a new procedure for the proper recognition and recovery from a stall for all aircraft. The AC 120-109 is supplemented by Safety Advisory for Operators (SAFO) 10012 standardizing the procedure for all aircraft and training programs. The latest revision of the FAA's Commercial Practical Test Standards calls for a change to the standard for performance and evaluation of stall procedures.

    AC 120-109 resulted from an FAA and industry study of two well-publicized accidents, Colgan Air Flight 3407 and Air France Flight 447. In both of these accidents, the pilots were not immediately aware that the aircraft were stalled, and the pilots did not attempt to recover correctly, resulting in the loss of the aircraft and all passengers.

    The maneuver profiles in SFAR No. 108 (profiles A-8 through A-11. B-8 through B-11, and C-8 through C-11) required operators to perform all stall recoveries with a “minimal loss of altitude.” This standard of performance has been redefined for all FAA and industry training for other aircraft, and new profiles have been published in MU-2B Training Program AC to instruct pilots to perform a stall recovery using a positive reduction of angle of attack method. This procedure change is important to ensure that pilots safely recover from a stall and do not cause a secondary stall of the aircraft.

    Also, in the past, during advanced training in high performance aircraft like the MU-2B, pilot training did not include full stall recoveries. Historically, recovery would be initiated at the first indication of the stall, which in the case of the MU-2B is a stick shaker vibrating the yoke in order to warn the pilot of an impending stall. Most MU-2B stall training never reaches a full aerodynamic stall or even pre-stall buffet. In those cases, recovery without having to substantially lower the nose of the aircraft is possible, resulting in a minimum loss of altitude. In a full stall, however, a pilot must positively lower the nose to reattach the flow of air to the wing prior to adding power. Otherwise, the pilot risks a secondary stall as the nose rises from addition of power, and/or a torque roll occurs opposite the propeller rotational direction. The new standardized method of recovery from any level of stall condition is to substantially lower the nose.

    Recent changes to the FAA's Practical Test Standards direct examiners to assess a pilot's ability to recover promptly at the “onset” (buffeting) stall condition. These revised profiles and AC 120-109 call out procedures for accomplishing this stall recognition and recovery from an autopilot `ON' flight configuration, thereby simulating a stall catching the pilot by surprise and creating more realistic surprise and startle in training. The revised maneuver profiles for stall recognition and recovery have been relocated to the AC.

    Compliance Dates

    As required by § 91.1701, after November 7, 2016, all training conducted in an MU-2B must follow an MU-2B training program that meets the standards of this Subpart of part 91. This 60-day period gives training providers time to adjust their training programs to meet the standards of this subpart and to seek FAA approval for training provider developed training programs.

    Also required by § 91.1701, this subpart is immediately applicable when effective to all persons who operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, including those who act as pilot-in-command (PIC), act as second-in-command (SIC), or other persons who manipulate the controls while under the supervision of a PIC.

    As required by § 91.1719, Initial/transition, requalification, or recurrent training conducted prior to November 7, 2016, compliant with SFAR No. 108, Section 3, effective March 6, 2008, is considered to be compliant with this subpart, if the student met the eligibility requirements for the applicable category of training and the student's instructor met the experience requirements of this subpart. This 60-day period allows current operators to continue training under SFAR No. 108 and allows for a seamless transition to training programs under this subpart.

    The FAA is immediately relocating and updating the content of SFAR No. 108 to this subpart in order to be in accordance with current FAA policy regarding the safest and most effective means to conduct training in the area of stall recognition and recovery, continuous descent final approach procedures, and one engine inoperative maneuvering. The FAA understands that MU-2B training is currently being conducted consistently with FAA policy and considers such training to be critical to the safe operation of the aircraft. For that reason, the FAA does not anticipate any disruptions in training or operations of MU-2B aircraft as a result of the immediate effective date for this rule. This rulemaking is necessary to align the regulation with the safest, best means to conduct training in the MU-2B.

    V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this rule.

    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it are to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

    The purpose and benefit of this action is to correct safety related inaccuracies in the regulation and streamline the process for updating MU-2B flight training profiles should any inaccuracies be discovered or should training requirements or policy need to be revised and updated in the future. As a result of this action, operators, training providers, and safety officials will have timely, accurate training material. This action is important to minimize future accidents.

    Pilots in need of MU-2B training can choose from either a training center or hiring one of the approximately 20 MU-2B qualified instructors. Currently, there are three primary training providers that offer FAA approved MU-2B training.

    There were a number of conflicts between former SFAR No. 108 and best practices and FAA guidance, which demonstrate a better safety record. The FAA's Kansas City Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) have documented that the SFAR conflicted with new and revised FAA training requirements, policy, guidance and safe operating practices. These practices are set forth in the Airline Transport Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS); Commercial Pilot PTS; FAA Notice N8900.205, Enhanced Stall and Stick Pusher Training; Advisory Circular (AC) 120-109; Stall and Stick Pusher Training; and AC 120-108, Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA).

    SFAR No. 108 mandates training, experience, and operating requirements to improve the level of operational safety for the MHI MU-2B series airplane. SFAR No. 108 contained inaccurate training profiles and was misaligned with current FAA flight training policy. Since the enactment of SFAR No. 108, there have been two accidents with five fatalities. The SFAR required training in accordance with inaccurate MU-2B flight training profiles. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that the FAA correct these inaccuracies as soon as is practical. New stall profiles have been created for instructing the pilot to perform a stall recovery using a positive reduction of angle of attack method. This procedure change is important to ensure that pilots safely recover from a stall and do not cause a secondary stall of the aircraft.

    Besides the inaccurate training profiles, SFAR 108 was not aligned with current FAA Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA) procedures flight training policy published in AC 120-108 and published in the MU-2 FSB Report, Revision 4. FAA CDFA procedures were not contained in the SFAR No. 108 MU-2B flight training profiles. Including these procedures in subpart N of part 91 will allow operators of the MHI MU-2B series airplane to follow the most current procedures when operating an appropriately equipped MHI MU-2B series airplane. The new CDFA flight training supplements training already contained in the SFAR and provides an alternate procedure that may be used at the discretion of the pilot.

    The flight training maneuver profiles A-7, B-7, C-7 in former Appendix D of the SFAR No. 108 were incorrect regarding the procedures for setting power and trim for the demonstration of the one-engine-inoperative maneuver with a loss of directional control. Furthermore, the maneuver profiles in the SFAR No. 108 (profiles A-8 through A-11, B-8 through B-11, and C-8 through C-11) required operators to perform all stall recoveries with a “minimal loss of altitude”. This requirement has been removed from all FAA and industry training documents for other aircraft. This rule relocates and updates the content of SFAR No. 108 to this subpart in order to eliminate safety concerns resulting from mandating incorrect and out-of-date best practices for training in and operating the MU-2B.

    With this action, all MU-2B training must take place under an FAA approved MU-2B training program. FAA approval of all MU-2B training programs will be based on whether that program meets the performance standards of § 91.1705(h). The FAA is also publishing an AC for the Mitsubishi MU-2B Training Program. This AC Appendix contains a recommended MU-2B training program which may be used by training providers to meet the requirements this subpart, or as a reference for the training providers to develop their own MU-2B training programs.

    By following the AC training guidance, there will be no new training costs associated with this revised training guidance. The requalification and recurrent training hours for ground instruction and flight instruction remain the same. All MU-2B pilots will have to take training compliant with this subpart when their 12-month recurrent training requirement comes due, but not before. Nothing in this subpart mandates new training outside the existing currency cycle.

    By following the AC training guidance, the change in existing training, results in no new costs. Thus, the cost of the rule will be minimal.

    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    MU-2 aircraft are owned by a substantial number of small entities. However, the FAA believes that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. With this rule, the updated procedures and new profiles that are already in place for other FAA approved training programs will become mandatory for MU-2B pilots. By following the AC training guidance, the change in existing training, results in no new costs. Nothing in this rule mandates new training outside the existing cycle.

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that the rule would protect safety and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The FAA has determined that there is a new requirement for information collection associated with this immediately adopted final rule and is requesting the Office of Management and Budget to grant an immediate emergency clearance on the paperwork package that it is submitting. Therefore, notification will be made to the public when a clearance is received. Following is a summary of the information collection activity.

    Title: MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update

    Summary/Need: This subpart requires qualified instructors providing MU-2B training in part 91 operations to submit a proposed MU-2B training program to the FAA for approval. This information collection is necessary to the FAA's mission to ensure aviation safety because it will enable the FAA to identify MU-2B qualified instructors providing training under this subpart and to oversee compliance.

    Respondents: The respondents are an estimated 20-training providers operating under part 91 that are qualified to provide training for the MU-2B aircraft in accordance with subpart N of part 91.

    Burden: The burden associated with this subpart is minimal to the part 91 training providers.

    Use: It will enable the FAA to identify MU-2B qualified instructors currently providing training under SFAR No. 108 and oversee compliance with subpart N of part 91.

    Frequency: Part 91 training providers will have to submit their training programs to the FAA every two years.

    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

    G. Environmental Analysis

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

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

    The FAA has analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this immediately adopted final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    VII. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents

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

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

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

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

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by amendment or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

    List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 35

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

    14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The Amendment

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

    PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS 1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    2. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108. PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 3. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

    4. Effective November 7, 2017, remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108—Mitsubishi MU-2B Series Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements. 5. Amend part 91 by adding subpart N to read as follows: Subpart N—Mitsubishi MU-2B Series Special Training, Experience, and Operating Requirements Sec. 91.1701 Applicability 91.1703 Compliance and eligibility. 91.1705 Required pilot training. 91.1707 Training program hours. 91.1709 Training program approval. 91.1711 Aeronautical experience. 91.1713 Instruction, checking, and evaluation. 91.1715 Currency requirements and flight review. 91.1717 Operating requirements. 91.1719 Credit for prior training. 91.1721 Incorporation by reference.
    § 91.1701 Applicability.

    (a) On and after November 7, 2016, all training conducted in an MU-2B must follow an approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of this subpart.

    (b) This subpart applies to all persons who operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, including those who act as pilot in command, act as second-in-command, or other persons who manipulate the controls while under the supervision of a pilot in command.

    (c) This subpart also applies to those persons who provide pilot training for a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. The requirements in this subpart are in addition to the requirements of parts 61, 91, and 135 of this chapter.

    § 91.1703 Compliance and eligibility.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may manipulate the controls, act as PIC, act as second-in-command, or provide pilot training for a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless that person meets the requirements of this subpart.

    (b) A person who does not meet the requirements of this subpart may manipulate the controls of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane if a pilot in command who meets the requirements of this subpart is occupying a pilot station, no passengers or cargo are carried on board the airplane, and the flight is being conducted for one of the following reasons—

    (1) The pilot in command is providing pilot training to the manipulator of the controls;

    (2) The pilot in command is conducting a maintenance test flight with a second pilot or certificated mechanic; or

    (3) The pilot in command is conducting simulated instrument flight and is using a safety pilot other than the pilot in command who manipulates the controls for the purposes of § 91.109(b).

    (c) A person is required to complete Initial/transition training if that person has fewer than—

    (1) 50 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls while serving as pilot in command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane in the preceding 24 months; or

    (2) 500 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls while serving as pilot in command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane.

    (d) A person is eligible to receive Requalification training in lieu of Initial/transition training if that person has at least—

    (1) 50 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls while serving as pilot in command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane in the preceding 24 months; or

    (2) 500 hours of documented flight time manipulating the controls while serving as pilot in command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane.

    (e) A person is required to complete Recurrent training within the preceding 12 months. Successful completion of Initial/transition or Requalification training within the preceding 12 months satisfies the requirement of Recurrent training. A person must successfully complete Initial/transition training or Requalification training before being eligible to receive Recurrent training.

    (f) Successful completion of Initial/transition training or Requalification training is a one-time requirement. A person may elect to retake Initial/transition training or Requalification training in lieu of Recurrent training.

    (g) A person is required to complete Differences training in accordance with an FAA approved MU-2B training program if that person operates more than one MU-2B model as specified in § 91.1707(c).

    § 91.1705 Required pilot training.

    (a) Except as provided in § 91.1703(b), no person may manipulate the controls, act as pilot in command, or act as second-in-command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight unless—

    (1) The requirements for ground and flight training on Initial/transition, Requalification, Recurrent, and Differences training have been completed in accordance with an FAA approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of this subpart; and

    (2) That person's logbook has been endorsed in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.

    (b) Except as provided in § 91.1703(b), no person may manipulate the controls, act as pilot in command, or act as second-in-command, of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight unless—

    (1) That person satisfactorily completes, if applicable, annual Recurrent pilot training on the Special Emphasis Items, and all items listed in the Training Course Final Phase Check in accordance with an FAA approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of this subpart; and

    (2) That person's logbook has been endorsed in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.

    (c) Satisfactory completion of the competency check required by § 135.293 of this chapter within the preceding 12 calendar months may not be substituted for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane annual recurrent flight training of this section.

    (d) Satisfactory completion of a Federal Aviation Administration sponsored pilot proficiency program, as described in § 61.56(e) of this chapter may not be substituted for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane annual recurrent flight training of this section.

    (e) If a person complies with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section in the calendar month before or the calendar month after the month in which compliance with these paragraphs are required, that person is considered to have accomplished the training requirement in the month the training is due.

    (f) The endorsement required under paragraph (a) and (b) of this section must be made by—

    (1) A certificated flight instructor or a simulator instructor authorized by a Training Center certificated under part 142 of this chapter and meeting the qualifications of § 91.1713; or

    (2) For persons operating the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane for a 14 CFR part 119 certificate holder within the last 12 calendar months, the part 119 certificate holder's flight instructor if authorized by the FAA and if that flight instructor meets the requirements of § 91.1713.

    (g) All training conducted for a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane must be completed in accordance with an MU-2B series airplane checklist that has been accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration's MU-2B Flight Standardization Board or the applicable MU-2B series checklist (incorporated by reference, see § 91.1721).

    (h) MU-2B training programs must contain ground training and flight training sufficient to ensure pilot proficiency for the safe operation of MU-2B aircraft, including:

    (1) A ground training curriculum sufficient to ensure pilot knowledge of MU-2B aircraft, aircraft systems, and procedures, necessary for safe operation; and

    (2) Flight training curriculum including flight training maneuver profiles sufficient in number and detail to ensure pilot proficiency in all MU-2B operations for each MU-2B model in correlation with MU-2B limitations, procedures, aircraft performance, and MU-2B Cockpit Checklist procedures applicable to the MU-2B model being trained. A MU-2B training program must contain, at a minimum, the following flight training maneuver profiles applicable to the MU-2B model being trained:

    (i) Normal takeoff with 5- and 20- degrees flaps;

    (ii) Takeoff engine failure with 5- and 20- degrees flaps;

    (iii) Takeoff engine failure on runway or rejected takeoff;

    (iv) Takeoff engine failure after liftoff—unable to climb (may be completed in classroom or flight training device only);

    (v) Steep turns;

    (vi) Slow flight maneuvers;

    (vii) One engine inoperative maneuvering with loss of directional control;

    (viii) Approach to stall in clean configuration and with wings level;

    (ix) Approach to stall in takeoff configuration with 15- to 30- degrees bank;

    (x) Approach to stall in landing configuration with gear down and 40-degrees of flaps;

    (xi) Accelerated stall with no flaps;

    (xii) Emergency descent at low speed;

    (xiii) Emergency descent at high speed;

    (xiv) Unusual attitude recovery with the nose high;

    (xv) Unusual attitude recovery with the nose low;

    (xvi) Normal landing with 20- and 40- degrees flaps;

    (xvii) Go around and rejected landing;

    (xviii) No flap or 5- degrees flaps landing;

    (xix) One engine inoperative landing with 5- and 20- degrees flaps;

    (xx) Crosswind landing;

    (xxi) Instrument landing system (ILS) and missed approach ;

    (xxii) Two engine missed approach;

    (xxiii) One engine inoperative ILS and missed approach;

    (xxiv) One engine inoperative missed approach;

    (xxv) Non-precision and missed approach;

    (xxvi) Non-precision continuous descent final approach and missed approach;

    (xxvii) One engine inoperative non-precision and missed approach;

    (xxviii) One engine inoperative non-precision CDFA and missed approach;

    (xxix) Circling approach at weather minimums;

    (xxx) One engine inoperative circling approach at weather minimums.

    (3) Flight training must include a final phase check sufficient to document pilot proficiency in the flight training maneuver profiles at the completion of training; and

    (4) Differences training for applicable MU-2B model variants sufficient to ensure pilot proficiency in each model operated. Current MU-2B differences requirements are specified in § 91.1707(c). A person must complete Differences training if a person operates more than one MU-2B model as specified in § 91.1707(c). Differences training between the factory type design K and M models of the MU-2B airplane, and the factory type design J and L models of the MU-2B airplane, may be accomplished with Level A training. All other factory type design differences training must be accomplished with Level B training unless otherwise specified in § 91.1707(c) . A Level A or B differences training is not a recurring annual requirement. Once a person has completed Initial Level A or B Differences training between the applicable different models, no additional differences training between those models is required.

    (5) Icing training sufficient to ensure pilot knowledge and safe operation of the MU-2B aircraft in icing conditions as established by the FAA;

    (6) Ground and flight training programs must include training hours identified by § 91.1707(a) for ground instruction, § 91.1707(b) for flight instruction, and § 91.1707(c) for differences training.

    (i) No training credit is given for second-in-command training and no credit is given for right seat time under this program. Only the sole manipulator of the controls of the MU-2B airplane, flight training device, or Level C or D simulator can receive training credit under this program;

    (ii) An MU-2B airplane must be operated in accordance with an FAA approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of this subpart and the training hours in § 91.1707.

    (7) Endorsements given for compliance with paragraph (f) of this section must be appropriate to the content of that specific MU-2B training program's compliance with standards of this subpart.

    § 91.1707 Training program hours.

    (a) Ground instruction hours are listed in the following table:

    Initial/transition Requalificaton Recurrent 20 hours 12 hours 8 hours.

    (b) Flight instruction hours are listed in the following table:

    Initial/transition Requalification Recurrent 12 hours with a minimum of 6 hours at level E 8 hours level C or level E 4 hours at level E, or 6 hours at level C.

    (c) Differences training hours are listed in the following table:

    2 factory type design models concurrently 1.5 hours required at level B. More than 2 factory type design models concurrently 3 hours at level B. Each additional factory type design model added separately 1.5 hours at level B.

    (d) Definitions of levels of training as used in this subpart:

    (1) LEVEL A Training—Training that is conducted through self-instruction by the pilot.

    (2) LEVEL B Training—Training that is conducted in the classroom environment with the aid of a qualified instructor who meets the requirements of this subpart.

    (3) LEVEL C Training—Training that is accomplished in an FAA-approved Level 5 or 6 flight training device. In addition to the basic FTD requirements, the FTD must be representative of the MU-2B cockpit controls and be specifically approved by the FAA for the MU-2B airplane.

    (4) Level E Training—Training that must be accomplished in the MU-2B airplane, Level C simulator, or Level D simulator.

    § 91.1709 Training program approval.

    To obtain approval for an MU-2B training program, training providers must submit a proposed training program to the Administrator.

    (a) Only training programs approved by the Administrator may be used to satisfy the standards of this subpart.

    (b) For part 91 training providers, training programs will be approved for 24 months, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

    (c) The Administrator may require revision of an approved MU-2B training program at any time.

    (d) A training provider must present its approved training program and FAA approval documentation to any representative of the Administrator, upon request.

    § 91.1711 Aeronautical experience.

    No person may act as a pilot in command of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight unless that person holds an airplane category and multi-engine land class rating, and has logged a minimum of 100 flight hours of PIC time in multi-engine airplanes.

    § 91.1713 Instruction, checking, and evaluation.

    (a) Flight Instructor (Airplane). No flight instructor may provide instruction or conduct a flight review in a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless that flight instructor

    (1) Meets the pilot training and documentation requirements of § 91.1705 before giving flight instruction in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane;

    (2) Meets the currency requirements of §§ 91.1715(a) and 91.1715(c)

    (3) Has a minimum total pilot time of 2,000 pilot-in-command hours and 800 pilot-in-command hours in multiengine airplanes; and

    (4) Has:

    (i) 300 pilot-in-command hours in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, 50 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months; or

    (ii) 100 pilot-in-command hours in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, 25 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months, and 300 hours providing instruction in a FAA-approved Mitsubishi MU-2B simulator or FAA-approved Mitsubishi MU-2B flight training device, 25 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months.

    (b) Flight Instructor (Simulator/Flight Training Device). No flight instructor may provide instruction for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless that instructor meets the requirements of this paragraph—

    (1) Each flight instructor who provides flight training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane must meet the pilot training and documentation requirements of § 91.1705 before giving flight instruction for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane;

    (2) Each flight instructor who provides flight training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane must meet the currency requirements of § 91.1715(c) before giving flight instruction for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane;

    (3) Each flight instructor who provides flight training for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane must have:

    (i) A minimum total pilot time of 2000 pilot-in-command hours and 800 pilot-in-command hours in multiengine airplanes; and

    (ii) Within the preceding 12 months, either 50 hours of Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane pilot-in-command experience or 50 hours providing simulator or flight training device instruction for the Mitsubishi MU-2B.

    (c) Checking and evaluation. No person may provide checking or evaluation for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless that person meets the requirements of this paragraph—

    (1) For the purpose of checking, designated pilot examiners, training center evaluators, and check airmen must have completed the appropriate training in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane in accordance with § 91.1705;

    (2) For checking conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, each designated pilot examiner and check airman must have 100 hours pilot-in-command flight time in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane and maintain currency in accordance with § 91.1715.

    § 91.1715 Currency requirements and flight review.

    (a) The takeoff and landing currency requirements of § 61.57 of this chapter must be maintained in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Takeoff and landings in other multiengine airplanes do not meet the takeoff landing currency requirements for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Takeoff and landings in either the short-body or long-body Mitsubishi MU-2B model airplane may be credited toward takeoff and landing currency for both Mitsubishi MU-2B model groups.

    (b) Instrument experience obtained in other category and class of aircraft may be used to satisfy the instrument currency requirements of § 61.57 of this chapter for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane.

    (c) Satisfactory completion of a flight review to satisfy the requirements of § 61.56 of this chapter is valid for operation of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane only if that flight review is conducted in a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane or an MU-2B Simulator approved for landings with an approved course conducted under part 142 of this chapter. The flight review for Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes must include the Special Emphasis Items, and all items listed in the Training Course Final Phase Check in accordance with an approved MU-2B Training Program.

    (d) A person who successfully completes the Initial/transition, Requalification, or Recurrent training requirements under § 91.1705 of this chapter also meet the requirements of § 61.56 of this chapter and need not accomplish a separate flight review provided that at least 1 hour of the flight training was conducted in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane or an MU-2B Simulator approved for landings with an approved course conducted under part 142 of this chapter.

    § 91.1717 Operating requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane in single pilot operations unless that airplane has a functional autopilot.

    (b) A person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B airplane in single pilot operations without a functional autopilot when—

    (1) Operating under day visual flight rule requirements; or

    (2) Authorized under a FAA approved minimum equipment list for that airplane, operating under instrument flight rule requirements in daytime visual meteorological conditions.

    (c) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless a copy of the appropriate Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Airplane Flight Manual is carried on board the airplane and is accessible during each flight at the pilot station.

    (d) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane unless an MU-2B series airplane checklist, appropriate for the model being operated and accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration MU-2B Flight Standardization Board, is accessible for each flight at the pilot station and is used by the flight crewmembers when operating the airplane.

    (e) No person may operate a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane contrary to the standards of this subpart.

    (f) If there are any differences between the training and operating requirements of this subpart and the MU-2B Airplane Flight Manual's procedures sections (Normal, Abnormal, and Emergency) and the MU-2B airplane series checklist incorporated by reference in § 91.1721, the person operating the airplane must operate the airplane in accordance with the training specified in this subpart.

    § 91.1719 Credit for prior training.

    Initial/transition, requalification, recurrent or Level B differences training conducted prior to November 7, 2016, compliant with SFAR No. 108, Section 3 of this part, is considered to be compliant with this subpart, if the student met the eligibility requirements for the applicable category of training and the student's instructor met the experience requirements of this subpart.

    § 91.1721 Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Cockpit Checklists are incorporated by reference into this part. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room W 12-140, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or at the National Archives and Records Administration, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    (b) Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 75001, USA.

    (1) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Checklists:

    (i) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-60, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06220C, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (ii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-40, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06256A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (iii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-36A, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06257B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (iv) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-36, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06252B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (v) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-35, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06251B, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (vi) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-30, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06250A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (vii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26A, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06255A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (viii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06249A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (ix) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-26, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06254A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (x) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-25, Type Certificate A10SW, MHI Document No. YET06253A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (xi) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-25, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06248A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (xii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-20, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06247A, accepted by FSB on February 12, 2007.

    (xv) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-15, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06246A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (xvi) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B-10, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06245A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (xvii) Cockpit Checklist, Model MU-2B, Type Certificate A2PC, MHI Document No. YET06244A, accepted by FSB on March 2, 2007.

    (2) [Reserved]

    PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 6. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 44730, 45101-45105; Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 44730).

    7. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 108. Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2016. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21356 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160617543-6543-01] RIN 0694-AH02 Russian Sanctions: Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding eighty-one entities under eighty-six entries to the Entity List. The eighty-one entities who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. BIS is taking this action to ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions on the Russian Federation (Russia) for violating international law and fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These entities will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of the Crimea region of Ukraine, Hong Kong, India, and Russia.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the EAR) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved in, or that pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy of the United States. The EAR imposes additional licensing requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those persons or entities listed on the Entity List. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List based on certain sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

    The End-user Review Committee (ERC) is composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy, and where appropriate, the Treasury. The ERC makes decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote. The Departments represented on the ERC have approved these changes to the Entity List.

    Entity List Additions Additions to the Entity List

    This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add eighty-one entities under eighty-six entries to the Entity List. These eighty-one entities are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The eighty-six entries being added to the Entity List consist of seven entries in the Crimea region of Ukraine, two entries in Hong Kong, two entries in India, and seventy-five entries in Russia. There are eighty-six entries for the eighty-one entities because five entities are listed in multiple locations, resulting in five additional entries.

    Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List. The entities being added to the Entity List have been determined to be involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, in this rule, BIS adds entities to the Entity List for violating international law and fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine. These additions ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions on Russia. The particular additions to the Entity List and related authorities are as follows.

    A. Entity Additions Consistent With Executive Order 13660

    One entity is added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13660 (79 FR 13493), Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 6, 2014. As described in the Order, the President found that the actions and policies of persons who have asserted governmental authority in Crimea without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets; and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The President also declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

    Executive Order 13660 blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine, among other activities. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13660, has designated the following entity: Salvation Committee of Ukraine, as being within the scope of the Order. In conjunction with that designation, BIS adds Salvation Committee of Ukraine to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to this blocked entity. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13660.

    B. Entity Additions Consistent With Executive Order 13661

    Eleven entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13661 (79 FR 15533), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 16, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660, finding that the actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation with respect to Ukraine—including the deployment of Russian military forces in the Crimea region of Ukraine—undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, and thereby constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

    Executive Order 13661 includes a directive that all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or thereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: Persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State to have either materially assisted, sponsored or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods and services to or in support of a senior official of the government of the Russian Federation or to operate in the defense or related materiel sector in Russia. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

    BIS, pursuant to Executive Order 13661, and in consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and the Treasury, has designated the following eleven entities: Angstrem-M; Giovan Ltd.; Joint Stock Company Angstrem; Joint Stock Company Angstrem-T; Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association (FEA) Radioexport; Joint Stock Company Perm Scientific Industrial Instrument-Making Company (PNPPK); Joint Stock Company Mikron; Joint Stock Company Research and Production Company Micran; NPC Granat; Technopole Company; and Technopole Ltd. The eleven entities added to the Entity List under Executive Order 13661 meet the criteria of Section 1, subparagraph B of the Order because they operate in Russia's arms or related materiel sector. BIS adds all eleven of those entities to the Entity List under this rule, and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these entities. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13661.

    C. Entity Additions Consistent With Executive Order 13662

    Fifty-one entities are added to the Entity List based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13662 (79 FR 16169), Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, issued by the President on March 20, 2014. This Order expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014 and expanded in Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014. Specifically, Executive Order 13662 expanded the scope to include sectors of the Russian economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, such as financial services, energy, metals and mining, engineering, and defense and related materiel. Under Section 8 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13662, on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury, and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following fifty-one entities as operating in the energy sector of Russia and owned or controlled by, or have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Gazprom, OAO, a person whose property and interests are blocked pursuant to the Order: Achim Development, OOO; Daltransgaz, OAO; Druzhba, AO; Gaz-Oil, OOO; Gazmash, AO; Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Nadym, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Urengoi, OOO; Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg, OOO; Gazprom Energo, OOO; Gazprom Flot, OOO; Gazprom Gaznadzor, OOO; Gazprom Gazobezopasnost, OOO; Gazprom Geologorazvedka, OOO; Gazprom Inform, OOO; Gazprom Invest, OOO; Gazprom Kapital, OOO; Gazprom Komplektatsiya, OOO; Gazprom Mezhregiongaz, OOO; Gazprom Pererabotka, OOO; Gazprom Personal, OOO; Gazprom Promgaz, AO; Gazprom Russkaya, OOO; Gazprom Sotsinvest, OOO; Gazprom Svyaz, OOO; Gazprom Telekom, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Kazan, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Nizhni Novgorod, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Samara, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Sankt-Peterburg, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Saratov, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Surgut, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Ufa, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd, OOO; Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk, OOO; Gazprom Tsentrremont, OOO; Gazprom Vniigaz, OOO; Kamchatgazprom OAO; Krasnoyarskgazprom, PAO; Lazurnaya, OOO; Niigazekonomika, OOO; Vostokgazprom, OAO; and Yamalgazinvest, ZAO. In conjunction with that designation, BIS adds all fifty-one of the entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons, when the exporter, reexporter or transferor knows that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or is unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. All of these persons are subsidiaries of Gazprom, which was added to the Entity List on September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55608). This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of BIS to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13662.

    D. Entity Additions Consistent With Executive Order 13685

    Eighteen entities are added based on activities that are described in Executive Order 13685 (79 FR 77357), Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine, issued by the President on December 19, 2014. This Order took additional steps to address the Russian occupation of the Crimea region of Ukraine with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, and expanded in Executive Order 13661 of March 16, 2014 and Executive Order 13662 of March 20, 2014. In particular, Executive Order 13685 prohibited the export, reexport, sale or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, of any goods, services, or technology to the Crimea region of Ukraine. Under Section 10 of the Order, all agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the Order.

    The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, pursuant to Executive Order 13685 on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury and in consultation with the Secretary of State, has designated the following eighteen entities as operating in the Crimea region of Ukraine: AO `Institute Giprostroymost—Saint-Petersburg'; CJSC Sovmortrans; FAU `Glavgosekspertiza Rossii'; FKU Uprdor `Taman'; Federal SUE Shipyard `Morye'; LLC Koksokhimtrans; OAO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka'; OJSC Sovfracht; OAO `Uranis-Radiosistemy'; OOO `DSK'; OOO Shipyard `Zaliv'; OOO `STG-EKO'; PJSC Mostotrest; SGM Most OOO; SMT-K; Sovfracht Managing Company, LLC; Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group; and Sue RC `Feodosia Optical Plant'. In conjunction with that designation, BIS adds all eighteen of these entities to the Entity List under this rule and imposes a license requirement for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to these blocked persons. This license requirement implements an appropriate measure within the authority of the EAR to carry out the provisions of Executive Order 13685.

    For the thirty entities under thirty-five entries added to the Entity List based on activities that are described in Executive Orders 13660, 13661, or 13685, BIS imposes license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirement applies to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the entities or in which such entities act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user.

    For the fifty-one Russian subsidiaries of Gazprom, OAO, that are added to the Entity List based on activities described in Executive Order 13662, the BIS imposes a license requirement for the export, reexport or transfers (in-country) of all items subject to the EAR to those companies when the exporter, reexporter or transferor knows that the item will be used directly or indirectly in exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet) or Arctic offshore locations or shale formations in Russia, or is unable to determine whether the item will be used in such projects. License applications for the fifty-one Russian subsidiaries will be reviewed with a presumption of denial when the items are for use directly or indirectly for exploration or production from deepwater (greater than 500 feet), Arctic offshore, or shale projects in Russia that have the potential to produce oil. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to any of the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule.

    The acronyms “a.k.a.” (also known as) and “f.k.a.” (formerly known as) are used in entries on the Entity List to help exporters, reexporters and transferors to better identify listed persons on the Entity List.

    This final rule adds the following eighty-one entities under eighty-six entries to the Entity List:

    Crimea Region of Ukraine

    (1) FAU `Glavgosekspertiza Rossii', a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —Federal Autonomous Institution `Main Directorate of State Examination'; —General Board of State Expert Review; and —Glavgosekspertiza.

    13 Demidova Street, Sevastopol, Crimea, Ukraine; and 10 Vokzalnaya Street, Sevastopol, Crimea, Ukraine (See alternate address under Russia);

    (2) Federal SUE Shipyard `Morye', a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —Federal State Unitary Enterprise SZ Morye; —FSUE SZ `Morye'; —Morye Shipyard; and —More Shipyard.

    1 Desantnikov Street, Feodosia, Crimea 98176, Ukraine;

    (3) OAO `Uranis-Radiosistemy', a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —OJSC `Uranis Radio Systems'; —OJSC Uranis-Radiosistemy; and —Uranis-Radiosistemy OAO.

    33 G, Vakulenchuk Street, Sevastopol, Crimea 99053, Ukraine;

    (4) OAO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka', a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —`Zvezdochka' Shipyard; —AO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka'; —Joint Stock Company Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka'; and —Ship Repair Center Zvezdochka.

    13 Geroyev Sevastopolya Street, Sevastopol, Crimea 99001, Ukraine (See alternate address in Russia);

    (5) OOO Shipyard `Zaliv' (f.k.a., AO Shipyard `Zaliv'; JSC Shipyard `Zaliv'; JSC Zaliv Shipyard; and OJSC Zaliv Shipyard), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —LLC Shipyard `Zaliv'; and —Zaliv Shipyard LLC.

    4 Tankistov Street, Kerch, Crimea 98310, Ukraine;

    (6) SMT-K, a.k.a., the following six aliases:

    —Krym SMT OOO LLC; —LLC CMT Crimea; —OOO `CMT-K'; —OOO `SMT-K'; —SMT-Crimea; and —Sovmortrans-Crimea.

    ul. Zoi Zhiltsovoy, d. 15, office 51, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine; and Vokzalnoye Highway 140, Kerch, Ukraine (See Alternate address under Russia); and

    (7) Sue RC `Feodosia Optical Plant', a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Feodosia State Optical Plant; and —State Optical Plant—Feodosia.

    Feodosia State Optical Plant, 11 Moskovskaya Street, Feodosia, Crimea 98100, Ukraine.

    Hong Kong

    (1) Giovan Ltd., Suite 1505-6, Albion Plaza, 2-6 Granville Road, TsimShatSui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under India); and

    (2) Technopole Ltd., Suite 1505-6, Albion Plaza, 2-6 Granville Road, TsimShatSui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under India).

    India

    (1) Giovan Ltd., C-16A, New Multan Nagar, Surya Enclave, New Rohtak Road 099 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India 110056 (See alternate address under Hong Kong); and

    (2) Technopole Ltd., D-79, New Multan Nagar, Surya Enclave, New Rohtak Road 099 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India 110056 (See alternate address under Hong Kong).

    Russia

    (1) Achim Development, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Achim Development; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Achim Development'.

    d.7 ul.Promyshlennaya, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629306, Russia;

    (2) Angstrem-M, Dom 4, Stroennie 3, Proezd 4806, Zelenograd, Russia 124460;

    (3) AO `Institute Giprostroymost—Saint-Petersburg' (f.k.a., Institut Giprostroimost-Sankt-Peterburg, ZAO; and ZAO `Institute Giprostroymost Saint-Petersburg'), a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —AO `Institute Giprostroymost—Sankt-Peterburg'; —JSC `Institute Giprostroymost—Saint-Petersburg;' and —JSC `Institute Giprostroymost—Sankt-Peterburg'.

    7 Yablochkova Street, St. Petersburg 197198, Russia;

    (4) CJSC Sovmortrans, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Sovmortrans CJSC.

    Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia;

    (5) Daltransgaz, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Daltransgaz; and —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Daltransgaz'.

    d. 1 ul.Solnechnaya S. Ilinka, Khabarovski Raion Khabarovski krai 680509, Russia;

    (6) Druzhba, AO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Druzhba'; and —Druzhba.

    Rogozinino, Moscow 143397, Russia;

    (7) FAU `Glavgosekspertiza Rossii', a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —Federal Autonomous Institution `Main Directorate of State Examination'; —General Board of State Expert Review; and —Glavgosekspertiza.

    Furkasovskiy Lane, building 6, Moscow 101000, Russia (See alternate address under Crimea region of Ukraine);

    (8) FKU Uprdor `Taman', a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Federal State Institution Management of Federal Roads `Taman'.

    3 Revolution Avenue, Anapa, Krasnodar 353440, Russia;

    (9) Gaz-Oil, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gaz Oil), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gaz-Oil; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gaz-Oil'.

    d.10 B ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia;

    (10) Gazmash, AO (f.k.a., Dochernee Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gazmash Otkrytogo Aktsionernogo Obshchestva Gazprom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Gazmash'; and —Gazmash.

    d. 54 korp. 1 litera A pomeshch prospekt Primorski, St. Petersburg 197374, Russia;

    (11) Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk, OOO (f.k.a., Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Irkutskgazprom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk'.

    d.14 ul.Nizhnyaya Naberezhnaya, Irkutsk, Irkutskaya obl 664011, Russia;

    (12) Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar'.

    d.53 ul.Shosse Neftyanikov, Krasnodar, Krasnodarski krai 350051, Russia;

    (13) Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk'.

    d.4 prospekt Oktyabrski, Kemerovo, Kemerovskaya obl 650066, Russia;

    (14) Gazprom Dobycha Nadym, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Nadym; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Nadym'.

    d.1 ul.Zvereva, Nadym, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629730, Russia;

    (15) Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk'.

    d.20 ul. Respubliki, Noyabrsk, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629802, Russia;

    (16) Gazprom Dobycha Urengoi, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Urengoy; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Urengoi'.

    d.8 ul.Zheleznodorozhnaya, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629307, Russia;

    (17) Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg'.

    d.9 ul. Geologorazvedchikov, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o 629306, Russia;

    (18) Gazprom Energo, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Energo; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Energo'.

    8 Korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 117939, Russia;

    (19) Gazprom Flot, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazflot), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Flot; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Flot'.

    d. 12 A ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia;

    (20) Gazprom Gaznadzor, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Gaznadzor; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Gaznadzor'.

    41 str. 1 prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow 119415, Russia;

    (21) Gazprom Gazobezopasnost, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Gazobezopasnost; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Gazobezopasnost'.

    d. 8 korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 119311, Russia;

    (22) Gazprom Geologorazvedka, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazprom Dobycha Krasnoyarsk), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Geologorazvedka; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Geologorazvedka'.

    d.70 ul.Gertsena, Tyumen, Tyumenskaya obl. 625000, Russia;

    (23) Gazprom Inform, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Informgazinvest), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Inform; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Inform'.

    d. 13 str. 3 ul.Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya, Moscow 117447, Russia;

    (24) Gazprom Invest, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Invest; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Invest'.

    d. 6 litera D ul.Startovaya, St. Petersburg 196210, Russia;

    (25) Gazprom Kapital, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Kap Infin), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Kapital; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Kapital'.

    Sosenskoe Pos, Pos. Gazoprovod, D. 101 Korp. 9, Moscow 142770, Russia;

    (26) Gazprom Komplektatsiya, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Komplektatsiya; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Komplektatsiya'.

    8 Korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 119991, Russia;

    (27) Gazprom Mezhregiongaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Mezhregiongaz; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Mezhregiongaz'.

    d. Dom 24 korp. Liter A nab.Admirala Lazareva, St. Petersburg 197110, Russia;

    (28) Gazprom Pererabotka, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Pererabotka; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Pererabotka'.

    d.16 ul.Ostrovskogo, Surgut, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug—Yugra a.o. 628417, Russia;

    (29) Gazprom Personal, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Personal; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Personal'.

    16, Gsp-7 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117997, Russia;

    (30) Gazprom Promgaz, AO (f.k.a., Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gazprom Promgaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Gazprom Promgaz' and —Gazprom Promgaz.

    d. 6 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia;

    (31) Gazprom Russkaya, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Kovyktneftegaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Russkaya; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Russkaya'.

    3 korp.2 ul.Varshavskaya, St. Petersburg 196128, Russia;

    (32) Gazprom Sotsinvest, OOO (f.k.a., Gazprominvestarena OOO), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Sotsinvest; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Sotsinvest'.

    d. 20 litera A nab.Aptekarskaya, St. Petersburg 197022, Russia;

    (33) Gazprom Svyaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Svyaz; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Svyaz'.

    d.16 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117997, Russia;

    (34) Gazprom Telekom, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gaztelekom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Telecom; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Telekom'.

    d. 62 str. 2 shosse Starokaluzhskoe, Moscow 117630, Russia;

    (35) Gazprom Transgaz Kazan, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Kazan; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Kazan'.

    d.41 ul.Adelya Kutuya, Kazan, Tatarstan resp 420073, Russia;

    (36) Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar'.

    d.36 ul.Im Dzerzhinskogo, Krasnodar, Krasnodarski krai 350051, Russia;

    (37) Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala'.

    ul.O.Bulacha, Makhachkala, Dagestan resp. 367030, Russia;

    (38) Gazprom Transgaz Nizhni Novgorod, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Nizhny Novgorod; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Nizhni Novgorod'.

    d.11 ul.Zvezdinka, Nizhni Novgorod, Nizhegorodskaya obl. 603950, Russia;

    (39) Gazprom Transgaz Samara, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Samara; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Samara'.

    d. 106 A str. 1 ul.Novo-Sadovaya, Samara, Samarskaya obl. 443068, Russia;

    (40) Gazprom Transgaz Sankt-Peterburg, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Saint Petersburg; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Sankt-Peterburg'.

    3 korp.2 ul.Varshavskaya, St. Petersburg 196128, Russia;

    (41) Gazprom Transgaz Saratov, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Saratov; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Saratov'.

    d.118 A prospekt Im 50 Let Oktyabrya, Saratov, Saratovskaya obl. 410052, Russia;

    (42) Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol'.

    d.6 prospekt Oktyabrskoi Revolyutsii, Stavropol, Stavropolski krai 355000, Russia;

    (43) Gazprom Transgaz Surgut, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Surgut; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Surgut'.

    d.1 ul.Universitetskaya, Surgut, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug—Yugra a.o. 628406, Russia;

    (44) Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk'.

    d.9 prospekt Frunze, Tomsk, Tomskaya obl. 634029, Russia;

    (45) Gazprom Transgaz Ufa, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Ufa (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Bashtransgaz Otkrytogo Aktsionernogo Obshchestva Gazprom); and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz UFA'.

    59 ul.Rikharda Zorge, Ufa, Bashkortostan resp. 450054, Russia;

    (46) Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta'.

    d.39/2 prospekt Lenina, Ukhta, Komi resp 169312, Russia;

    (47) Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd'.

    58 ul.Raboche-Krestyanskaya, Volgograd, Volgogradskaya obl. 400074, Russia;

    (48) Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Tyumentransgaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk'.

    d.15 ul.Mira, Yugorsk, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug, Yugra a.o. 628260, Russia;

    (49) Gazprom Tsentrremont, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Tsentrremont; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Tsentrremont'.

    d.1 ul.Moskovskaya, Shchelkovo, Moskovskaya obl 141112, Russia;

    (50) Gazprom Vniigaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Gazprom Vniigaz; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Nauchno-Issledovatelski Institut Prirodnykh Gazov I Gazovykh Tekhnologi—Gazprom Vniigaz'.

    P Razvilka, Leninski Raion, Moskovskaya obl. 142717, Russia;

    (51) Joint Stock Company Angstrem,

    Dom 4, Stroennie 3, Proezd 4806, Zelenograd, Russia 124460;

    (52) Joint Stock Company Angstrem-T, Dom 7, Georgievskiy Prospekt, Zelenograd, Russia 124460;

    (53) Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association (FEA) Radioexport, 8 Ukrainksi Boulevard, Moscow, Russia 121059;

    (54) Joint Stock Company Mikron, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —NIIME and Mikron.

    1st Zapadny Proezd 12/1, Zelenograd, Russia 124460;

    (55) Joint Stock Company Perm Scientific Industrial Instrument-Making Company (PNPPK), 25th of October Street, Number 106, Perm, Russia 614990;

    (56) Joint Stock Company Research and Production Company Micran, 51d Kirova Street, Tomsk, Russia 634041; and 2/5/4 Building 3 Slavyanskaya Square, Moscow, Russia 109074;

    (57) Kamchatgazprom, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Kamchatgazprom; and —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Kamchatgazprom'.

    d.19 ul.Pogranichnaya, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, Kamchatski krai 683032, Russia;

    (58) Krasnoyarskgazprom, PAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Krasnoyarskgazprom; and —Publichnoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Krasnoyarskgazprom'.

    d.1 pl.Akademika Kurchatova, Moscow 123182, Russia;

    (59) Lazurnaya, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Lazurnaya'; and —“Lazurnaya”.

    d.103 prospekt Kurortny, Sochi, Krasnodarski krai 354024, Russia;

    (60) LLC Koksokhimtrans, a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —Koksokhimtrans Ltd.

    Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia;

    (61) Niigazekonomika, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Niigazeconomika; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Nauchnoissledovatelski Institut Ekonomiki I Organizatsii Upravleniya V Gazovoipromyshlennosti'.

    d. 20 korp. 8 ul. Staraya Basmannaya, Moscow 107066, Russia;

    (62) NPC Granat, 22 Polytechnicheskaya Street, Saint Petersburg, Russia 194021;

    (63) OAO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka', a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —`Zvezdochka' Shipyard; —AO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka'; —Joint Stock Company Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka'; and —Ship Repair Center Zvezdochka.

    12, proyezd Mashinostroiteley, Severodvinsk, Arkhangelskaya Oblast 164509, Russia (See alternate address in Crimea region of Ukraine).

    (64) OJSC Sovfracht, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —PJSC `Sovfracht'; —Sovfracht JSC; and —Sovfrakht.

    Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia;

    (65) OOO `DSK', a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —OOO `Dorozhnaya Stroitelnaya Kompania'.

    Stroitelnaya Street, 34, village of Kesova Gora, Tver Oblast 171470, Russia;

    (66) OOO `STG-EKO', a.k.a., the following one alias:

    —`STG-EKO' LLC.

    Street Zastavskaya Building 22, Part A, Saint Petersburg 196084, Russia;

    (67) PJSC Mostotrest, a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —Mostotrest; —Mostotrest, PAO; —Open Joint Stock Company `Mostotrest'; and —Public Joint Stock Company Mostotrest.

    6 Barklaya str., bld. 5, Moscow 121087, Russia; and d. 6 str. 5, ul. Barklaya, Moscow 121087, Russia;

    (68) Salvation Committee of Ukraine, a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —Committee for the Rescue of Ukraine; —Savior of Ukraine Committee; and —Ukraine Salvation Committee.

    Russia;

    (69) SGM Most OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu SGM Most), a.k.a., the following three aliases:

    —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `SGM-Most'; —SGM-Bridge; and —SGM-Most, LLC.

    d. 10 korp. 3 ul. Neverovskogo, Moscow 121170, Russia;

    (70) SMT-K, a.k.a., the following six aliases:

    —KRYM SMT OOO LLC; —LLC CMT Crimea; —OOO `CMT-K'; —OOO `SMT-K'; —SMT-Crimea; and —Sovmortrans-Crimea.

    Anapskoye Highway 1, Temryuk, Russia (See alternate address under Crimea region of Ukraine);

    (71) Sovfracht Managing Company, LLC, a.k.a., the following four aliases:

    —LLC Sovfracht Management Company; —Management Company Sovfrakht Ltd.; —Sovfracht Management Company; and —Sovfracht Management Company, LLC.

    Dobroslobodskaya, 3 BC Basmanov, Moscow 105066, Russia.

    (72) Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Sovfracht-Sovmortrans; and —Sovfrakht-Sovmortrans.

    Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia; and Dobroslobodskaya, 3 BC Basmanov, Moscow 105066, Russia.

    (73) Technopole Company, 5-183 Entuziastov Street, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia 141980; and 12 Aviamotornaya Street, Moscow, Russia 111024;

    (74) Vostokgazprom, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Vostokgazprom'; and —Vostokgazprom.

    d.73 ul.Bolshaya Podgornaya, Tomsk, Tomskaya obl. 634009, Russia; and

    (75) Yamalgazinvest, ZAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:

    —Yamalgazinvest; and —Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Yamalgazinvest'.

    d. 41 korp. 1 prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow 117415, Russia.

    Export Administration Act

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

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.

    Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

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

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) to the entities being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List and would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Industry and Security amends part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) as follows:

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

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

    2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended: a. By adding under the destination of Crimea region of Ukraine, in alphabetical order, seven entities; b. By adding under the destination of Hong Kong, in alphabetical order, two Hong Kong entities; c. By adding under the destination of India, in alphabetical order, two Indian entities; and d. By adding under the destination of Russia, in alphabetical order, seventy-five Russian entities.

    The additions read as follows:

    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License requirement License review policy Federal Register
  • citation
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * CRIMEA REGION OF UKRAINE   *         *         *         *         *         * FAU `Glavgosekspertiza Rossii', a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Federal Autonomous Institution `Main Directorate of State Examination';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —General Board of State Expert Review; and —Glavgosekspertiza. 13 Demidova Street, Sevastopol, Crimea, Ukraine; and 10 Vokzalnaya Street, Sevastopol, Crimea, Ukraine (See alternate address under Russia). Federal SUE Shipyard `Morye', a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Federal State Unitary Enterprise SZ Morye;
  • —FSUE SZ `Morye';
  • —Morye Shipyard; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —More Shipyard. 1 Desantnikov Street, Feodosia, Crimea 98176, Ukraine   *         *         *         *         *         * OAO `Uranis-Radiosistemy', a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —OJSC `Uranis Radio Systems';
  • —OJSC Uranis-Radiosistemy; and
  • —Uranis-Radiosistemy OAO. 33 G, Vakulenchuk Street, Sevastopol, Crimea 99053, Ukraine.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    OAO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka', a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —`Zvezdochka' Shipyard;
  • —AO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Joint Stock Company Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka;' and —Ship Repair Center Zvezdochka. 13 Geroyev Sevastopolya Street, Sevastopol, Crimea 99001, Ukraine (See alternate address in Russia). OOO Shipyard `Zaliv' (f.k.a., AO Shipyard `Zaliv'; JSC Shipyard `Zaliv;' JSC Zaliv Shipyard; and OJSC ZALIV SHIPYARD), a.k.a., the following two aliases: For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. —LLC Shipyard `Zaliv'; and —Zaliv Shipyard LLC. 4 Tankistov Street, Kerch, Crimea 98310, Ukraine   *         *         *         *         *         * SMT-K, a.k.a., the following six aliases:
  • —Krym SMT OOO LLC;
  • —LLC CMT Crimea;
  • —OOO `CMT-K';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —OOO `SMT-K'; —SMT-Crimea; and —Sovmortrans-Crimea. ul. Zoi Zhiltsovoy, d. 15, office 51, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine (See Alternate address under Russia)   *         *         *         *         *         * Sue RC `Feodosia Optical Plant', a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Feodosia State Optical Plant; and
  • —State Optical Plant—Feodosia. Feodosia State Optical Plant, 11 Moskovskaya Street, Feodosia, Crimea 98100, Ukraine.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * HONG KONG   *         *         *         *         *         * Giovan Ltd., Suite 1505-6, Albion Plaza, 2-6 Granville Road, TsimShatSui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under India). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.   *         *         *         *         *         * Technopole Ltd., Suite 1505-6, Albion Plaza, 2-6 Granville Road, TsimShatSui, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate address under India). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.   *         *         *         *         *         * INDIA   *         *         *         *         *         * Giovan Ltd., C-16A, New Multan Nagar, Surya Enclave, New Rohtak Road 099 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India 110056 (See alternate address under Hong Kong). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. Technopole Ltd., D-79, New Multan Nagar, Surya Enclave, New Rohtak Road 099 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, India 110056 (See alternate address under Hong Kong). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         * RUSSIA   *         *         *         *         *         * Achim Development, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Achim Development; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Achim Development'. d.7 ul.Promyshlennaya, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629306, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * Angstrem-M, Dom 4, Stroennie 3, Proezd 4806, Zelenograd, Russia 124460. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.   *         *         *         *         *         * AO `Institute Giprostroymost—Saint-Petersburg' (f.k.a., Institut Giprostroimost-Sankt-Peterburg, ZAO; and ZAO `Institute Giprostroymost Saint-Petersburg'), a.k.a., the following three aliases: For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. —AO `Institute Giprostroymost—Sankt-Peterburg'; —JSC `Institute Giprostroymost—Saint-Petersburg'; and —JSC `Institute Giprostroymost—Sankt-Peterburg'. 7 Yablochkova Street, St. Petersburg 197198, Russia.   *         *         *         *         *         * CJSC Sovmortrans, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Sovmortrans CJSC. Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * Daltransgaz, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Daltransgaz; and
  • —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Daltransgaz'. d. 1 ul.Solnechnaya S. Ilinka, Khabarovski Raion Khabarovski krai 680509, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * Druzhba, AO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Druzhba'; and
  • —Druzhba. Rogozinino, Moscow 143397, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * FAU `Glavgosekspertiza Rossii', a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Federal Autonomous Institution `Main Directorate of State Examination';
  • —General Board of State Expert Review; and
  • —Glavgosekspertiza. Furkasovskiy Lane, building 6, Moscow 101000, Russia (See alternate address under Crimea region of Ukraine)
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * FKU Uprdor `Taman', a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Federal State Institution Management of Federal Roads `Taman'. 3 Revolution Avenue, Anapa, Krasnodar 353440, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
      *         *         *         *         *         * Gaz-Oil, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gaz Oil), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gaz-Oil; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gaz-Oil'. d.10 B ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazmash, AO (f.k.a., Dochernee Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gazmash Otkrytogo Aktsionernogo Obshchestva Gazprom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Gazmash'; and
  • —Gazmash. d. 54 korp. 1 litera A pomeshch prospekt Primorski, St. Petersburg 197374, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk, OOO (f.k.a., Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Irkutskgazprom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Irkutsk'. d.14 ul.Nizhnyaya Naberezhnaya, Irkutsk, Irkutskaya obl 664011, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Krasnodar'. d.53 ul.Shosse Neftyanikov, Krasnodar, Krasnodarski krai 350051, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Kuznetsk'. d.4 prospekt Oktyabrski, Kemerovo, Kemerovskaya obl 650066, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Nadym, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Nadym; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Nadym'. d.1 ul.Zvereva, Nadym, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629730, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Noyabrsk'. d.20 ul. Respubliki, Noyabrsk, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629802, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Dobycha Urengoi, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Dobycha Urengoy; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Urengoi'. d.8 ul.Zheleznodorozhnaya, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o. 629307, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016
    Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg,OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases: —Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg; and —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Dobycha Yamburg'.
  • d.9 ul. Geologorazvedchikov, Novy Urengoi, Yamalo-Nenetski a.o 629306, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Energo, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Energo; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Energo'. 8 Korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 117939, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Flot, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazflot), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Flot; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Flot'. d. 12 A ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Gaznadzor, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Gaznadzor; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Gaznadzor'. 41 str. 1 prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow 119415, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Gazobezopasnost, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Gazobezopasnost; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Gazobezopasnost'. d. 8 korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 119311, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Geologorazvedka, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazprom Dobycha Krasnoyarsk), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Geologorazvedka; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Geologorazvedka'. d.70 ul.Gertsena, Tyumen, Tyumenskaya obl. 625000, Russia. Gazprom Inform, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Informgazinvest), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Inform; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Inform'. d. 13 str. 3 ul.Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya, Moscow 117447, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Invest, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Invest; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Invest'. d. 6 litera D ul.Startovaya, St. Petersburg 196210, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Kapital, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Kap Infin), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Kapital; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Kapital'. Sosenskoe Pos, Pos. Gazoprovod, D. 101 Korp. 9, Moscow 142770, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Komplektatsiya, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Komplektatsiya; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Komplektatsiya'. 8 Korp. 1 ul.Stroitelei, Moscow 119991, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Mezhregiongaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Mezhregiongaz; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Mezhregiongaz'. d. Dom 24 korp. Liter A nab.Admirala Lazareva, St. Petersburg 197110, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Gazprom Pererabotka, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Pererabotka; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Pererabotka'. d.16 ul.Ostrovskogo, Surgut, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug—Yugra a.o. 628417, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Personal, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Personal; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Personal'. 16, Gsp-7 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117997, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Promgaz, AO (f.k.a., Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gazprom Promgaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Gazprom Promgaz' and
  • —Gazprom Promgaz. d. 6 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117420, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Russkaya, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Kovyktneftegaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Russkaya; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Russkaya'. 3 korp.2 ul.Varshavskaya, St. Petersburg 196128, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Sotsinvest, OOO (f.k.a., Gazprominvestarena OOO), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Sotsinvest; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Sotsinvest'. d. 20 litera A nab.Aptekarskaya, St. Petersburg 197022, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Svyaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Svyaz; and Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Svyaz'. d.16 ul.Nametkina, Moscow 117997, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Telekom, OOO (f.k.a., Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Gaztelekom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Telecom; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Telekom'. d. 62 str. 2 shosse Starokaluzhskoe, Moscow 117630, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Kazan, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Kazan; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Kazan'. d.41 ul.Adelya Kutuya, Kazan, Tatarstan resp 420073, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Krasnodar'. d.36 ul.Im Dzerzhinskogo, Krasnodar, Krasnodarski krai 350051, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Makhachkala'.ul.O.Bulacha, Makhachkala, Dagestan resp. 367030, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Gazprom Transgaz Nizhny Novgorod; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Nizhni Novgorod'. d.11 ul.Zvezdinka, Nizhni Novgorod, Nizhegorodskaya obl. 603950, Russia.
  • Gazprom Transgaz Nizhni Novgorod, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Samara, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Samara; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Samara'. d. 106 A str. 1 ul.Novo-Sadovaya, Samara, Samarskaya obl. 443068, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Sankt-Peterburg, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Saint Petersburg; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Sankt-Peterburg'. 3 korp.2 ul.Varshavskaya, St. Petersburg 196128, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Saratov, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Saratov; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Saratov'. d.118 A prospekt Im 50 Let Oktyabrya, Saratov, Saratovskaya obl. 410052, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Stavropol'. d.6 prospekt Oktyabrskoi Revolyutsii, Stavropol, Stavropolski krai 355000, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Surgut, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Surgut; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Surgut'. d.1 ul.Universitetskaya, Surgut, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug—Yugra a.o. 628406, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk'. d.9 prospekt Frunze, Tomsk, Tomskaya obl. 634029, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Ufa, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Bashtransgaz Otkrytogo Aktsionernogo Obshchestva Gazprom), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Ufa; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Ufa'. 59 ul.Rikharda Zorge, Ufa, Bashkortostan resp. 450054, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Ukhta'. d.39/2 prospekt Lenina, Ukhta, Komi resp 169312, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Volgograd'. 58 ul.Raboche-Krestyanskaya, Volgograd, Volgogradskaya obl. 400074, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk, OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu Tyumentransgaz), a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Transgaz Yugorsk'. d.15 ul.Mira, Yugorsk, Khanty-Mansiski Avtonomny okrug, Yugra a.o. 628260, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Tsentrremont, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Tsentrremont; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Gazprom Tsentrremont'. d.1 ul.Moskovskaya, Shchelkovo, Moskovskaya obl 141112, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Gazprom Vniigaz, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Gazprom Vniigaz; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Nauchno-Issledovatelski Institut Prirodnykh Gazov I Gazovykh Tekhnologi—Gazprom Vniigaz'. P Razvilka, Leninski Raion, Moskovskaya obl. 142717, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Joint Stock Company Angstrem, Angstrem-M, Dom 4, Stroennie 3, Proezd 4806, Zelenograd, Russia 124460. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. Joint Stock Company Angstrem-T, Dom 7, Georgievskiy Prospekt, Zelenograd, Russia 124460. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.    *         *         *         *         *         * Joint Stock Company Foreign Economic Association (FEA) Radioexport, 8 Ukrainksi Boulevard, Moscow, Russia, 121059. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.    *         *         *         *         *         * Joint Stock Company Mikron, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —NIIME and Mikron. 1st Zapadny Proezd 12/1, Zelenograd, Russia 124460.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Joint Stock Company Perm Scientific Industrial Instrument-Making Company (PNPPK), 25th of October Street, Number 106, Perm, Russia 614990. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. Joint Stock Company Research and Production Company Micran, 51d Kirova Street, Tomsk, Russia 634041; and 2/5/4 Building 3 Slavyanskaya Square, Moscow, Russia 109074. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.    *         *         *         *         *         * Kamchatgazprom, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Kamchatgazprom; and
  • —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Kamchatgazprom'. d.19 ul.Pogranichnaya, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski, Kamchatski krai 683032, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Krasnoyarskgazprom, PAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Krasnoyarskgazprom; and
  • —Publichnoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Krasnoyarskgazprom. d.1 pl.Akademika Kurchatova, Moscow 123182, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    Lazurnaya, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Lazurnaya'; and
  • —“Lazurnaya”. d.103 prospekt Kurortny, Sochi, Krasnodarski krai 354024, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    LLC Koksokhimtrans, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Koksokhimtrans Ltd. Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Niigazekonomika, OOO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Niigazeconomika; and
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `Nauchnoissledovatelski Institut Ekonomiki I Organizatsii Upravleniya V Gazovoipromyshlennosti'. d. 20 korp. 8 ul. Staraya Basmannaya, Moscow 107066, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * NPC Granat, 22 Polytechnicheskaya Street, Saint Petersburg, Russia 194021. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016. OAO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka', a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —`Zvezdochka' Shipyard;
  • —AO Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Joint Stock Company Ship Repair Center `Zvezdochka;' and —Ship Repair Center Zvezdochka. 12, proyezd Mashinostroiteley, Severodvinsk, Arkhangelskaya Oblast 164509, Russia (See alternate address in Crimea region of Ukraine).    *         *         *         *         *         * OJSC Sovfracht, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —PJSC `Sovfracht';
  • —Sovfracht JSC; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Sovfrakht. Rakhmanovskiy lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia.    *         *         *         *         *         * OOO `DSK', a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —OOO `Dorozhnaya Stroitelnaya Kompania'.' Stroitelnaya Street, 34, village of Kesova Gora, Tver Oblast 171470, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    OOO `STG-EKO', a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —`STG-EKO' LLC. Street Zastavskaya Building 22, Part A, Saint Petersburg 196084, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * PJSC Mostotrest, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Mostotrest;
  • —Mostotrest, PAO;
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Open Joint Stock Company `Mostotrest'; and —Public Joint Stock Company Mostotrest. 6 Barklaya str., bld. 5, Moscow 121087, Russia; and d. 6 str. 5, ul. Barklaya, Moscow 121087, Russia.    *         *         *         *         *         * Salvation Committee of Ukraine, a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Committee for the Rescue of Ukraine;
  • —Savior of Ukraine Committee; and
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Ukraine Salvation Committee. Russia.    *         *         *         *         *         * SGM Most OOO (f.k.a., Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu SGM Most), a.k.a., the following three aliases:
  • —Obshchestvo S Ogranichennoi Otvetstvennostyu `SGM-Most';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —SGM-Bridge; and —SGM-Most, LLC. d. 10 korp. 3 ul. Neverovskogo, Moscow 121170, Russia. SMT-K, a.k.a., the following six aliases:
  • —KRYM SMT OOO LLC;
  • —LLC CMT Crimea;
  • —OOO `CMT-K';
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —OOO `SMT-K'; —SMT-Crimea; and —Sovmortrans-Crimea. Anapskoye Highway 1, Temryuk, Russia (See alternate address under Crimea region of Ukraine).    *         *         *         *         *         * Sovfracht Managing Company, LLC, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —LLC Sovfracht Management Company;
  • —Management Company Sovfrakht Ltd.;
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    —Sovfracht Management Company; and —Sovfracht Management Company, LLC. Dobroslobodskaya, 3 BC Basmanov, Moscow 105066, Russia. Sovfracht-Sovmortrans Group, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Sovfracht-Sovmortrans; and
  • —Sovfrakht-Sovmortrans. Rakhmanovskiy Lane, 4, bld.1, Morskoy House, Moscow 127994, Russia; and Dobroslobodskaya, 3 BC Basmanov, Moscow 105066, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Technopole Company, 5-183 Entuziastov Street, Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia 141980; and 12 Aviamotornaya Street, Moscow, Russia 111024. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR) Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.    *         *         *         *         *         * Vostokgazprom, OAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Otkrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Vostokgazprom'; and
  • —Vostokgazprom. d.73 ul.Bolshaya Podgornaya, Tomsk, Tomskaya obl. 634009, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
       *         *         *         *         *         * Yamalgazinvest, ZAO, a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Yamalgazinvest; and
  • —Zakrytoe Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo `Yamalgazinvest'. d. 41 korp. 1 prospekt Vernadskogo, Moscow 117415, Russia.
  • For all items subject to the EAR when used in projects specified in § 746.5 of the EAR See § 746.5(b) of the EAR 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] September 7, 2016.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: September 1, 2016. Eric L. Hirschhorn, Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21431 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 30 CFR Part 800 [Docket ID: OSM-2016-0006; S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000 167S180110; S2D2S SS08011000 SX064A000 16XS501520] Petition To Initiate Rulemaking; Ensuring That Companies With a History of Financial Insolvency, and Their Subsidiary Companies, Are Not Allowed To Self-Bond Coal Mining Operations AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Decision on petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing our final decision on a petition for rulemaking that was submitted by WildEarth Guardians. The petition requested that we revise our current regulations to better ensure that self-bonded companies provide sufficient information to guarantee that reclamation obligations are adequately met and that the self-bonded entity is financially solvent. The Director has decided to grant the petition, although we do not intend to propose the specific rule changes requested in the petition. We will initiate a rulemaking to address this issue as discussed more fully below.

    DATES:

    September 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the petition and other relevant materials comprising the administrative record of this petition are available for public review and copying at the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, Room 252 SIB, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Kuhns, Division of Regulatory Support, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 202-208-2860; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. How does the petition process operate? II. What is the substance of the petition? III. What do our current regulations regarding self-bonding require? IV. What comments did we receive and how did we address them? V. What is the Director's decision? VI. Procedural Matters and Determinations I. How does the petition process operate?

    On March 3, 2016, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians (petitioner) requesting that OSMRE amend its self-bonding regulations at 30 CFR 800.23 to ensure that companies with a history of financial insolvency, and their subsidiary companies, are not allowed to self-bond coal mining operations. WildEarth Guardians submitted this petition pursuant to section 201(g) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201(g), which provides that any person may petition the Director of OSMRE to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation adopted under SMCRA. OSMRE adopted regulations at 30 CFR 700.12 to implement this statutory provision.

    In accordance with our regulation at 30 CFR 700.12(c), we determined that WildEarth Guardians' petition set forth “facts, technical justification and law” establishing a “reasonable basis” for amending our regulations. Therefore, on May 20, 2016, we published a document in the Federal Register (81 FR 31880) seeking comments on whether we should deny the petition or whether the changes proposed by petitioners, or other changes beyond what the petitioners have proposed, should be made. On June 20, 2016, we published a document extending the comment period 30 days, until July 20, 2016 (81 FR 39875). We received 117,191 comments during the public comment period.

    After reviewing the petition and public comments, the Director has decided to grant WildEarth Guardians' petition. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and section 201(c)(2) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1211(c)(2), we plan to initiate rulemaking and publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with an appropriate public comment period. Although we are still considering the content of the proposed rule, we expect that it will contain updates and improvements to our regulations to ensure that reclamation obligations are adequately met and that any self-bonded entity is financially solvent. However, OSMRE does not intend to propose the petitioner's suggested rule language because it did not address important issues such as the process for evaluating applications for self-bonds, monitoring the financial health of self-bonded entities, and providing a mechanism for replacing self-bonds with other types of financial assurances if the need arises.

    II. What is the substance of the petition?

    The WildEarth Guardians' petition for rulemaking requests that OSMRE amend its self-bonding regulations at 30 CFR 800.23 to ensure that companies with a history of financial insolvency, and their subsidiary companies, are not allowed to self-bond coal mining operations. The petition claims that current rules allow regulatory authorities (RAs) to accept self-bond guarantees from subsidiary companies that are technically insolvent due to the financial status of their parent corporations, potentially shifting the financial burden for substantial mine reclamation costs to American taxpayers in the event the companies do not have the financial resources to complete their mine reclamation obligations.

    In its petition, WildEarth Guardians provides draft regulatory language that it alleges will ensure that any entity, including non-parent corporate guarantors, will be subject to appropriate financial scrutiny before being allowed to self-bond. Specifically, WildEarth Guardians requests that we revise our self-bonding regulations to define the term “ultimate parent corporation,” limit the total amount of present and proposed self-bonds to not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the ultimate parent corporation's tangible net worth in the United States, and require that both the self-bonding applicant and its parent corporation meet any self-bonding financial conditions in 30 CFR 800.23, including the requirement that neither have filed for bankruptcy in the last five (5) years.

    III. What do our current regulations regarding self-bonding require?

    Our current regulations at 30 CFR 800.23 set minimum standards for accepting a self-bond from an applicant. Paragraph (a) provides definitions for the terms “current assets,” “current liabilities,” “fixed assets,” “liabilities,” “net worth,” “parent corporation,” and “tangible net worth.” Paragraph (b) sets out the conditions that an applicant must meet before it can be eligible to self-bond. The applicant must designate a suitable agent to receive service of process, paragraph (b)(1); demonstrate continuous operation as a business entity for at least 5 years, paragraph (b)(2); submit financial information satisfying at least one of three financial tests, paragraph (b)(3); and submit various audited and unaudited financial statements, paragraph (b)(4). Paragraph (c) allows an RA to accept a written guarantee for an applicant's self-bond from a parent or “corporate” guarantor as long as the guarantor meets the conditions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(4) of 30 CFR 800.23 and sets out the terms for a corporate guarantee. Paragraph (d) states that, in order for an RA to accept an applicant's self-bonds, the total amount of the outstanding and proposed self-bonds of the applicant must not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the applicant's tangible net worth in the United States. Paragraph (e) provides the requirements for any indemnity agreements. Paragraph (f) allows an RA to require self-bonded applicants, parent and non-parent corporate guarantors to submit an update of the information required under paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year following the issuance of the self-bond or corporate guarantee. Finally, paragraph (g) requires that, if at any time during the period when a self-bond is posted, the financial conditions of the applicant, parent or non-parent corporate guarantor change so that the criteria of paragraphs (b)(3) and (d) are not satisfied, the permittee must notify the RA and, within 90 days, post an alternate form of bond in the same amount as the self-bond. This paragraph also provides that if the permittee fails to post an adequate substitute bond, the regulatory provisions of § 800.16(e), addressing bond procedures in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency, will apply.

    IV. What comments did we receive and how did we address them?

    We received 117,191 comments on the petition for rulemaking. These comments can be divided into two major groups: those in favor of the rulemaking (over 99%) and those opposed (less than 1%, or fourteen unique comments).

    Supporters of the petition expressed concern that the current self-bond regulations do not adequately protect the public from the risk that a self-bonded entity could declare bankruptcy and not have the funds to complete reclamation. These commenters pointed to multiple recent bankruptcies of self-bonded companies as evidence of the need for OSMRE to revise its self-bonding regulations to prevent those companies from qualifying for self-bonding just prior to declaring bankruptcy. Many commenters also expressed a desire for OSMRE to take some type of immediate action (such as banning self-bonding or providing guidance) until there is sufficient time to complete the formal rulemaking process. In support of the request for more immediate action, commenters pointed to the large amount of self-bonding by financially unstable companies that is at risk of becoming worthless in the ongoing bankruptcies.

    Opponents of rulemaking asserted that most coal companies have a history of solvency and that even those companies currently in bankruptcy have continued to meet their reclamation obligations. Commenters also stated that they believed SMCRA and OSMRE's implementing regulations at 30 CFR 800.23 already provide adequate criteria for self-bonding and that the language proposed by petitioners would violate section 525 of the federal bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. 525(a), by discriminating against bankrupt entities. Commenters also expressed concern that more stringent self-bonding regulations would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of state RAs in determining whether to allow self-bonding. They assert that this would simply shift reclamation liability from one type of bonding instrument (self-bonding) to another (surety, letter of credit, collateral, or some other financial assurance), which the commenters allege would exacerbate current stresses on the coal market. Several commenters requested that OSMRE deny the petition and allow additional time for us to work with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and state regulatory authorities to find a non-regulatory solution to the self-bonding problem.

    V. What is the Director's decision?

    After reviewing the petition and supporting materials, and after careful consideration of all comments received, OSMRE has decided to grant the petition. However, we do not plan to propose adoption of the specific regulatory changes suggested by the petitioner. Instead, we are examining broader regulatory changes to 30 CFR part 800 to update OSMRE's bonding regulations and ensure the completion of the reclamation plan if the regulatory authority has to perform the work in the event of forfeiture.

    It is undisputed that the coal market is dramatically different from when our current self-bonding regulations were drafted. Diminished global demand for coal, competition from low cost shale gas, and the unprecedented and continuing retirement of coal-fired power plants are clear signs that the energy industry is undergoing a major transformation. It is incumbent upon OSMRE to protect the public's interests in connection with self-bonding. Without a rigorous financial investigation, both before accepting self-bond and throughout the duration of a self-bond, it is impossible to ensure that the public will be adequately protected from the risk that a self-bonded entity will have insufficient funds to complete all of the required reclamation.

    During our evaluation of the petition and the comments, we discovered instances where self-bond applicants did not provide sufficient financial information for state RAs to make informed decisions about whether that applicant was financially stable enough to self-bond. We also discovered that, because the financial condition of some companies changed so quickly, state RAs have experienced difficulties requesting and/or receiving additional financial information from a self-bonded entity when the RA becomes aware that the financial situation of that entity has changed, and enforcing the requirement that a self-bonded entity notify the RA and obtain replacement bond when it no longer qualifies for self-bonding under the regulations. Our current regulations look at companies' historical performance in order to assess their future solvency instead of using criteria that are more forward looking. For example, some companies qualified for self-bonding just months before the company declared bankruptcy, in part by providing year-old financial data that did not reflect the dramatic changes in the coal market and the declining financial health of those self-bonded entities in the intervening year. In other instances, the financial information came too late or too slowly for RAs to take enforcement action before the company declared bankruptcy. Once a self-bonded company files for bankruptcy, obtaining replacement bonds becomes significantly more difficult. We have concluded that the current regulations do not require use of the most appropriate financial tests, both before a self-bond is approved and during the life of a self-bond.

    In light of these findings, OSMRE will consider proposing a number of changes to our regulations. We anticipate reviewing the definitions in 30 CFR 800.23(a), as well as reviewing the existing financial tests and documentation required under 30 CFR 800.23(b), to ensure that the self-bond applicant is financially stable. We also will consider developing a systematic review process for ascertaining whether self-bonded entities remain financially healthy and for spotting any adverse trends that might necessitate replacing a self-bond with a different type of financial assurance. We will also consider if we need to provide an independent third party review of the self-bonding entity's annual financial reports and certification of the current and future financial ability of the self-bonding entity. Lastly, we may propose additional procedures for replacing self-bonds in the event that a company no longer meets the financial tests and to clarify the penalties for an entity's failure to disclose a change in financial status.

    As mentioned above, we may also propose revisions to other bonding requirements, and explore the possibility of the creation of new financial assurance instruments to provide industry more options. We will likely explore the potential of requiring diversified financial assurances. Relying on just one type of financial assurance, such as self-bond or a surety bond from just one company, could be risky in an uncertain financial market. We are also likely to explore ways to make sure there is sufficient collateral to cover all reclamation obligations. Under our current regulations, the same small set of assets has been used as collateral for multiple liabilities. In a number of cases, the aggregate amount of these liabilities has been far greater than the value of the assets used as collateral, with the result that reclamation obligations are at risk of not being met. We will explore ways to address this problem, such as assessing the merits of requiring that a percentage of all bonds be supported by collateral that is not subject to any other lien nor used as collateral for any other mine or other liability. In addition, we need to explore the possibility of establishing criteria to create a greater incentive for self-bonded companies to timely complete reclamation and apply for final bond release. Companies that have surety bonds either pay a fee for the bond or have some sort of collateral that is being held by the surety company. These frozen assets give them an incentive to complete reclamation that self-bonded companies do not have. Finally, we will examine concerns raised over certain sureties' reliance on a cash-flow basis to cover the cost of reclamation when their bonds are forfeited.

    We believe that carefully considered revisions to our regulations will better (1) ensure the completion of the reclamation plan as required in section 509(a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1259(a), (2) guarantee that an applicant demonstrates a history of financial solvency and continuous operation sufficient for authorization to self-insure as required in section 509(c) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1259(c), and (3) assure that surface coal mining operations are conducted to protect the environment, 30 U.S.C. 1202(d).

    As we begin to examine broader regulatory changes, we will seek specific input from the many stakeholders about their ideas of how to improve our regulations. The state RAs have many years of experience with self-bonding and we will ask that they provide specific suggestions on how to improve our regulations to ensure they have adequate financial assurance to complete reclamation of each mine.

    VI. Procedural Matters and Determinations

    This document is not a proposed or final rule, policy, or guidance. Therefore, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or Executive Orders 12866, 13563, 12630, 13132, 12988, 13175, and 13211. We will conduct the analyses required by these laws and executive orders when we develop a proposed rule.

    In developing this document, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, section 15).

    This document is not subject to the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), because no proposed action, as described in 40 CFR 1508.18(a) and (b), yet exists. This document only announces the Director's decision to grant a petition and initiate rulemaking. We will prepare the appropriate NEPA compliance documents as part of the rulemaking process.

    Dated: August 19, 2016. Glenda H. Owens, Assistant Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21440 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 252 [Docket ID: DOD-2012-OS-0170] RIN 0790-AI98 Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 25, 2016, the Department of Defense published a final rule, 81 FR 3959-3962, titled Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas. DoD is making a technical amendment due to the discovery of a mistake regarding the use of nonappropriated funds. A paragraph in the final rule incorrectly stated nonappropriated funds cannot be used to reimburse salaries and benefits of qualified scouting organization employees. Nonappropriated funds may be used to reimburse salaries and benefits of employees of qualified scouting organizations for periods during which their professional scouting employees perform services in overseas areas in direct support of DoD personnel and their families.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Patricia Toppings, 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This technical amendment amends 32 CFR part 252 to read as set forth in the amendatory language in this final rule.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 252

    Military installations, Military personnel, Scout organizations.

    Accordingly 32 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:

    PART 252—PROFESSIONAL U.S. SCOUTING ORGANIZATION OPERATIONS AT U.S. MILITARY INSTALLATIONS OVERSEAS 1. The authority citation for part 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    E.O. 12715, May 3, 1990, 55 FR 19051; 10 U.S.C. 2606, 2554, and 2555.

    2. Amend § 252.6 by revising paragraph (a)(6)(i) to read as follows:
    § 252.6 Procedures.

    (a) * * *

    (6) * * *

    (i) APF is not used to reimburse their salaries and benefits.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21254 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0847] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA 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 Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The Montlake Bridge is a double leaf bascule bridge. The deviation is necessary to allow work crews to replace bridge decking. This deviation allows a single leaf opening with a one hour advance notice during the day, and remains in the closed-to-navigation position at night.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on September 24, 2016 to 6 a.m. on September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0847] 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. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Washington Department of Transportation has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, at mile 5.2, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate work crews to conduct timely bridge deck repairs. The Montlake Bridge in the closed position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel, and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60 feet of the bridge; vertical clearance references to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. When half the span is open, single leaf, 46 feet of vertical clearance will be reduced throughout the center to 30 feet of the bridge. To facilitate this event, the north half of the bridge span will open with at least a one hour advance notice provided to the bridge operator from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. From 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., the Montlake Bridge span will remain in the closed-to-navigation position, or full closure.

    The deviation period is from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 24, 2016 (north single leaf opening if a one hour notice is given); from 6 p.m. on September 24, 2016 until 6 a.m. on September 25, 2016 (span remain in the closed-to-navigation position); from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 25, 2016 (north single leaf opening if a one hour notice is given); from 6 p.m. on September 25, 2016 until 6 a.m. on September 26, 2016 (span remain in the closed-to-navigation position). The normal operating schedule for the Montlake Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e).

    Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergency vessels in route to a call when an hour notice is given to the bridge operator, and a single leaf opening will be provided. The Lake Washington Ship Canal has no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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 designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 25, 2016. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21448 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0745] Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce safety zone regulations for a fireworks display taking place offshore the Virginia Beach oceanfront in the vicinity of the 20th Street, Virginia Beach, VA, on October 1, 2016. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters during this event. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    From 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on October 1, 2016, the regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the safety zone regulated area listed in row (c) 9 of the table to § 165.506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email ENS Chandra Saunders, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads (WWM); telephone 757-668-5582, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on October 1, 2016, for the safety zone regulated area listed in row (c) 9 of the table to § 165.506. This enforcement is related to a fireworks display that is part of the Virginia Beach Neptune Festival, on the North Atlantic Ocean, Virginia Beach, VA. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event.

    Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone within a 1000 yard radius of the center located near the shoreline at approximate position latitude 36°51′12″ N., longitude 075°58′06″ W., located off Virginia Beach, VA between 17th and 31st streets. As specified in § 165.506 (d), during the enforcement period, no vessel may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Hampton Roads (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) 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 17, 2016. Richard J. Wester, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, VA.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21476 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG- 2016-0788] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks; Allegheny River Mile 0.2 to 0.8 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks on the Allegheny River, from mile 0.2 to 0.8, to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Pittsburgh Pirates land-based fireworks displays following certain home games throughout the season. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 1 will be enforced from 8:00 p.m. until 11:30 p.m., on September 10, 2016 with a rain date to occur within 48 hours of the scheduled date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Pittsburgh Pirates Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 1 from 8:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on September 10, 2016. Should inclement weather require rescheduling, the safety zone will be within 48 hours of the scheduled date. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21439 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235; FRL-9950-04] Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective September 7, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 7, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 7, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235, by one of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40594) (FRL-9947-32), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP# 6E8477) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on the raw agricultural commodities teff, forage at 40 parts per million (ppm); teff, grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, hay at 40 ppm; teff, straw at 40 ppm; quinoa, forage at 40 ppm; quinoa, grain at 6.0 ppm; quinoa, hay at 40 ppm; and quinoa, straw at 40 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by DuPont Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235 at http://www.regulations.gov.

    A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for chlorantraniliprole in or on teff forage, grain, hay and straw as well as quinoa forage, grain, hay and straw, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2014 (79 FR 7397) (FRL-9905-56), EPA established tolerances for residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on fruit, stone, group 12-12, except cherry, chickasaw plum, and damson plum at 4.0 ppm; onion, green subgroup 3-07B at 3.0 ppm; peanut, hay at 90 ppm; and peanut at 0.06 ppm. EPA is relying upon the risk assessments that supported the findings made in the February 7, 2014 Federal Register document in support of this action. The toxicity profile of chlorantraniliprole has not changed, and the previous risk assessments that supported the establishment of those tolerances remain valid.

    The Agency evaluated the request to establish tolerances in or on quinoa and teff forage, grain, hay, and straw and concluded that the aggregate exposure and risks would not increase as a result of the proposed use on quinoa and teff and are the same as those estimated in the February 7, 2014 final rule.

    Both quinoa and teff are prepared like other whole grains, such as rice and barley, and may also be used to make flour in a manner similar to wheat and other cereal grains. Therefore, EPA concludes that teff and quinoa will likely substitute in the diet for cereal grain foods, which are subject to tolerances for chlorantraniliprole, and would be assumed to contain similar residues. Additionally, since teff and quinoa use patterns are similar to those for wheat and barley, increased exposures to individuals through drinking water is not expected. Thus, the proposed teff and quinoa uses will not result in higher dietary exposure estimates.

    With respect to livestock commodities, residues of chlorantraniliprole in teff and quinoa livestock feeds are expected to be similar to those in other forages, hays, and silages for which chlorantraniliprole is currently registered. Therefore, there would be no increase in the livestock dietary burden should teff and quinoa be substituted in the livestock diet for other hays and silages; residues in meat, milk, poultry and eggs will remain the same.

    EPA concludes that the aggregate exposure and risk estimates presented in the most recent human health risk assessment document, which were not of concern to the Agency, adequately account for exposures and risk resulting from all chlorantraniliprole uses including the proposed teff and quinoa uses.

    Therefore, EPA relies upon the findings made in the February 7, 2014 Federal Register document in support of this rule. EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to chlorantraniliprole residues.

    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the February 7, 2014 Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235. Further information about EPA's determination that an updated risk assessment was not necessary may be found in the document, “Chlorantraniliprole: Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses on Teff and Quinoa” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); Method DuPont-11374, is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    There are no Codex MRLs for chlorantraniliprole residues in or on quinoa or teff.

    C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing that stated, in part, that this chemical is “dangerous to America and to health of our people and life in America” and that EPA should “deny those applications from the profiteers whose only aim is to make money at our expense.” The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on quinoa, forage at 40 ppm; quinoa, grain at 6.0 ppm; quinoa, hay at 40 ppm; and quinoa, straw at 40 ppm; teff, forage at 40 ppm; teff, grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, hay at 40 ppm; and teff, straw at 40 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Michael Goodis, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.628, add alphabetically the entries “Quinoa, forage”, “Quinoa, grain”, “Quinoa, hay”, “Quinoa, straw”, “Teff, forage”, “Teff, grain”, “Teff, hay”, and “Teff, straw” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.628 Chlorantraniliprole; pesticide tolerances.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Quinoa, forage 40 Quinoa, grain 6.0 Quinoa, hay 40 Quinoa, straw 40 *    *    *    *    * Teff, forage 40 Teff, grain 6.0 Teff, hay 40 Teff, straw 40 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-21458 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 228 [EPA-R04-OW-2016-0356; FRL-9951-96-Region 4] Ocean Dumping: Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore of Charleston, South Carolina AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule and technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a modification of the ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) offshore of Charleston, South Carolina pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The primary purpose for the site modification is to serve the long-term need for a location to dispose of material dredged from the Charleston Harbor federal navigation channel, and to provide a location for the disposal of dredged material for persons who have received a permit for such disposal. The modified site will be subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure continued protection of the marine environment. In addition, the EPA now issues a technical amendment to correct a clerical error in the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this final action shall be October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: All documents in the Docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 Office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The file will be made available for public inspection in the Region 4 library between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please make your appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary W. Collins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Protection Division, Marine Regulatory and Wetlands Enforcement Section, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; phone number (404) 562-9395; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek or might seek permits or approval to dispose of dredged material into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. The EPA's action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and government bodies seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean waters offshore of Charleston, South Carolina. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be most affected by this action. Potentially affected categories and persons include:

    Category Examples of potentially regulated persons Federal government U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works projects, U.S. Navy and other Federal agencies. Industry and general public Port authorities, marinas and harbors, shipyards and marine repair facilities, berth owners. State, local and tribal governments Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged material associated with public works projects.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Background A. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of Charleston, South Carolina

    The existing Charleston ODMDS is located approximately 9 nautical miles (nmi) southeast of the mouth of Charleston Harbor on the continental shelf off the coast of South Carolina. It is currently 12.1 nmi2 in size, with an authorized disposal zone that is 3.0 nmi2 in size. Since 1896, the area now designated as the Charleston ODMDS and vicinity has been used for disposal of dredged material (e.g., sand, silt, clay, rock) primarily from the Charleston Harbor Navigation Project. The Charleston ODMDS received interim site designation status in 1977 and final designation in 1987. The discovery of live bottom habitats within the original site resulted in several modifications to use of the site resulting in the creation of the restricted disposal zone.

    The USACE Charleston District and the EPA Region 4 have identified a need to either designate a new ODMDS or expand the existing Charleston ODMDS. The need for expanding current ocean disposal capacity is based on future capacity modeling, historical dredging volumes, estimates of dredging volumes for future proposed projects, and limited capacity of upland confined disposal facilities (CDFs) in the area.

    The modification of the ODMDS for dredged material does not mean that the USACE or the EPA has approved the use of the ODMDS for open water disposal of dredged material from any specific project. Before any person can dispose dredged material at the ODMDS, the EPA and the USACE must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping regulatory criteria (40 CFR, part 227) and authorize the disposal. The EPA independently evaluates proposed dumping and has the right to restrict and/or disapprove of the actual disposal of dredged material if the EPA determines that environmental requirements under the MPRSA have not been met.

    B. Location and Configuration of Modified Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site

    This action modifies the ODMDS offshore of Charleston, South Carolina. The location of the modified ODMDS is bounded by the coordinates, listed below. The modification of the ODMDS will allow the EPA to adaptively manage the ODMDS to maximize its capacity, minimize the potential for mounding and associated safety concerns, potentially create hard bottom habitat and minimize the potential for any long-term adverse effects to the marine environment.

    The coordinates for the site are, in North American Datum 83 (NAD 83):

    Modified Charleston ODMDS (A) 32°36.280′ N., 79°43.662′ W. (B) 32°37.646′ N., 79°46.576′ W. (C) 32°39.943′ N., 79°45.068′ W. (D) 32°38.579′ N., 79°42.152′ W.

    The modified ODMDS is located in approximately 30 to 45 feet of water, and is located to approximately 6.0 nmi offshore. The modified ODMDS would be 7.4 nmi2 in size.

    C. Response to Comments Received

    On July 13, 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule to modify the site and opened a public comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OW-2016-0356. The comment period ended on August 12, 2016. The EPA received two comments on the proposed rule. One comment was from the U.S. Department of Interior stating that they had no comments at this time. The second comment was from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in regards to a clerical error with three site coordinates describing the location of the ODMDS. The EPA acknowledges the error and is making corrections as described in the technical amendment section below.

    D. Management and Monitoring of the Site

    The modified ODMDS is expected to receive sediments dredged by the USACE to deepen and maintain the federally authorized navigation project at Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, and dredged material from other persons who have obtained a permit for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of disposal at the ODMDS. All persons using the ODMDS are required to follow a Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the ODMDS. The SMMP includes management and monitoring requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at the ODMDS are suitable for disposal in the ocean and that adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are addressed to the maximum extent practicable. The SMMP for the modified ODMDS, in addition to the aforementioned, also addresses management of the ODMDS to ensure adverse mounding does not occur, promotes habitat creation where possible and to ensure that disposal events minimize interference with other uses of ocean waters in the vicinity of the modified ODMDS. The SMMP, which was available for public review, is currently being routed for signature by the Charleston District Engineer.

    E. MPRSA Criteria

    In modifying the ODMDS, the EPA assessed the modified ODMDS according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR part 228, to determine whether the site modification satisfies those criteria. The EPA's Final Environmental Assessment for Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore Charleston, South Carolina, [June 2016] (EA), provides an extensive evaluation of the criteria and other related factors for the modification of the ODMDS.

    General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)

    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).

    Dredged material disposal within the existing Charleston ODMDS has been confined to the eastern side of the designated site within a defined 4-mi2 disposal zone to avoid impacts to live hardbottom. During this time, dredged material disposal at the site has not interfered with commercial or recreational navigation, commercial fishing, or sportfishing activities. The modification of the site boundaries to the north, east, and south is not expected to change these conditions. This action avoids major fisheries, natural and artificial reefs, and areas of recreational use. Modification of the site to the east will minimize interference with shellfisheries by avoiding areas located primarily to the west of the ODMDS that are frequently used by commercial shrimpers. Construction of the berm will provide an additional approximately 427 acres of hardbottom habitat and will protect existing hardbottom habitat by minimizing sediment transport. There will be a 3000-foot buffer along the northern perimeter of the ODMDS where dumping will not occur. Modeling results indicate that this buffer should be sufficient to protect probable hardbottom areas to the north of the site.

    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).

    The ODMDS modification area will be used for disposal of suitable dredged material as determined by Section 103 of the MPRSA. Based on the USACE and EPA sediment testing and evaluation of dredged maintenance material and proposed new work material from the Post 45 deepening project, disposal is not expected to have any long-term impact on the water quality. Results of the maximum concentration found outside the disposal area after 4 hours of mixing for each dredging unit was zero. Based on these results, water quality perturbations that could reach any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically-limited fishery or shellfishery are not expected. The western edge of the modified ODMDS is approximately 7 miles offshore such that prevailing current will not transport dredged material to beaches. Water quality perturbations caused by dispersion of disposal material will be reduced to ambient conditions before reaching any environmentally sensitive areas.

    (3) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts, and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size, configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).

    The location, size, and configuration of the modified ODMDS provides long-term capacity, site management, and site monitoring while limiting environmental impacts to the surrounding area. Based on 25 years of projected new work and maintenance dredged material disposal needs, it is estimated that the ODMDS modification area should accommodate approximately 66.5 mcy of dredged material in order to meet the long-term disposal needs of the area. The dump zone within the modified ODMDS is estimated to have approximately 75 mcy of capacity. The capacity in the dump zone provides a reasonable amount of additional capacity to manage risk, account for future unknown disposal operations from private entities, and provides a margin of navigation safety. The remaining area within the boundaries of the existing 12 nmi2 Charleston ODMDS (parallelogram) would be de-designated. The area to be de-designated is approximately 10.4 mi2 (7.8 nmi2) in size and contains documented hardbottom habitat.

    By adding 5.8 mi2 (4.4 nmi2) to the existing ODMDS disposal zone, the total area of the modified Charleston ODMDS would be 9.8 mi2 (7.4 nmi2), with a dump zone area of 5.1 mi2 (3.9 nmi2). An ODMDS of this size and capacity will provide a long-term ocean disposal option for the region.

    To help protect nearby hardbottom habitat from being buried by sediment migrating from the ODMDS, a U-shaped berm along the east, south, and west perimeters of the modified ODMDS will be constructed. Although there is probable hardbottom located north of the modified ODMDS, no berm will be constructed along the northern boundary. However, there will be a 3000-foot buffer along the northern perimeter of the ODMDS where dumping will not occur. Fate modeling indicates that this buffer should be sufficient to protect probable hardbottom areas to the north of the site.

    When determining the size of the modified site, the ability to implement effective monitoring and surveillance programs, among other things, was factored in to ensure that navigational safety would not be compromised and to prevent mounding of dredged material, which could result in adverse wave conditions. A site management and monitoring program will be implemented to determine if disposal at the site is significantly affecting adjacent areas and to detect the presence of long-term adverse effects. At a minimum, the monitoring program will consist of bathymetric surveys, sediment grain size analysis, chemical analysis of constituents of concern in the sediments, and a health assessment of the benthic community.

    (4) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).

    The continental slope is approximately 55 nmi offshore of Charleston. Disposal off the continental shelf (shelf break) was evaluated in detail the 1983 ODMDS Designation EIS document. In comparison to locating the site in the nearshore region, it was determined that monitoring and surveillance would be more difficult and expensive in the shelf break area because of the distance from shore to the deeper waters. Transporting material to and performing long-term monitoring of a site located off the continental shelf is not economically or operationally feasible.

    The historically used ocean dumping site, Charleston ODMDS, is not located beyond the continental shelf. A portion of the modified ODMDS encompasses an area previously designated for disposal.

    Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)

    (1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and distance from coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).

    The modified ODMDS is located on the shallow continental shelf, approximately 6 nmi offshore of Charleston, South Carolina. Water depths range from −30 to −45 feet (9 to 13 meters) with an overall average depth of −40 feet (12 meters). Characteristics of the South Atlantic Bight seafloor include low relief, relatively gentle gradients, and smooth bottom surfaces exhibiting physiographic features contoured by erosional processes. Sediments largely consist of fine to coarse sands. Some areas contain extensive coarse grains and shell hash. Fines were found to be typically less than 10%.

    (2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases (40 CFR 228.6(a)(2)).

    The modified ODMDS is not located in exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of living resources. The intensity of these activities within the vicinity of the ODMDS is seasonally variable, with peaks typically occurring in the spring and early fall for most commercially important finfish and shellfish species (USEPA 1983). The ODMDS is not located within North Atlantic right whale critical habitat.

    (3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas (40 CFR 228.6(a)(3)).

    The center of the modified ODMDS is approximately 7 mi (6 nmi) from the nearest coastal beach. The site is approximately 3.1 mi (2.7 nmi) south of the nearest artificial reef. No significant impacts to beaches or amenity areas associated with the existing ODMDS have been documented.

    (4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).

    Only material that meets EPA Ocean Dumping Criteria in 40 CFR 220-229 will be placed in the ODMDS. Average annual maintenance material is approximately 1.4 mcy and approximately 31.2 mcy of new work material is expected from the Charleston Harbor Deepening Project. Sediments dredged from Charleston Harbor and the entrance channel are a mixture of silt, sand, and rock. Hopper dredge, barge, and scow combinations are the usual vehicles of transport for the dredged material. None of the material is packaged in any manner.

    (5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring (40 CFR 228.6(a)(5)).

    The EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the modified ODMDS to be feasible and readily performed from ocean or regional class research vessels. The modified ODMDS is of similar size, water depth and distance from shore as are a majority of the ODMDSs within the Southeastern United States which are routinely monitored. The EPA will ensure monitoring of the site for physical, biological and chemical attributes as well as for potential impacts beyond the site boundaries. Bathymetric surveys will be conducted routinely as defined in the SMMP, contaminant levels in the dredged material will be analyzed prior to dumping, and the benthic infauna and epibenthic organisms will be monitored every 10 years, as funding allows.

    (6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).

    A study conducted by EPA from 2013-2015 indicated that currents in the vicinity of the Charleston ODMDS tend to have a significant tidal component with predominant currents in the cross-shore direction. The depth-averaged median current velocity was 18 cm/sec (0.6 ft/sec) with 90% of the measurements below 30 cm/sec (1.1 ft/sec). Wind-driven circulation is the most important factor in controlling sediment transport. Strong winds generate waves that steer the sediment on the seabed and create large nearbed suspended sediment concentrations. Suspended sediment transport is directed mainly NE and SW in response to local wind climate and the wind-generated alongshore flows. LTFATE and MPFATE modeling results over a 25-year period indicate depths of sediment deposited outside the boundaries of the ODMDS will not exceed the 5 cm deposition contour guidance provided by EPA.

    (7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects) (40 CFR 228.6(a)(7)).

    Previous disposal of dredged material resulted in temporary increases in suspended sediment concentrations during disposal operations, localized mounding within the site, burial of benthic organisms within the site, changes in the abundance and composition of benthic assemblages, and changes in the sediment composition from sandy sediments to finer-grained silts. Impacts to live bottoms were identified in the western portion of the 12-mi2 ODMDS.

    Short-term, long-term, and cumulative effects of dredged material disposal in the ODMDS modification area would be similar to those for the existing ODMDS.

    (8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special scientific importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean (40 CFR 228.6(a)(8)).

    The modified ODMDS is not expected to interfere with shipping, fishing, recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Commercial navigation, commercial fishing, and mineral extraction (sand mining) are the primary activities that may spatially overlap with disposal at the modified ODMDS. The modified ODMDS avoids the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommended vessel routes offshore Charleston, South Carolina, thereby avoiding conflict with commercial navigation.

    Commercial fishing (shrimp trawling) occurs primarily to the west of the modified ODMDS. The likelihood of direct interference with these activities is low, provided there is close communication and coordination among users of the ocean resources. The EPA is not aware of any plans for desalination plants, or fish and shellfish culture operations near the modified ODMDS at this time. The modified ODMDS is not located in areas of special scientific importance.

    (9) The existing water quality and ecology of the sites as determined by available data or trend assessment of baseline surveys (40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).

    Water quality of the existing site is typical of the Atlantic Ocean. Water and sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area and experience with past disposals in the Charleston ODMDS have not identified any adverse water quality impacts from ocean disposal of dredged material. The site supports benthic and epibenthic fauna characteristic of the South Atlantic Bight. Neither the pelagic (mobile) or benthic (non-mobile) communities should sustain irreparable harm due to their widespread occurrence off the South Carolina coast.

    (10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance species in the disposal site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).

    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the vicinity of, the modified ODMDS. They are either transported to or recruited to the site because the disposal of dredged material creates an environment where they can establish. Habitat conditions have changed somewhat at the Charleston ODMDS because of the disposal of some silty material on what was predominately sandy sediments. While it can be expected that organisms will become established at the site which were not there previously, this new community is not regarded as a nuisance, or “undesirable,” community.

    (11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any significant natural or cultural feature of historical importance (40 CFR 228.6(a)(11)).

    No significant cultural features have been identified at, or in the vicinity of, the modified ODMDS at this time. Surveys conducted in 2012-2013 did not identify any cultural features of historical importance. The EPA has coordinated with South Carolina's State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to identify any cultural features. The SHPO concurred with the EPA's determination that the modification of the ODMDS will have no effect on cultural resources listed, or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as no such resources exist in the project area.

    F. Technical Amendment

    The EPA corrected a clerical error that was included in the proposed language regarding the modified ODMDS coordinates. The second, third, and fourth latitude coordinates were incorrect in the proposed language but have been corrected to reflect the actual corner coordinates for the modified ODMDS.

    III. Environmental Statutory Review—National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) A. NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under the MPRSA because the courts have exempted the EPA's actions under the MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence doctrine. The EPA has, by policy, determined that the preparation of NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory actions, including actions under the MPRSA, is appropriate. The EPA's “Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA Documents,” (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998), sets out both the policy and procedures the EPA uses when preparing such environmental review documents. The EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document for expanding the ODMDS is the Final Environmental Assessment for Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Offshore Charleston, South Carolina, [June 2016] (FEA), prepared by the EPA in cooperation with the USACE. Anyone desiring a copy of the FEA may obtain one from the addresses given above. A draft of this document was released for public review in December, 2015. The public comment period on the FEA closed on August 9, 2016. The FEA and its Appendices, which are part of the Docket for this action, provide the threshold environmental review for modification of the ODMDS. The information from the FEA is used above, in the discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.

    B. MSA

    The EPA integrated the essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment with the EA, pursuant to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and submitted that assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on December 4, 2015. The NMFS responded via letter that they have no comments on the proposed project.

    C. CZMA

    Pursuant to an Office of Water policy memorandum dated October 23, 1989, the EPA has evaluated the proposed site designations for consistency with the State of South Carolina's (the State) approved coastal management program. The EPA has determined that the designation of the modified site is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the State coastal management program, and submitted this determination to the State for review in accordance with the EPA policy. The State conditionally concurred with this determination on February 17, 2016. The EPA has taken the State's comments into account in preparing the FEA for the site, in determining whether the site should be modified as proposed, and in determining whether restrictions or limitations should be placed on the use of the site, if it is designated.

    D. ESA

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The EPA incorporated a Biological Assessment (BA) into the EA to assess the potential effects of expanding the Charleston ODMDS on aquatic and wildlife species and submitted that document to the NMFS and USFWS on December 4, 2016. The EPA concluded that the proposed project would not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species, nor would it adversely modify any designated critical habitat. The USFWS concurred on the EPA's finding that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. The NMFS concluded the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect listed species under their jurisdiction.

    E. NHPA

    The USACE and the EPA initiated consultation with the State of South Carolina's Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on December 4, 2015, to address the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In a letter dated January 6, 2016, the SHPO determined that no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule modifies the designation of an ODMDS pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This action complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This site modification does not require persons to obtain, maintain, retain, report, or publicly disclose information to or for a Federal agency.D

    C. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business defined by the Small Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The EPA determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because this rule will only have the effect of regulating the location of site to be used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After considering the economic impacts of this rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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 various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and State and local governments, the EPA specifically solicited comments on this action from State and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the modification of the Charleston ODMDS will not have a direct effect on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicited comments from tribal officials.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The action concerns the modification of the Charleston ODMDS and only has the effect of providing a designated location for ocean disposal of dredged material pursuant to Section 102 (c) of the MPRSA.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action includes environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's SMMP. The EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods for monitoring and managing the designated ODMDS. The Agency plans to allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria discussed in the SMMP.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA determined that this rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness of modifying the Charleston ODMDS against the criteria established pursuant to the MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. We welcome comments on this action related to this Executive Order.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: August 24, 2016. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING 1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (h)(5)(i) through (iii) and (vi) to read as follows:
    § 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

    (h) * * *

    (5) * * *

    (i) Location: 32°36.280′ N., 79°43.662′ W.; 32°37.646′ N., 79°46.576′ W.; 32°39.943′ N., 79°45.068′ W.; 32°38.579′ N., 79°42.152′ W.

    (ii) Size: Approximately 7.4 square nautical miles in size.

    (iii) Depth: Ranges from approximately 30 to 45 feet (9 to 13.5 meters).

    (vi) Restrictions: (A) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material from the Charleston, South Carolina, area;

    (B) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 227.13;

    (C) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP);

    (D) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21454 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 [Docket No. 150908833-6738-02] RIN 0648-BF37 Mariana Archipelago Fisheries; Remove the CNMI Medium and Large Vessel Bottomfish Prohibited Areas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes the medium and large vessel bottomfish prohibited fishing areas in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Conditions in the fishery that led to establishing the prohibited areas are no longer present, and the restriction is no longer necessary. This rule also makes administrative housekeeping changes to the description of the CNMI management subarea and to the regulations for the CNMI management subarea crustacean fishing. The intent of this final rule is to improve the viability of the CNMI bottomfish fishery and promote optimum yield while preventing overfishing.

    DATES:

    Effective October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and NMFS prepared Amendment 4 to the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the Marianas Archipelago that provides background information on this final rule. Amendment 4, including a final environmental assessment and regulatory impact review, is identified as NOAA-NMFS-2015-0115 and is available from www.regulations.gov or the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Ellgen, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5173.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal regulations currently prohibit medium and large vessels (40 ft and greater) from commercial fishing for bottomfish management unit species in certain Federal waters around the CNMI. The prohibited areas include waters within approximately 50 nm of the Southern Islands (i.e., Rota, Aguigan (alt. Aguijan), Tinian, Saipan, and Farallon de Medinilla) and within 10 nm of Alamagan Island. In 2008, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, the prohibited areas to prevent large bottomfish vessels based in Guam from traveling to CNMI fishing grounds. At the time, the Council was concerned that the Guam vessels could negatively affect fish stocks and local fisheries through stock depletion, catch competition, and gear conflicts. You may read more about the establishment of the prohibited areas in the 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 51992; September 8, 2008) and final rule (73 FR 75615; December 12, 2008).

    The CNMI bottomfish fishery has changed since 2008, and the conditions that led the Council and NMFS to establish the prohibited areas are no longer present. Large vessels from Guam have not shown interest in fishing for CNMI bottomfish. The prohibited areas may also be negatively affecting the CNMI bottomfish fishery. Only a few small vessels have been operating on a regular basis, and the few medium and large vessels have faced declining participation, possibly resulting from higher fuel costs that prevent them from traveling beyond the prohibited areas. The prohibited areas may be contributing to the potential under-utilization of the bottomfish resource in CNMI, and removing them may promote optimum yield.

    To address fishery conditions resulting from the CNMI prohibited areas, the Council recommended that NMFS remove them. The Council and NMFS will continue to manage the fishery under a suite of management requirements that include the specification of annual catch limits and accountability measures, post-season review of catches and effort, Federal permits, requirements for vessel markings, catch and sales reporting, and the vessel monitoring system. The fishing requirements for the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument also remain unchanged.

    The Council and NMFS intend this final rule to improve the efficiency and economic viability of the CNMI bottomfish fishery. The Council and NMFS will annually review the effects of the action. Any future changes would be subject to additional environmental review and opportunity for public review and comment.

    In addition to removing the prohibited areas, this final rule includes administrative housekeeping corrections to the description of the CNMI management subarea and to the CNMI permit area designation for crustacean fishing. First, prior to 2013, the CNMI management subarea was divided into an inshore area (the Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ, within 3 nm of the shoreline) and an offshore area (the EEZ seaward of 3 nm from the shoreline). In 2013, under Public Law 113-34 (which amended Public Law 94-435) the United States transferred nearshore waters (0-3 nm) to the CNMI, so this distinction is no longer necessary. Second, the current regulations at § 665.442(a)(1) incorrectly refer to Permit Area 3, which is associated with American Samoa. The correct reference for the CNMI is Crustacean Permit Area 5, and this rule corrects that reference.

    Comments and Responses

    On June 13, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule and request for public comments (81 FR 38123). The comment period ended on July 28, 2016. NMFS did not receive any comments.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes from the proposed rule.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, determined that Amendment 4 is necessary for the conservation and management of the bottomfish fisheries of the Marianas Archipelago, and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS published the factual basis for the certification in the proposed rule (81 FR 38123, June 13, 2016), and does not repeat it here. NMFS received no comments on this certification. However, NMFS has updated its analysis under a new small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411). This new size standard was established after the proposed rule was published.

    On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing the $11 million standard. This standard is for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194) and became effective on July 1, 2016, to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration (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 that are subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and prior to July 1, 2016, a certification was developed for this regulatory action using the former SBA size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. All of the entities directly regulated by this regulatory action are finfish commercial fishing businesses and were considered small under the SBA size standards, and they all would continue to be considered small under the new standard. Thus, NMFS has determined that the new size standard does not affect analyses prepared for this regulatory action and the factual basis for the certification submitted during the proposed rule stage stands. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, and none was prepared

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

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 665

    Administrative practice and procedure, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Mariana Archipelago fisheries, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

    PART 665—FISHERIES IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 665 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 665.402, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 665.402 Management subareas.

    (b) CNMI Management Subarea means the EEZ seaward of the CNMI, with the inner boundary defined as a line coterminous with the seaward boundary of the CNMI.

    (c) The outer boundary of each fishery management area is a line drawn in such a manner that each point on it is 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, or is coterminous with adjacent international maritime boundaries. The boundary between the fishery management areas of Guam and the CNMI extends to those points that are equidistant between Guam and the island of Rota in the CNMI. CNMI and Guam management subareas are divided by a line intersecting these two points: 148° E. long., 12° N. lat., and 142° E. long., 16° N. lat.

    § 665.403 [Amended]
    3. In § 665.403, remove and reserve paragraph (b). 4. In § 665.405, revise paragraphs (e) and (f) and remove paragraphs (g) and (h).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 665.405 Prohibitions.

    (e) Use a vessel to fish commercially for Mariana bottomfish MUS in the CNMI management subarea without a valid CNMI commercial bottomfish permit registered for use with that vessel, in violation of § 665.404(a)(2).

    (f) Falsify or fail to make, keep, maintain, or submit a Federal logbook as required under § 665.14(b) when using a vessel to engage in commercial fishing for Mariana bottomfish MUS in the CNMI management subarea in violation of § 665.14(b).

    6. In § 665.442, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 665.442 Permits.

    (a) * * *

    (1) The owner of any vessel used to fish for lobster in Crustacean Permit Area 5 must have a permit issued for such a vessel.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21422 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 173 Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Proposed Rules COUNCIL OF THE INSPECTORS GENERAL ON INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY 5 CFR Part 9801 RIN 3219-AA00 Privacy Act Regulations AGENCY:

    Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is issuing this proposed rule to establish its procedures relating to access, maintenance, disclosure, and amendment of records that are in a CIGIE system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act). The proposed rule also establishes rules of conduct for CIGIE personnel who have responsibilities under the Privacy Act.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (202) 254-0162.

    Mail: Atticus J. Reaser, General Counsel, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Atticus J. Reaser, General Counsel, CIGIE, (202) 292-2600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information

    CIGIE is issuing this proposed rule to provide the procedures and guidelines under which CIGIE will implement the Privacy Act.

    In 2008, Congress established CIGIE as an independent entity within the executive branch in order to address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies; and increase the professionalism and effectiveness of personnel by developing policies, standards, and approaches to aid in the establishment of a well-trained and highly skilled workforce in the offices of the Inspectors General (OIG). CIGIE's membership is comprised of all Inspectors General whose offices are established under section 2 or section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app) (Inspector General Act) (i.e., those Inspectors General that are Presidentially-appointed/Senate-confirmed and those that are appointed by agency heads) as well as the Controller of the Office of Federal Financial Management, a designated official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, the Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General for the Intelligence Community, Central Intelligence Agency, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Government Publishing Office, Government Accountability Office, and Architect of the Capitol. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB serves as the Executive Chairperson of CIGIE.

    Section 11(d) of the Inspector General Act mandates that CIGIE have an Integrity Committee (IC), which shall receive, review, and refer for investigation allegations of wrongdoing that are made against Inspectors General and designated staff members of the various OIGs. Pursuant to section 11(d)(2)(A) of the Inspector General Act, all records received or created by the IC in fulfilling its responsibilities are collected and maintained separately as IC records by the official of the FBI serving on the IC. As of the issuance of this proposed rule, all such records are maintained in FBI's Central Records System and are subject to the system of records notices and the Privacy Act policies and regulations applicable to that system. See 28 CFR part 16, subpart D. Accordingly, unless otherwise specifically stated, the regulations published below do not apply to records maintained by the IC.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    In promulgating this rule, CIGIE has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in section 1 of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not “significant” under Executive Order 12866.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    These proposed regulations impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, clearance by OMB is not required.

    Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    This rule does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. 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.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 9801

    Information, Privacy, Privacy Act, Records.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, CIGIE proposes to add part 9801 to title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 9801—PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 9801.101 Purpose and scope. 9801.102 CIGIE organization. 9801.103 Definitions. 9801.104 Rules for determining if an individual is the subject of a record. 9801.105 Employee standards of conduct. 9801.106 Use and collection of social security numbers. 9801.107 Other rights and services. Subpart B—Access to Records and Accounting of Disclosures Sec. 9801.201 Requests for access. 9801.202 Response to requests. 9801.203 Granting access. 9801.204 Special procedures: Medical records. 9801.205 Appeals from denials of requests for access to records. 9801.206 Response to appeal of a denial of access. 9801.207 Fees. 9801.208 Requests for accounting of record disclosures. Subpart C—Amendment of Records Sec. 9801.301 Requests for amendment of record. 9801.302 Response to requests. 9801.303 Appeal from adverse determination on amendment. 9801.304 Response to appeal of adverse determination on amendment; disagreement statements. 9801.305 Assistance in preparing request to amend a record or to appeal an initial adverse determination. Authority:

    Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app); 5 U.S.C. 301, 552a; 31 U.S.C. 9701.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 9801.101 Purpose and scope.

    This part contains the regulations of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. This part sets forth the basic responsibilities of CIGIE with regard to CIGIE's compliance with the requirements of the Privacy Act and offers guidance to members of the public who wish to exercise any of the rights established by the Privacy Act with regard to records maintained by CIGIE. These regulations should be read in conjunction with the Privacy Act, which explains in more detail individuals' rights.

    § 9801.102 CIGIE organization.

    (a) Centralized program. Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, CIGIE has a centralized Privacy Act program, with one office receiving and coordinating the processing of all Privacy Act requests to CIGIE.

    (b) Integrity Committee records. The Integrity Committee of CIGIE (IC) is the single exception to CIGIE's centralized Privacy Act program. By statute, all records received or created by the IC in fulfilling its responsibilities are collected and maintained separately as IC records by the official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) serving on the IC. Currently, all such records are maintained by the FBI in the FBI's Central Records System and are subject to the system of records notices and the Privacy Act policies and regulations applicable to that system. See 28 CFR part 16, subpart D. Accordingly, except as stated in paragraph (c) of this section, because IC records are not maintained by CIGIE, this part does not apply to requests or appeals regarding IC records.

    (c) Acceptance of requests and appeals. CIGIE will accept initial requests or appeals regarding CIGIE records and regarding IC records maintained by the FBI on behalf of the FBI. Requests and appeals regarding IC records will be referred to the FBI for processing and direct response to the requester by the FBI.

    § 9801.103 Definitions.

    (a) For purposes of this part the terms individual, maintain, record, routine use, and system of records, shall have the meanings set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a).

    (b) CIGIE means the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency and includes its predecessor entities, the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

    (c) Days, unless stated as “calendar days,” are working days and do not include Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays.

    (d) IC means the CIGIE Integrity Committee established under section 11(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app) (Inspector General Act).

    (e) Request for access to a record means a request made under Privacy Act subsection (d)(1).

    (f) Request for amendment of a record means a request made under Privacy Act subsection (d)(2).

    (g) Request for an accounting means a request made under Privacy Act subsection (c)(3).

    (h) Requester means an individual who makes a request for access, a request for amendment, or a request for an accounting under the Privacy Act.

    § 9801.104 Rules for determining if an individual is the subject of a record.

    An individual seeking to determine if a specific CIGIE system of records contains a record pertaining to the individual must follow the procedures set forth for access to records in § 9801.201(a), (b)(1) and (2), (c), and (d). A request to determine if an individual is the subject of a record will ordinarily be responded to within 10 days, except when CIGIE determines otherwise, in which case the request will be acknowledged within 10 days and the individual will be informed of the reasons for the delay and an estimated date by which a response will be issued.

    § 9801.105 Employee standards of conduct.

    CIGIE will inform its employees involved in the design, development, operation, or maintenance of any system of records, or in maintaining any record, of the provisions of the Privacy Act, including the Act's civil liability and criminal penalty provisions. Unless otherwise permitted by law, an employee of CIGIE shall:

    (a) Collect from individuals only the information that is relevant and necessary to discharge the responsibilities of CIGIE;

    (b) Collect information about an individual directly from that individual whenever practicable when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs;

    (c) Inform each individual from whom information is collected of:

    (1) The legal authority to collect the information and whether providing it is mandatory or voluntary;

    (2) The principal purpose for which CIGIE intends to use the information;

    (3) The routine uses CIGIE may make of the information; and

    (4) The effects on the individual, if any, of not providing the information;

    (d) Maintain no system of record without public notice and notify appropriate CIGIE officials of the existence or development of any system of records that is not the subject of a current or planned public notice;

    (e) Maintain all records that are used by CIGIE in making any determination about an individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in the determination;

    (f) Except as to disclosures made to an agency or made under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), make reasonable efforts, prior to disseminating any record about an individual, to ensure that the record is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete;

    (g) Maintain no record describing how an individual exercises his or her First Amendment rights, unless it is expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained, or is pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;

    (h) When required by the Privacy Act, maintain an accounting in the specified form of all disclosures of records by CIGIE to persons, organizations, or agencies;

    (i) Maintain and use records with care to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of a record to anyone. No record contained in a CIGIE system of record shall be disclosed to another person, or to another agency outside CIGIE, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless the disclosure is otherwise authorized by the Privacy Act; and

    (j) Notify the appropriate CIGIE official of any record that contains information that the Privacy Act does not permit CIGIE to maintain.

    § 9801.106 Use and collection of social security numbers.

    (a) No denial of right, benefit, or privilege. Individuals may not be denied any right, benefit, or privilege as a result of refusing to provide their social security numbers, unless the collection is required by Federal statute; and

    (b) Notification to individual. Individuals requested to provide their social security numbers must be informed of:

    (1) Whether providing social security numbers is mandatory or voluntary;

    (2) The statutory or regulatory authority that authorizes the collection of social security numbers; and

    (3) The uses that will be made of the numbers.

    § 9801.107 Other rights and services.

    Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle any person, as of right, to any service or to the disclosure of any record to which such person is not entitled under the Privacy Act.

    Subpart B—Access to Records and Accounting of Disclosures
    § 9801.201 Requests for access.

    (a) How addressed. A requester seeking access to records pertaining to the requester in a CIGIE system of records should submit a written request that includes the words “Privacy Act Request” on both the envelope and at the top of the request letter to the Executive Director, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006.

    (b) Description of records sought. (1) A request should contain a specific reference to the CIGIE system of records from which access to the records is sought. Notices of CIGIE systems of records subject to the Privacy Act are published in the Federal Register, and copies of the notices are available on CIGIE's Web site at www.ignet.gov, or upon request from CIGIE's Office of General Counsel.

    (2) If the written inquiry does not refer to a specific system of records, it must describe the records that are sought in enough detail to enable CIGIE personnel to locate the system of records containing them with a reasonable amount of effort.

    (3) The request should state whether the requester wants a copy of the record or wants to examine the record in person.

    (c) Verification of identity. A requester seeking access to records pertaining to the requester must verify their identity in their request. The request must state the requester's full name, current address, and date and place of birth. The requester must sign the request and the signature must either be notarized or state, “Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.” In order to help the identification and location of requested records, the requester may optionally include their social security number. No identification shall be required if the records are required by 5 U.S.C. 552 to be released.

    (d) Verification of guardianship. When making a request as the 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 requester 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 identity, as required in paragraph (c) of this section;

    (3) That the requester is the parent or guardian of that individual, which may be established by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing the requester's parentage or by providing a court order establishing the requester's guardianship; and

    (4) That the requester is acting on behalf of that individual in making the request.

    § 9801.202 Response to requests.

    A request for access will ordinarily be responded to within 10 days, except when CIGIE determines otherwise, in which case the request will be acknowledged within 10 days and the requester will be informed of the reasons for the delay and an estimated date by which a response will be issued. A response to a request for access should include the following:

    (a) A statement that there is a record or records as requested or a statement that there is not a record in the system of records;

    (b) The method of access (if a copy of all the records requested is not provided with the response);

    (c) The amount of any fees to be charged for copies of records under § 9801.207, if applicable;

    (d) The name and title of the official responsible for the response; and

    (e) If the request is denied in whole or in part, or no record is found in the system, a statement of the reasons for the denial, or a statement that no record has been found, and notice of the procedures for appealing the denial or no record finding.

    § 9801.203 Granting access.

    (a) Means of access. (1) The methods for allowing access to records, when such access has been granted by CIGIE, are:

    (i) Examination in person in a designated office during the hours specified by CIGIE; or

    (ii) Providing copies of the records.

    (2) When a requester has not indicated whether he wants a copy of the record or wants to examine the record in person, CIGIE may choose the means of granting access. However, the means chosen should not unduly impede the requester's right of access. A requester may elect to receive a copy of the records after having examined them.

    (b) Accompanying individual. If the requester is granted in person access to examine the records, the requester may be accompanied by another individual of the requester's choice during the course of the examination of the records. CIGIE may require the requester to submit a signed statement authorizing the accompanying individual's access to the records.

    (c) Certified copies. CIGIE will not furnish certified copies of records. When copies are to be furnished, they may be provided as determined by CIGIE.

    (d) Original records. When the requester seeks to obtain original documentation, CIGIE reserves the right to limit the request to copies of the original records.

    § 9801.204 Special procedures: Medical records.

    In the event CIGIE receives a request pursuant to § 9801.201 for access to medical records (including psychological records) whose disclosure CIGIE determines would be harmful to the individual to whom they relate, it may refuse to disclose the records directly to the requester but shall transmit them to a physician designated by the requester.

    § 9801.205 Appeals from denials of requests for access to records.

    (a) How addressed. A requester may submit a written appeal of the decision by CIGIE to deny an initial request for access to records or a no record response to the Chairperson, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006. The words “Privacy Act Appeal” should be included on the envelope and at the top of the letter of appeal.

    (b) Deadline and content. The appeal must be received by CIGIE within 60 days of the date of the letter denying the access request or reflecting the no record finding and should contain a brief description of the records involved or copies of the relevant correspondence from CIGIE. The appeal should attempt to refute the reasons given by CIGIE in support of its decision to deny the initial request for access or no record finding.

    § 9801.206 Response to appeal of a denial of access.

    (a) Access granted. If the Chairperson or the Chairperson's designee determines that access to the records should be granted, the response will state how access will be provided if the records are not included with the response.

    (b) Denial affirmed. Any decision that either partially or fully affirms the initial decision to deny access or no record finding shall inform the requester of the right to seek judicial review of the decision in accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(g)).

    (c) When appeal is required. If a requester wishes to seek review by a court of any adverse determination or denial of a request, the requester must first appeal it under § 9801.205.

    § 9801.207 Fees.

    (a) No fees for most services. Services for which fees will not be charged:

    (1) The search and review time expended by CIGIE to produce a record;

    (2) The first copy of the records provided; and

    (3) CIGIE making the records available to be personally reviewed by the requester.

    (b) Fees for additional copies. When a requester requests additional copies of records, CIGIE will assess the requester a fee of $.20 per page. CIGIE will bill requester in arrears for such fees, except as follows:

    (1) If the total fee for additional copies amounts to more than $25.00, the requester will be notified of the fee amount. Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, upon requester's written agreement to pay the assessed fees, CIGIE will provide the additional copies without prepayment of such fees (i.e., payment will be accepted in arrears).

    (2) An advance payment before additional copies of the records are made will be required if:

    (i) CIGIE determines that the total fee to be assessed under this section exceeds $250.00. When such a determination is made, the requester will be notified of the determination and will be required to submit an advance payment of an amount up to the total fee. The amount of the advanced payment will be at the sole discretion of CIGIE and will be based, in part, on whether requester has a history of prompt payment of Privacy Act fees. If the required advanced payment is an amount less than the total fee, requester will be required to submit a written agreement to pay any fees not paid in advance; or

    (ii) The requester has previously failed to pay a previously assessed Privacy Act fee in a timely fashion (i.e., within 30 days of the date of the billing). In such cases, the requester will be required to pay the full amount outstanding plus any applicable interest as provided by paragraph (c) of this section and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the determined fee before CIGIE begins to process a new request for additional copies.

    (c) Interest charges. For additional copies provided to requester that result in fees assessed, CIGIE will begin levying interest charges on an unpaid balance starting on the 31st day following the day on which the billing was sent. Interest will be assessed at the rate prescribed under 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing.

    (d) Payment address. Payment of fees should be made by either a personal check, bank draft or a money order that is payable to the Department of the Treasury of the United States and mailed or delivered to: Privacy Officer, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006.

    § 9801.208 Requests for accounting of record disclosures.

    (a) How made and addressed. Except where accountings of disclosures are not required to be kept (as stated in paragraph (b) of this section), a requester may request an accounting of any disclosure that has been made by CIGIE to another person, organization, or agency of any record about the requester. This 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. A requester seeking an accounting of record disclosures must follow the procedures set forth for access to records in § 9801.201(a), (b)(1) and (2), (c), and (d).

    (b) Where accountings are not required. CIGIE is not required to provide accountings to requesters where they relate to:

    (1) Disclosures for which accountings are not required to be kept, including disclosures that are made to officers and employees of CIGIE and disclosures that are made under the FOIA. For purposes of this part, officers and employees of CIGIE includes, in part, CIGIE's membership, as addressed in section 11 of the Inspector General Act, when such members are acting in their capacity as CIGIE members;

    (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.

    Subpart C—Amendment of Records
    § 9801.301 Requests for amendment of record.

    (a) How addressed. A requester seeking to amend a record or records pertaining to requester in a CIGIE system of records should submit a written request that includes the words “Privacy Act Amendment Request” on both the envelope and at the top of the request letter to the Executive Director, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006. Records not subject to the Privacy Act will not be amended in accordance with these provisions.

    (b) Contents of request. A request to amend a record in a CIGIE system of records must include:

    (1) The name of the system of records and a brief description of the record proposed for amendment. In the event the request to amend the record is the result of the requester having gained access to the record in accordance with the provisions concerning access to records as set forth in subpart B of this part, copies of previous correspondence between the requester and CIGIE will serve in lieu of a separate description of the record.

    (2) The exact portion of the record the requester seeks to have amended should be indicated clearly. If possible, proposed alternative language should be set forth, or, at a minimum, the reasons why the requester believes the record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete should be set forth with enough particularity to permit CIGIE to not only to understand the requester's basis for the request, but also to make an appropriate amendment to the record.

    (c) Burden of proof. The requester has the burden of proof when seeking the amendment of a record. The requester must furnish sufficient facts to persuade the appropriate system manager of the inaccuracy, irrelevance, untimeliness, or incompleteness of the record.

    (d) Identification requirement. When the requester's identity has been previously verified pursuant to § 9801.201, further verification of identity is not required as long as the communication does not suggest a need for verification. If the requester's identity has not been previously verified, the appropriate system manager may require identification validation as described in § 9801.201.

    § 9801.302 Response to requests.

    (a) Time limit for acknowledging a request for amendment. To the extent possible, CIGIE will acknowledge receipt of a request to amend a record or records within 10 working days.

    (b) Determination on an amendment request. The decision of CIGIE in response to a request for amendment of a record in a system of records may grant in whole or deny any part of the request to amend the record.

    (1) If CIGIE grants the request, the appropriate system manager will amend the record(s) and provide a copy of the amended record(s) to the requester. To the extent an accounting of disclosure has been maintained, the system manager shall advise all previous recipients of the record that an amendment has been made and give the substance of the amendment. Where practicable, the system manager shall send a copy of the amended record to previous recipients.

    (2) If CIGIE denies the request in whole or in part, the reasons for the denial will be stated in the response letter. In addition, the response letter will state:

    (i) The name and address of the official with whom an appeal of the denial may be lodged; and

    (ii) A description of any other procedures which may be required of the requester in order to process the appeal.

    § 9801.303 Appeal from adverse determination on amendment.

    (a) How addressed. A requester may submit a written appeal of the decision by CIGIE to deny an initial request to amend a record in a CIGIE system of records to the Chairperson, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006. The words “Privacy Act Appeal” should be included on the envelope and at the top of the letter of appeal.

    (b) Deadline and content. The appeal must be received by CIGIE within 60 days of the date of the letter denying the request and should contain a brief description of the record(s) involved or copies of the correspondence from CIGIE and the reasons why the requester believes that the disputed information should be amended.

    § 9801.304 Response to appeal of adverse determination on amendment; disagreement statements.

    (a) Response timing. The Chairperson should make a final determination in writing not later than 30 days from the date the appeal was received. The 30-day period may be extended for good cause. Notice of the extension and the reasons therefor will be sent to the requester within the 30-day period.

    (b) Amendment granted. If the Chairperson determines that the record(s) should be amended in accordance with the requester's request, the Chairperson will take the necessary steps to advise the requester and to direct the appropriate system manager:

    (1) To amend the record(s); and

    (2) To notify previous recipients of the record(s) for which there is an accounting of disclosure that the record(s) have been amended.

    (c) Denial affirmed. If the appeal decision does not grant in full the request for amendment, the decision letter will notify the requester that the requester may:

    (1) Obtain judicial review of the decision in accordance with the terms of the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(g); and

    (2) File a statement setting forth their reasons for disagreeing with the decision.

    (d) Requester's disagreement statement. A requester's disagreement statement must be concise. CIGIE has the authority to determine the “conciseness” of the statement, taking into account the scope of the disagreement and the complexity of the issues.

    (e) Provision of requester's disagreement statement. In any disclosure of information about which an individual has filed a proper statement of disagreement, CIGIE will clearly note any disputed portion(s) of the record(s) and will provide a copy of the statement to persons or other agencies to whom the disputed record or records has been disclosed and for whom an accounting of disclosure has been maintained. A concise statement of the reasons for not making the amendments requested may also be provided.

    § 9801.305 Assistance in preparing request to amend a record or to appeal an initial adverse determination.

    Requesters may seek assistance in preparing a request to amend a record or an appeal of an initial adverse determination, or to learn further of the provisions for judicial review, by contacting CIGIE's Privacy Officer by email at [email protected] or by mail at Privacy Officer, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Michael E. Horowitz, Chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21473 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-C9-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 314 RIN 3084-AB35 Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests public comment on its Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (“Safeguards Rule” or “Rule”). The Commission is soliciting comment as part of the FTC's systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the Instructions for Submitting Comments part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR 314, Project No. P145407,” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/safeguardsrulenprm by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Lincicum or Katherine McCarron, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2773 or (202) 326-2333.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“G-L-B Act” or “Act”) was enacted in 1999 to reform and modernize the banking industry by eliminating existing barriers between banking and commerce. The Act permits banks to engage in a broad range of activities, including insurance and securities brokering, with new affiliated entities. Subtitle A of Title V of the Act, captioned “Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information,” limits the instances in which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about a consumer to nonaffiliated third parties, and requires a financial institution to disclose certain information sharing practices. In 2000, the Commission issued a final rule that implemented Subtitle A as it relates to these requirements (hereinafter “Privacy Rule”).

    Subtitle A of Title V also required the Commission and other federal agencies to establish standards for financial institutions relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for certain information. See 15 U.S.C. secs. 6801(b), 6805(b)(2).

    Pursuant to the Act's directive, the Commission promulgated the Safeguards Rule in 2002. The Safeguards Rule applies to all “financial institutions” over which the Commission has jurisdiction. The Safeguards Rule uses the definition of “financial institution” from the Privacy Rule.1 The Privacy Rule defines “financial institution” as “any institution the business of which is engaging in financial activities as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(k)). An institution significantly engaged in financial activities is a financial institution.” 2 The term “financial activities” includes not only a number of traditional financial activities specified in 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), but also those activities found by the Federal Reserve Board (“the Fed”) to be closely related to banking by regulation “in effect on the date of the enactment” of the G-L-B Act.3

    1 16 CFR 314.2(a) (terms in the Safeguards Rule have the same meanings as set forth in the Commission's Privacy Rule). Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)), the majority of the Commission's rulemaking authority for the Privacy Rule was transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with the exception of rulemaking authority pertaining to certain motor vehicle dealers (15 U.S.C. 6804(a)(1)(C)). Accordingly, the Commission's Privacy Rule applies only to certain motor vehicle dealers, while the CFPB's Privacy Rule (12 CFR part 1016) applies to all other entities under the Commission's jurisdiction as well as other financial institutions for which the CFPB has rulemaking authority. The FTC continues to enforce the CFPB Privacy Rule with respect to all entities within the FTC's jurisdiction. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission retained rulemaking authority for the Safeguards Rule (15 U.S.C. 6804(a)(1)(A)). Thus, for purposes of the Safeguards Rule, the definition of “financial institution” in the Commission's Privacy Rule applies to all entities within the Commission's jurisdiction. Other agencies also continue to have rules or guidelines implementing the G-L-B safeguards requirements for entities within their jurisdiction. See 12 CFR part 30, app. B (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency); 12 CFR part 208, app. D-2 and 12 CFR part 225, app. F (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System); 12 CFR part 364, app. B (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation); 12 CFR part 748, app. A (National Credit Union Administration); 17 CFR 248.30 (Securities and Exchange Commission).

    2 16 CFR 313.3(k)(1) (definition of “financial institution” in the Privacy Rule).

    3 65 FR 33,646, 33,647 (May 24, 2000) (discussing scope of Privacy Rule); see also id. at 33,654-55 (discussing definition of “financial institution”).

    When promulgating the Privacy Rule, the Commission determined to include as “financial activities” only those activities that the Fed found to be “financial in nature,” and not to include those activities that the Fed found to be “incidental” or “complementary” to financial activities.4 Other agencies included “incidental” activities when promulgating their rules. In addition, the Commission decided that activities that were determined to be financial in nature after the enactment of the G-L-B Act would not be automatically included in its Privacy Rule; rather, the Commission would have to take additional action to include them. The effect of these two decisions was to limit the activities covered by the Commission's rules to those set out in 12 CFR 225.28 as it existed in 1999. As indicated below, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Safeguards Rule should be amended to include either (1) “incidental” activities, or (2) activities determined after 1999 to be financial in nature or “incidental” to financial activities.

    4Id. at 33,654.

    The Safeguards Rule applies to the handling of “customer information” by financial institutions. “Customer information” is defined as “any record containing nonpublic personal information . . . about a customer of a financial institution, whether in paper, electronic, or other form” that is “handled or maintained by or on behalf of” a financial institution or its affiliates.5 The Rule does not apply to all consumer information handled by a financial institution; it applies only to the information of customers, which are consumers that have a continuing relationship with a financial institution that provides one or more financial products or services to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.6 The Rule is not limited to protecting a financial institution's own customers, but also applies to all customer information in the financial institution's possession, including information about the customers of other financial institutions.7

    5 16 CFR 314.2(b). “Nonpublic personal information” is defined as personally identifiable financial information and any list, description, or other grouping of consumers (and publicly available information pertaining to them) that is derived using any personally identifiable financial information that is not publicly available. 16 CFR 313.3(n)(1). The Safeguards Rule uses the definition of “nonpublic personal information” from the Privacy Rule. 16 CFR

    6 16 CFR 313.3(h), (i). The Safeguards Rule uses the definitions of “customer” and “customer relationship” from the Privacy Rule. 16 CFR 314.2(a).

    7 16 CFR 314.1(b).

    The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program.8 An information security program consists of the administrative, technical, or physical safeguards the financial institution uses to access, collect, distribute, process, protect, store, use, transmit, dispose of, or otherwise handle customer information.9 The information security program must be written in one or more readily accessible parts and contain administrative, technical, and physical safeguards.10 The safeguards must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the financial institution, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of any customer information at issue.11 The safeguards must also be reasonably designed to insure the security and confidentiality of customer information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information, and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.12

    8 16 CFR 314.3(a).

    9 16 CFR 314.2(c).

    10 16 CFR 314.3(a).

    11Id.

    12 16 CFR 314.3(a), (b).

    In order to develop, implement, and maintain its information security program, a financial institution must identify reasonably foreseeable internal and external risks to the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information that could result in the unauthorized disclosure, misuse, alteration, destruction, or other compromise of such information, including in the areas of: (1) Employee training and management; (2) information systems, including network and software design, as well as information processing, storage, transmission, and disposal; and (3) detecting, preventing, and responding to attacks, intrusions, or other systems failures.13 The financial institution must then design and implement information safeguards to control the risks identified through the risk assessment, and regularly test or otherwise monitor the effectiveness of the safeguards' key controls, systems, and procedures.14 The financial institution is also required to evaluate and adjust its information security program in light of the results of this testing and monitoring, as well as any material changes in its operations or business arrangements, or any other circumstances that it knows or has reason to know may have a material impact on its information security program.15 The financial institution must also designate an employee or employees to coordinate the information security program.16

    13 16 CFR 314.4(b).

    14 16 CFR 314.4(c).

    15 16 CFR 314.4(e).

    16 16 CFR 314.4(a).

    The Safeguards Rule also requires financial institutions to take reasonable steps to select and retain service providers that are capable of maintaining appropriate safeguards for customer information and require those service providers by contract to implement and maintain such safeguards.17

    17 16 CFR 314.4(d).

    The Safeguards Rule became effective on May 23, 2003.

    II. Regulatory Review of the Safeguards Rule

    The Commission periodically reviews all of its rules and guides. These reviews seek information about the costs and benefits of the agency's rules and guides, and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying those rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Therefore, the Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the Rule; possible conflict between the Rule and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the Rule of any technological, economic, or other industry changes.

    III. Issues for Comment

    The Commission requests written comment on any or all of the following questions. These questions are designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues about which public comment may be submitted. The Commission requests that responses to its questions be as specific as possible, including a reference to the question being answered, and refer to empirical data or other evidence upon which the comment is based whenever available and appropriate. Please also provide evidence of the prevalence of any unfair acts or practices that any proposed modification would address.

    A. General Issues

    1. Is there a continuing need for specific provisions of the Rule? Why or why not?

    2. What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?

    3. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to consumers?

    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

    b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    4. What significant costs, if any, has the Rule imposed on consumers? What evidence supports the asserted costs?

    5. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce any costs imposed on consumers?

    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

    b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?

    6. What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted benefits?

    7. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase its benefits to businesses, including small businesses?

    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

    b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    c. How would these modifications affect the benefits to consumers?

    8. What significant costs, if any, including costs of compliance, has the Rule imposed on businesses, including small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted costs?

    9. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed on businesses, including small businesses?

    a. What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

    b. How would these modifications affect the benefits provided by the Rule?

    10. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Rule?

    11. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What evidence supports the proposed modifications?

    12. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? If so, how?

    a. What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?

    b. With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?

    B. Specific Issues

    1. Should the elements of an information security program include a response plan in the event of a breach that affects the security, integrity, or confidentiality of customer information? Why or why not? If so, what should such a plan contain?

    a. What evidence supports such a modification?

    b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    c. How would this modification affect the benefits to businesses?

    d. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on consumers?

    e. How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

    2. Should the Rule be modified to include more specific and prescriptive requirements for information security plans? Why or why not? If so, what requirements should be included and what sources should they be drawn from?

    a. What evidence supports such a modification?

    b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    c. How would this modification affect the benefits to businesses?

    d. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on consumers?

    e. How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

    3. Should the Rule be modified to reference or incorporate any other information security standards or frameworks, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Cybersecurity Framework or the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards? If so, which standards should be incorporated or referenced and how should they by referenced or incorporated by the Rule?

    a. What evidence supports such a modification?

    b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    c. How would this modification affect the benefits to businesses?

    d. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on consumers?

    e. How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

    4. For the purpose of clarity, should the Rule be modified to include its own definitions of terms, such as “financial institution”, rather than incorporating the definitions found in the Privacy Rule?

    a. What evidence supports such a modification?

    b. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    c. How would this modification affect the benefits to businesses?

    d. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on consumers?

    e. How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

    5. The current Safeguards Rule incorporates the Privacy Rule's definition of “financial institutions” as entities that are significantly engaged in financial activities, including activities found to be closely related to banking by regulation or order in effect at the time of enactment of the G-L-B Act. Should the Safeguards Rule's definition of “financial institution” be modified to also include entities that are significantly engaged in activities that the Federal Reserve Board has found to be incidental to financial activities? Should it also include activities that have been found to be closely related to banking or incidental to financial activities by regulation or order in effect after the enactment of the G-L-B Act? 18 If so, should all such activities be included in the modified definition? What evidence supports such a modification?

    18See 65 FR 80,735 (Dec. 22, 2000) (determining the activity of “finding” to be an activity incidental to financial activity).

    a. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on businesses, including small businesses?

    b. How would this modification affect the benefits to businesses?

    c. How would this modification affect the costs the Rule imposes on consumers?

    d. How would this modification affect the benefits to consumers?

    IV. Instructions for Submitting Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before November 7, 2016. Write “Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR 314, Matter No. P145407” on the comment. Your comment, including your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or payment card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information.

    In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comments to be withheld from the public record. Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR 314, Matter No. P145407” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

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

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21231 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-440] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of U-47700 Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule the synthetic opioid, 3,4-dichloro-N-[2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]-N-methylbenzamide (also known as U-47700), into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of this synthetic opioid into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of, instructional activities of this synthetic opioid.

    DATES:

    September 7, 2016.

    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:

    Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be effective prior to October 7, 2016.

    Legal Authority

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, each controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

    Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 The Administrator transmitted notice of his intent to place U-47700 in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated April 18, 2016. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated April 28, 2016, and advised that based on review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for U-47700. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS has no objection to the temporary placement of U-47700 into schedule I of the CSA. U-47700 is not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for U-47700 under section 505 of the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. 355. The DEA has found that the control of U-47700 in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety.

    1 As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.

    To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

    A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

    U-47700

    The substance U-47700 was first described in 1978 in the patent literature. Publications in the scientific literature in the early 1980's found that U-47700 behaved similarly to morphine in animal models. No approved medical use has been identified for this synthetic opioid, nor has it been approved by the FDA for human consumption. The recent identification of U-47700 in drug evidence and the identification of this substance in association with fatal overdose events indicate that this substance is being abused for its morphine-like properties. In addition, U-47700 is available for purchase over the Internet and is marketed as a “research chemical.” Labels which state “not for human consumption” or “for research purposes only” have been encountered and are likely used in an effort to circumvent statutory restrictionson controlled substance analogues. 21 U.S.C. 813.

    Available data and information for U-47700, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic opioid has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA's three-factor analysis is available in its entirety under the public docket of this action as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-440.

    Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse

    The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by State and local forensic laboratories across the country. The first laboratory submissions of U-47700 were recorded in the first quarter of 2016; 10 records were reported from January-March 2016 according to NFLIS (query date: 06/20/2016).

    On October 1, 2014, the DEA implemented STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system) as its laboratory drug evidence data system of record. DEA laboratory data submitted after September 30, 2014, are reposited in STARLiMS; data from STARLiMS were queried on April 12, 2016. STARLiMS registered one report containing U-47700 in 2016 from Montana. Through information collected from law enforcement reports and personal communications,2 3 the DEA is aware of the identification of U-47700 from toxicology reports and submitted evidence to forensic laboratories in several states, including New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. These identifications occurred in 2015 and 2016.

    2 Email from North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, to DEA (April 13, 2016 09:54 a.m. EST) (on file with DEA).

    3 Email from Erie County, Central Police Services, to DEA (March 22, 2016 10:12 a.m. EST) (on file with DEA).

    Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of synthetic opioids, including U-47700, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Seizures of U-47700 have been encountered in powder form and in counterfeit tablets that mimic pharmaceutical opioids. U-47700 has also been encountered in glassine bags and envelopes and knotted corners of plastic bags, which demonstrates the abuse of this substance as a replacement for heroin or other opioids, either knowingly or unknowingly. U-47700 has been encountered as a single substance as well as in combination with other substances, including heroin, fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl.

    Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse

    The DEA is currently aware of at least 15 confirmed fatalities associated with U-47700. The information on these deaths occurring in 2015 and 2016 was collected from personal communications and toxicology and medical examiner reports and was reported from New Hampshire (1), North Carolina (10), Ohio (1), Texas (2), and Wisconsin (1). The population likely to abuse U-47700 appears to overlap with the populations abusing prescription opioid analgesics and heroin, as evidenced by drug use history documented in U-47700 fatal overdose cases. This is further supported by U-47700 being sold on the illicit market in glassine bags, some of which are marked with stamped logos, imitating the sale of heroin. Because abusers of U-47700 are likely to obtain this substance through non-regulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to the end user. Individuals who initiate (i.e. use an illicit drug for the first time) U-47700 abuse are likely to be at risk of developing substance use disorder, overdose, and death similar to that of other opioid analgesics (e.g., fentanyl, morphine, etc.).

    STARLiMS contains a report in which U-47700 was identified in drug exhibits submitted in 2016 from Montana. A query of NFLIS returned 10 records of U-47700 being identified in exhibits submitted to Federal, State and local forensic laboratories in the first quarter of 2016. The DEA is not aware of any laboratory analyses of drug evidence identifying U-47700 prior to 2015, indicating that this synthetic opioid only recently became available as a replacement for other opioids that are commonly abused (i.e. oxycodone, heroin, fentanyl). U-47700 is available over the Internet and is marketed as a “research chemical” which allows this substance to be easily obtainable.

    Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health

    U-47700 exhibits pharmacological profiles similar to that of morphine and other mu-opioid receptor agonists. Due to limited scientific data, the potency and toxicity of U-47700 are not known; however, the toxic effects of U-47700 in humans are demonstrated by overdose fatalities associated with this substance. Abusers of U-47700 may not know the origin, identity, or purity of these substances, thus posing significant adverse health risks when compared to abuse of pharmaceutical preparations of opioid analgesics, such as morphine and oxycodone.

    Based on the documented case reports of overdose fatalities, the abuse of U-47700 leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl and other opioid analgesic substances. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established and have resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.

    U-47700 has been associated with fatalities. At least 15 confirmed overdose deaths involving U-47700 occurred in 2015 and 2016 in New Hampshire (1), North Carolina (10), Ohio (1), Texas (2), and Wisconsin (1). This indicates that U-47700 poses an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement to Avoid Imminent Hazard To Public Safety

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of U-47700 poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for U-47700 in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for U-47700 indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 18, 2016, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance in schedule I.

    Conclusion

    This notice of intent initiates an expedited temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule U-47700 in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this synthetic opioid into schedule I of the CSA is necessary in order to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place this synthetic opioid into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling this substance will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) (1) and (2). It is the intention of the Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. U-47700 will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities and chemical analysis, and possession of a schedule I controlled substance.

    The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

    Regulatory Matters

    Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary of HHS. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

    Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

    Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator will take into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.

    Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    This action 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

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

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. In § 1308.11, add paragraph (h)(21).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 1308.11 Schedule I

    (h) * * *

    (21) 3,4-Dichloro-N-[2-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]-N-methylbenzamide, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers (Other names: U-47700). (9547)

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21477 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0132] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; change in comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is changing the comment period on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) it published June 9, 2016, regarding anchorage grounds on the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. Comments will now be due on or before December 6, 2016 instead of September 7, 2016. As of August 29, 2016, the Coast Guard has received more than 2,100 public submissions from many interested persons commenting on the ANPRM. We are extending the comment period to continue encouraging this important public discussion.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0132 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, Waterways Management Branch at Coast Guard First District, telephone 617-223-8351, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received due on or before December 6, 2016. Your comments can help shape the outcome of this possible rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in the ANPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. For illustrations showing the locations of anchorage grounds being considered in the ANPRM, look for the documents in the Supporting & Related Material category. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted and if we publish rulemaking documents related to the ANPRM.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is responsible for considering adjustments to improve navigational and environmental safety of waterways, including those requested by groups of mariners. On June 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM in the Federal Register (81 FR 37168) entitled Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. With its publication, we initiated the early stage of a methodical and public rulemaking process to learn all possible navigational, environmental, terrestrial, and other effects of adding anchorages on the Hudson River. The ANPRM is a preliminary step, the goal of which is to gather information that defines the multiple stakeholder considerations we need to incorporate when considering proposed rule for potential anchorage grounds. This ANPRM solicitation has generated more than 2,100 public submissions with comments on the subject from many diverse stakeholders. This wide-ranging feedback is very helpful. To continue encouraging this important public discussion, we are adding an additional 90 days to the comment period.

    C. Information Requested

    Public participation is requested to assist in determining the best way forward with respect to establishing new anchorage grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing a possible proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative, including but not limited to the impacts anchorage grounds may have on navigation safety and current vessel traffic in this area, the proposed number and size of vessels anchoring in each proposed anchorage ground, and the authorized duration for each vessel in each proposed anchorage ground. We are also seeking comments on any additional locations where anchorage grounds may be helpful on the Hudson River or any recommended alterations to the specific locations considered in this notice. Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance with the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” section above.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Steven D. Poulin, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21371 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 59 RIN 937-AA04 Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients AGENCY:

    Office of Population Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document seeks comment on the proposed amendment of Title X regulations specifying the requirements Title X projects must meet to be eligible for awards. The amendment precludes project recipients from using criteria in their selection of subrecipients that are unrelated to the ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.

    DATES:

    To be considered, comments should be submitted by October 7, 2016. Subject to consideration of the comments submitted, the Department will publish final regulations.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 937-AA04, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Enter the above docket ID number in the “Enter Keyword or ID” field and click on “Search.” On the next Web page, click on “Submit a Comment” action and follow the instructions.

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions] to: Susan B. Moskosky, MS, WHNP-BC, Office of Population Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 716G, Washington, DC 20201. Comments received, including any personal information, will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan B. Moskosky, MS, WHNP-BC, Office of Population Affairs (OPA), 200 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 716G, Washington, DC 20201; telephone: 240-453-2800; facsimile: 240-453-2801; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. Title X Background

    The Title X Family Planning Program, Public Health Service Act (PHSA) secs. 1001 et seq. [42 U.S.C. 300], was enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Administered by the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Title X is the only Federal program focused solely on providing family planning and related preventive services. In 2015, more than 4 million individuals received services through more than 3,900 Title X-funded health centers.1

    1 Fowler, C. I., Gable, J., Wang, J., & Lasater, B. (2016, August). Family Planning Annual Report: 2015 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    Title X serves women, men, and adolescents to enable individuals to freely determine the number and spacing of children. By law, services are provided to low-income individuals at no or reduced cost. Services provided through Title X-funded health centers assist in preventing unintended pregnancies and achieving pregnancies that result in positive birth outcomes. These services include contraceptive services, pregnancy testing and counseling, preconception health services, screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and HIV testing and referral for treatment, services to aid with achieving pregnancy, basic infertility services, and screening for cervical and breast cancer. By statute, Title X funds are not available to programs where abortion is a method of family planning (PHSA sec. 1008), and no federal funds in Title X or any federal program may be expended for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered.2 Additionally, Title X implementing regulations require that all pregnancy counseling shall be neutral and nondirective. 42 CFR 59.5(a)(5)(ii).

    2 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division H, Title V, Public Law 114-113, secs. 506-07, 129 Stat. 2242, 2649 (2015).

    The Title X statute authorizes the Secretary “to make grants to and enter into contracts with public or nonprofit private entities to assist in the establishment and operation of voluntary family planning projects which shall offer a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services (including natural family planning methods, infertility services, and services for adolescents).” PHSA sec. 1001(a). In addition, in awarding Title X grants and contracts, the Secretary must “take into account the number of patients to be served, the relative need of the applicant, and its capacity to make rapid and effective use of such assistance.” PHSA sec. 1001(b). The statute also mandates that local and regional entities “shall be assured the right to apply for direct grants and contracts.” PHSA sec. 1001(b). The statute delegates rulemaking authority to the Secretary to set the terms and conditions of these grants and contracts. PHSA sec. 1006. These regulations were last revised in 2000. 65 FR 41270 (July 3, 2000).

    Title X regulations delineating the criteria used to decide which family planning projects to fund and in what amount, include, among other factors, the extent to which family planning services are needed locally, the number of patients to be served (and, in particular, low-income patients), and the adequacy of the applicant's facilities and staff. 42 CFR 59.7. Project recipients receive funds directly from the Federal government following a competitive process. The project recipients may elect to provide Title X services directly or by subawarding funds to qualified entities (subrecipients). HHS is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the project recipient's performance and outcomes, and each project recipient that subawards to qualified subrecipients is responsible for monitoring the performance and outcomes of those subrecipients. The subrecipients must meet the same Federal requirements as the project recipients, including being a public or private nonprofit entity, and adhering to all Title X and other applicable federal requirements. In the event of poor performance or noncompliance, a project recipient may take enforcement actions as described in the uniform grants rules at 45 CFR 75.371.

    B. State Restrictions on Subrecipients

    In the past several years, a number of states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain types of providers as subrecipients in the Title X Program, unrelated to the provider's ability to provide the services required under Title X. In at least several instances, this has led to disruption of services or reduction of services. Since 2011, 13 states have placed restrictions on or eliminated subawards with specific types of providers based on reasons unrelated to their ability to provide required services in an effective manner. When the state health department is a Title X recipient, these restrictions on subrecipient participation can apply. In several instances, these restrictions have interfered with the “capacity [of the applicant] to make rapid and effective use of [Title X federal] assistance.” PHSA sec. 1001(b). Moreover, states that restrict eligibility of subrecipients have caused limitations in the geographic distribution of services, and decreased access to services through trusted and qualified providers.

    States have restricted subrecipients from participating in the Title X program in several ways. Some states have employed a tiered approach to compete or distribute Title X funds, whereby entities such as comprehensive primary care providers, state health departments, or community health centers receive a preference in the distribution of Title X funds. This approach effectively excludes providers focused on reproductive health from receiving funds, even though they have been shown to provide higher quality services, such as preconception services, and accomplish Title X programmatic objectives more effectively.3 4 For example, in 2011, Texas reduced its contribution to family planning services, and also re-competed subawards of Title X funds using a tiered approach. The combination of these actions decreased the Title X provider network from 48 to 36 providers, and the number of Title X clients served was reduced dramatically. Although another entity became the statewide project recipient in 2013, the number of Title X clients served decreased from 259,606 in 2011 to 166,538 in 2015.5 6 In other cases, states have prohibited specific types of providers from being eligible to receive Title X subawards, which has had a direct impact on service availability, primarily for low-income women. In some cases, experienced providers that have historically served large numbers of patients in major cities or geographic areas have been eliminated from participation in the Title X program. In Kansas, for example, following the exclusion of specific family planning providers in 2011, the number of clients, 87 percent of whom were low income (at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level), declined from 38,461 in 2011 to 24,047 in 2015, a decrease of more than 37 percent. As with the declines in Texas, this is a far greater decrease than the national average of 20 percent.7 8

    3 Robbins, C.L., Gavin, L., Zapata, L.B., Carter, M.W., Lachance, C., Mautone-Smith, N., & Moskosky, S.B. (2016). Preconception Care in Publicly Funded U.S. Clinics That Provide Family Planning Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.013

    4 Carter, M.W., Gavin, L., Zapata, L.B., Bornstein, M., Mautone-Smith, N., & Moskosky, S. B. (2016). Four aspects of the scope and quality of family planning services in US publicly funded health centers: Results from a survey of health center administrators. Contraception. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.009

    5 Fowler, CI, Lloyd, S, Gable, J, Wang, J, and McClure, E. (November 2012). Family Planning Annual Report: 2011 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    6 Fowler, C.I., Gable, J., Wang, J., & Lasater, B. (2016, August). Family Planning Annual Report: 2015 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    7 Fowler, CI, Lloyd, S, Gable, J, Wang, J, and McClure, E. (November 2012). Family Planning Annual Report: 2011 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    8 Fowler, C.I., Gable, J., Wang, J., & Lasater, B. (2016, August). Family Planning Annual Report: 2015 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    In New Hampshire, in 2011, the New Hampshire Executive Council voted not to renew the state's contract with a specific provider that was contracted to provide Title X family planning services for more than half of the state. To restore services to clients in the unserved part of the state, HHS issued an emergency replacement grant, but there was significant disruption in the delivery of services, and for approximately three months, no Title X services were available to potential clients in a part of the state.

    Most recently, in 2016 Florida enacted a law that would have gone into effect on July 1, 2016, prohibiting the state from making Title X subawards to certain family planning providers.9 In one county alone, 1,820 clients are served by the family planning provider that would have been excluded, and it is not clear how the needs of those clients would have been met.

    9 H.B. 1411, 2016 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2016). The law was preliminarily enjoined on June 30, 2016. Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. Philip, et al. No. 4:16cv321-RH/CAS, 2016 U.S. Lexis 86251 (N.D. Fla. June 30, 2016) (“the defunding provision does not survive the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.”). The law was permanently enjoined on August 18, 2016, in an unpublished order.

    None of these state restrictions are related to the subrecipients' ability to effectively deliver Title X services. The previously mentioned exclusions are based either on non-Title X health services offered or other activities the providers conduct with non-federal funds, or because they are a certain type of provider. The Title X program provides family planning services based on “the number of patients to be served, the extent to which family planning services are needed locally, the relative need of the applicant, and its capacity to make rapid and effective use of [Title X Federal] assistance.” PHSA sec. 1001(b). Allowing project recipients, including states and other entities, to impose restrictions on subrecipients that are unrelated to the ability of subrecipients to provide Title X services in an effective manner has been shown to have an adverse effect on access to Title X services and therefore the fundamental goals of the Title X program.

    C. Litigation

    Litigation concerning these restrictions has led to inconsistency across states in how recipients may choose subrecipients. As the restrictions vary, so have the statutory and constitutional issues in the cases. For example, in Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri v. Moser, 747 F.3d 814, 824-25 (10th Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit preliminarily upheld a state law that did not explicitly exclude a particular provider, but directed all Title X funding to be allocated to hospitals and community health centers. In finding that Title X did not provide a private cause of action for the plaintiffs, the Court reasoned: “HHS has deep experience and expertise in administering Title X, and the great breadth of the statutory language suggests a congressional intent to leave the details to the agency. . . . Absent private suits, HHS can maintain uniformity in administration with centralized control. . . . Of course, administrative actions taken by HHS will often be reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, but only after the federal agency has examined the matter and had the opportunity to explain its analysis to a court that must show substantial deference.” Thus, while finding deference would be afforded any agency determination of Title X requirements, the court did not reach the merits of the plaintiff's Supremacy Clause claims.

    At least two other U.S. Courts of Appeal have specifically held that Title X prohibits state laws that have restrictive subrecipient eligibility criteria. See Planned Parenthood of Houston & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 337 (5th Cir. 2005) (“[A] state eligibility standard that altogether excludes entities that might otherwise be eligible for federal funds is invalid under the Supremacy Clause.”); Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am. v. Heckler, 712 F.2d 650, 663 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Although Congress is free to permit the states to establish eligibility requirements for recipients of Title X funds, Congress has not delegated that power to the states. Title X does not provide, or suggest, that states are permitted to determine eligibility criteria for participants in Title X programs.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Planned Parenthood of Cent. N. Carolina v. Cansler, 877 F. Supp. 2d 310, 331-32 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“Therefore, the Court concludes once again that the fact that Plaintiff may, at some point in the future, be able to apply directly for Title X funding does not mean that the state may now or in the future impose additional eligibility criteria or exclusions with respect to the Title X funding administered by the state.”); Planned Parenthood of Billings, Inc. v. State of Mont., 648 F. Supp. 47, 50 (D. Mont. 1986) (“Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the co-location proviso contained in the Montana General Appropriations Act of 1985 adds an impermissible condition of eligibility for federal funding under the Public Health Service Act, in violation of the Supremacy clause.”).

    These and other appellate courts have also considered First Amendment issues in adjudicating state restrictions, though not all cases have involved Title X funds. Some courts have concluded certain state restrictions do not violate the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r of Indiana State Dep't of Health, 699 F. 3d 962, 988 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo Cty. Texas, Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 350 (5th Cir. 2012). Other courts have found the restrictions violate the Constitution by conditioning funding on First Amendment rights. See Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, No. 2:15-CV-00693-CW, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12788, *36-38, (10th Cir. July 12, 2016)); Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. Philip et al., No. 4:16cv321-RH/CAS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86251, *15-16 (N.D. Fl. June 30, 2016); Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio v. Hodges, No 1:116cv539, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 106985, *22 (S.D. Oh. August 12, 2016).

    II. Proposed Rule

    The Department is proposing to amend the regulations at 42 CFR 59.3 to require that project recipients that do not provide services directly may not prohibit subrecipients from participating on bases unrelated to their ability to provide Title X services effectively. The proposed rule will maintain uniformity in administration, ensure consistency of subrecipient participation across grant awards, improve the provision of services to populations in appropriate geographic areas, and guarantee Title X resources are allocated on the basis of fulfilling Title X family planning goals. The deleterious effects already caused by restrictions in several states as outlined above justify a rule in order to fulfill the purpose of Title X. The proposed rule helps fulfill the declared purpose of providing a broad range of family planning methods and services to populations most in need. Nothing in the statute supports giving discretion to project recipients to make eligibility restrictions that may adversely affect accessibility of Title X services.

    The proposed rule will further Title X's purpose by protecting access of intended beneficiaries to Title X service providers that offer a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and services. Title X regulations at 42 CFR 59.7 lay out the criteria for how the Department decides which family planning projects to fund and in what amount, based on the Department's judgment as to which projects best promote the purposes of the statute. Among these criteria are: The number of patients to be served (in particular, low-income patients), as well as the adequacy of the applicant's facilities and staff.

    Data show that specific provider types with a reproductive health focus provide a broader range of contraceptive methods on-site, and are more likely to have protocols that assist clients with initiating and continuing to use methods without barriers.10 In addition, these providers have been shown to serve disproportionately more clients in need of publicly funded family planning services than do public health departments and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). One reproductive-focused provider constitutes ten percent of all publicly supported family planning centers, yet serves more than one-third of the clients who obtain publicly supported contraceptive services. In comparison, one-third of all publicly funded clinics are administered by public health departments, and they serve only about one-third of clients that receive publicly-funded family planning services. On average, an individual FQHC serves 330 contraceptive clients per year and a health department serves 750, as compared to specific family planning providers that on average serve 3,000 contraceptive clients per year.11 To exclude providers that serve large numbers of clients in need of publicly funded services limits access for patients who need these services. Furthermore, in 2011, 71 percent of family planning organizations in Texas widely offered long-acting reversible contraception; in 2012-2013 following enactment of legislation in Texas that reduced funding and restricted provider participation in the state's family planning program, only 46 percent of family planning agencies did so.12

    10 Frost JJ et al., Variation in Service Delivery Practices Among Clinics Providing Publicly Funded Family Planning Services in 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2012, <www.guttmacher.org/pubs/clinic-survey-2010.pdf>.

    11 Frost JJ, Zolna MR and Frohwirth L, Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/contraceptive-needs-2010.pdf>.

    12 White, K., Hopkins, K., Aiken, A., Stevenson, A., Lopez, C.H., Grossman, D., & Potter, J. (2013). The impact of reproductive health legislation on family planning clinic services in Texas. Contraception, 88(3), 445. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.05.059

    In April 2014, CDC and the Office of Population Affairs released clinical recommendations, “Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs,”  13 (QFP) which identify core components of quality family planning services. Preconception care (PCC) was identified as one of the most important services to be provided as part of high quality family planning. As explained in QFP, preconception care services “promote the health of women of reproductive age before conception, and help to reduce pregnancy-related adverse outcomes, such as low birth weight, premature birth, and infant mortality.” A nationally representative study was performed prior to release of these recommendations to assess the prevalence of PCC services being delivered. Study results were tabulated according to the type of publicly funded site where the services were provided (Community Health Center, Health Department, Planned Parenthood, Outpatient Hospitals, and other clinics). Study results indicated that all provider types lagged behind the focused reproductive health providers in providing these PCC services, an indication of higher quality services.14

    13 Gavin, L., & Pazol, K. (2016). Update: Providing Quality Family Planning Services—Recommendations from CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs, 2015. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep., 65(9), 231-234. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6509a3.

    14 Robbins, C.L., Gavin, L., Zapata, L.B., Carter, M.W., Lachance, C., Mautone-Smith, N., & Moskosky, S.B. (2016). Preconception Care in Publicly Funded U.S. Clinics That Provide Family Planning Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.013.

    Another study, using nationally representative survey data, examined four aspects of the scope and quality of family planning service delivery before release of the QFP: The scope of family planning services provided, contraceptive methods provided onsite, written contraceptive counseling protocols, and youth-friendly services. In assessing the scope of family planning services provided, providers were asked about the provision of the following services in the past three months: Pregnancy diagnosis and counseling, contraceptive services, basic infertility services, STD screening, and preconception health care. To assess contraceptive methods provided onsite, questions were asked regarding the provision of a range of reversible methods on site, as well as the presence of contraceptive counseling protocols. Again, as described in the previous study, results were tabulated according to the type of publicly funded site where services were provided. Across all four aspects, the focused reproductive health providers provided services that were broader in scope and of higher quality across all four aspects of family planning service delivery.15

    15 Carter, M.W., Gavin, L., Zapata, L.B., Bornstein, M., Mautone-Smith, N., & Moskosky, S.B. (2016). Four aspects of the scope and quality of family planning services in US publicly funded health centers: Results from a survey of health center administrators. Contraception. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.009.

    Data show that restricting specific providers of Title X services has harmful effects on access to family planning services and is linked with increased pregnancy rates that are not in line with population-wide trends. In addition, studies have shown that state actions to exclude specific family planning providers from publicly funded programs has contributed to a host of barriers to care and poor health outcomes, including reduced use of highly effective methods of contraception and corresponding increases in rates of childbirth among populations that rely on Federally supported care; 16 decreased utilization rates of other preventive services, including cancer screenings, particularly for women with low educational attainment; 17 and an increase in reported barriers to reproductive health care services, particularly for young, low-income, Spanish-speaking, and immigrant women.18 Specifically, in Texas, when certain Title X providers were barred from participation in the program, in counties where those providers provided services, uptake of the most effective forms of contraception decreased by up to 35.5 percent, and the rate of childbirth covered by Medicaid increased by 1.9 percentage points, while pregnancy rates decreased in the rest of the state. Specifically, the study assessed rates of contraceptive method provision, method continuation, and childbirth covered by Medicaid between 2011 and 2014, corresponding to two years before and two years after the providers' exclusion.19

    16 Frost, J.J., Frowirth, L., & Zolna, M.R. Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2013 Update, Guttmacher Institute, July 2015.

    17 Lu, Y. and Slusky, D.J.G., “The Impact of Family Planning Cuts on Preventive Care,” Princeton Center for Health and Wellbeing Working Paper, (May 20, 2014), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2442148.

    18 Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Research Brief: Barriers to Family Planning Access in Texas (May 2015), available at http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/TxPEP-ResearchBrief_Barriers-to-Family-Planning-Access-in-Texas_May2015.pdf.

    19 Effect of Removal of Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women's Health Program. (2016). New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J Med, 374(13), 1298-1298. doi:10.1056/nejmx160006.

    Denying participation by family planning providers that can provide effective services has also resulted in populations in certain geographic areas being left without a Title X provider for an extended period of time, such as in New Hampshire in 2011 (detailed previously). In some cases, excluded providers do not have the administrative capacity to directly apply for and manage a Title X grant, as was the case in Kansas when specific family planning providers were excluded by the state from participation in the Title X Program. The data show that restrictions hurt the priority population for publicly funded family planning services, and that providers that are focused specifically on family planning service provision generally provide better access and higher quality family planning services, which is the purpose of the program.20

    20 Carter, M.W., Gavin, L., Zapata, L.B., Bornstein, M., Mautone-Smith, N., & Moskosky, S.B. (2016). Four aspects of the scope and quality of family planning services in US publicly funded health centers: Results from a survey of health center administrators. Contraception. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.009.

    Under the proposed rule, all project recipients that do not provide the services directly must only choose subrecipients on the basis of their ability to effectively deliver Title X required services.21 Non-profit project recipients that do not provide all services directly must also allow any qualified providers that can effectively provide services in a given area to apply to provide those services, and they may not continue or begin contracting (or subawarding) with providers simply because they are affiliated in some way that is unrelated to programmatic objectives of Title X. Project recipients that directly provide services will not be required to start awarding to subrecipients. For instance, some recipients provide services directly, meaning they directly operate the service sites, the business operations are controlled by the recipient, and the recipient directly controls the clinics (e.g., clinic hours, staffing, etc.) and the delivery of services (e.g., consistent clinical protocols throughout the system). This is the case for some public recipients, such as state health departments, as well as non-profits. For example, some state departments of health provide all services directly—the local and county health departments are considered part of the state, and the staff in the health departments are state health department staff. In comparison, some health departments make subawards to county health departments and/or non-profit agencies within their services network for the delivery of family planning services.

    21 Grant recipients would also continue to be subject to uniform grant rule requirements, 45 CFR 75.352.

    Under the proposed rule, a tiering structure—described above—would not be allowable unless it could be shown that the top tier provider (e.g., community health center or other provider type) more effectively delivered Title X services than a lower tier provider. In addition, a preference for particular subspecialty providers would have to be justified by showing that they more effectively deliver Title X services. Furthermore, actions that favor `comprehensive providers' would require justification that those providers are at least as effective as other subrecipients applying for funds. The proposed rule does not limit all types of providers from competing for subrecipient funds, but delimits the criteria by which a project recipient can allocate those funds based on the objectives in Title X.

    The Department seeks comments on several issues. The Department is cognizant of administrative burdens on both itself and project recipients that could result from the proposed changes, as discussed further below in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, and seeks comment on how to minimize them. Additionally, the Department seeks input on whether other portions of the Title X rules might need to be amended to conform to this rule regarding the selection of subrecipients. We invite comments on the utility of requiring compliance reports or other records demonstrating a project recipient's criteria for selecting providers, or whether a complaint-driven process would promote the same goals more efficiently. Project recipients found out of compliance would have all the same rights to appeal adverse determinations under the proposed rule as they do any other agency decision. For example, after voluntary compliance avenues have failed and the Department determines to terminate the grant, grantees could appeal wrongful termination claims through the Departmental Appeals Board process. 42 CFR 59.10.

    While the Department is also aware of the scope of the proposed rule, it does not believe it will interfere with other generally applicable state laws. If, for example, a state law requires certain wage rates, or addresses family leave or non-discrimination, this rule will not interfere with that law, since all subrecipients will be similarly situated as to that state law. Only those laws which directly distinguish among Title X providers for reasons unrelated to their ability to deliver services would be implicated, and then, only if the state chooses to continue to apply for funding. The Department seeks comment on the regulatory language and ways it may be seen as interacting with other state law provisions.

    While specifically seeking comment on the issues outlined above, the Department invites comments on any other issues raised by the proposed regulation.

    III. Regulatory Impact Analysis A. Introduction

    HHS has examined the impact of this proposed rule under Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, September 19, 1980), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995), and Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999).

    Executive Order 12866 directs 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 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in Executive Order 12866. HHS expects that this proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in at least 1 year. Therefore, this rule will not be an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies that issue a regulation to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA generally defines a “small entity” as (1) a proprietary firm meeting the size standards of the Small Business Administration; (2) a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small government jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000 (States and individuals are not included in the definition of “small entity”). For similar rules, HHS considers a rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if at least 5 percent of small entities experience an impact of more than 3 percent of revenue. HHS anticipates that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes 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 annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015) implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product. This proposed rule would not trigger the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act because it will not result in any expenditure by states or other government entities.

    B. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Since 2011, 13 states have taken actions to restrict participation by certain types of providers as subrecipients in the Title X program based on factors unrelated to the providers' ability to provide the services required under Title X effectively. In at least several instances, this has led to disruption of services or reduction of services where a public entity, such as a state health department, holds a Title X grant and makes subawards to subrecipients for the provision of services. In response to these actions, this proposed rule requires that any Title X recipient subawarding funds for the provision of Title X services not prohibit a potential subrecipient from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively.

    C. Need for the Proposed Rule

    Certain states have policies in place which limit access to high quality family planning services by restricting specific types of providers from participating in the Title X program. These policies, and varying court decisions on their legality, has led to uncertainty among grantees, inconsistency in program administration, and diminished access to services for Title X target populations. These restrictive state policies exclude certain providers for reasons unrelated to their ability to provide Title X services effectively. As a result of these state policies, providers previously determined by Title X grantees to be effective providers of family planning services have been excluded from participation in the Title X program. In turn, the exclusion of these high quality providers is associated with a reduction in the quality of family planning services, the number of Title X service sites, reduced geographic availability of Title X services, and fewer Title X clients served.22 23 This proposed regulation seeks to ensure that state policies regarding Title X do not direct funding to subrecipients for reasons other than their ability to meet the objectives of the Title X program.

    22 Fowler, CI, Lloyd, S, Gable, J, Wang, J, and McClure, E. (November 2012). Family Planning Annual Report: 2011 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    23 Fowler, C.I., Gable, J., Wang, J., & Lasater, B. (2015, August). Family Planning Annual Report: 2014 national summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    Reducing access to Title X services has many adverse effects. Title X services have a dramatic effect on the number of unintended pregnancies and births in the United States. For example, services provided by Title X-funded sites helped prevent an estimated 1 million unintended pregnancies in 2010 which would have resulted in an estimated 501,000 unplanned births.24 The Title X program also helps prevent the spread of STDs by providing screening and treatment.25 The program helps reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as low birth weight, premature birth, and infant mortality.26 27 Title X as it exists today is also very cost effective: Every grant dollar spent on family planning saves an average of $7.09 in Medicaid-related costs.28

    24 Frost JJ, Zolna MR and Frohwirth L, Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/contraceptive-needs-2010.pdf>.

    25 Fowler, CI, Gable, J, Wang, J, and McClure, E. (November 2013). Family Planning Annual Report: 2012 National Summary. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

    26 Kavanaugh ML and Anderson RM, Contraception and Beyond: The Health Benefits of Services Provided at Family Planning Centers, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013 <https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/health-benefits.pdf>.

    27 Preconception Health and Reproductive Life Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved May 18, 2016, from http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/initiatives-and-resources/preconception-reproductive-life-plan/.

    28 Frost, J.J., Sonfield, A., Zolna, M.R., & Finer, L.B. (2014). Return on Investment: A Fuller Assessment of the Benefits and Cost Savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 696-749. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12080.

    In addition to reducing access to the Title X program, these policies may reduce the quality of Title X services, as described previously. Research has shown that providers with a reproductive health focus provide services that more closely align with the statutory and regulatory goals and purposes of the Title X Program. In particular, these entities provide a broader range of contraceptive methods on-site, are more likely to have written protocols that assist clients with initiating and continuing contraceptive use without barriers, disproportionately serve more clients in need of family planning services, and provide higher quality services as stipulated in national recommendations, “Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs.”

    Policies that eliminate specific reproductive health providers for reasons unrelated to their ability to provide the quality family planning services in an effective manner may shift funding from relatively high quality family planning service providers to providers of lower quality. This, in turn, can reduce access to high quality family planning services for the populations that need these services the most. This regulation takes the simplest approach to reverse the adverse effects of these policies that exclude certain reproductive health care providers for reasons unrelated to their ability to provide services effectively.

    D. Analysis of Benefits and Costs 1. Benefits to Potential Title X Clients and Reduced Federal Expenditures

    This proposed rule directly prohibits Title X recipients that subaward funds for the provision of Title X services from excluding an entity from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively. Following the implementation of policies this regulation proposes to reverse, states shifted funding away from family planning service providers previously determined to be most effective. We believe that this proposed rule is likely to undo these effects, resulting in a shift toward service providers previously determined to be the most effective. To the extent that a state may come into compliance with this regulation by relinquishing its Title X grant or not applying for a Title X grant, other organizations could compete for Title X funding to deliver services in areas where a state entity previously subawarded funds for the delivery of Title X services. In turn, we expect that this will reverse the associated reduction in access to Title X services and deterioration of outcomes for affected populations.

    Research has shown that every grant dollar spent on family planning saves an average of $7.09 in Medicaid-related expenditures.29 In addition to reducing spending, these services improve health and quality of life for affected individuals, suggesting the return on investment to these family planning services is even higher. For example, these services reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections in addition to improving birth outcomes through reductions in preterm and low birth weight births.30 Data show that specific provider types with a reproductive health focus have been shown to serve disproportionately more clients in need of publicly funded family planning services than do public health departments and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).31 Therefore, eliminating discrimination against certain providers is expected to result in an increased number of patients served and services delivered by the Title X program. We expect that the return on investment among higher quality, more efficient providers is even higher than the average return on investment discussed above, and that shifting funding away from these providers has reduced the return on investment to family planning services. We estimate that the changes proposed here will reduce unintended pregnancies, increase savings to Medicaid, and improve the health and wellbeing of many individuals across the country.

    29 Frost, J.J., Sonfield, A., Zolna, M.R., & Finer, L.B. (2014). Return on Investment: A Fuller Assessment of the Benefits and Cost Savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 696-749. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12080.

    30 Frost, J.J., Sonfield, A., Zolna, M.R., & Finer, L.B. (2014). Return on Investment: A Fuller Assessment of the Benefits and Cost Savings of the US Publicly Funded Family Planning Program. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 696-749. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12080.

    31 Frost JJ, Zolna MR and Frohwirth L, Contraceptive Needs and Services, 2010, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, <http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/win/contraceptive-needs-2010.pdf>.

    2. Costs to the Federal Government Associated With Disseminating Information About the Rule and Evaluating Grant Applications for Conformance With Policy

    Following publication of a final rule that builds upon this proposal and public comments, OPA will work to educate Title X program recipients and applicants about the requirement to not prohibit a potential subrecipient from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively. OPA will send a letter summarizing the change to current recipients of Title X funds and post the letter to its Web site. OPA will also add conforming language to its related forthcoming funding opportunity announcements (FOAs). OPA has existing channels for disseminating information to stakeholders. Therefore, based on previous experience, the Department estimates that preparing and disseminating these materials will require approximately one to three percent of a full-time equivalent OPA employee at the GS-12 step 5 level. Based on federal wage schedule for 2016 in the Washington, DC area, GS-12 step 5 level corresponds to an annual salary of $87,821. We double this salary cost to account for overhead and benefits. As a result, we estimate a cost of approximately $1,800—$5,300 to disseminate information following publication of the final rule.

    3. Grant Recipient Costs To Evaluate and Implement the Policy Change

    We expect that, if this proposed rule is finalized, stakeholders including grant applicants and recipients potentially affected by this proposed policy change will process the information and decide how to respond. This change will not affect the majority of current recipients, and as a result the majority of current recipients will spend very little time reviewing these changes before deciding that no change in behavior is required. For the states that currently hold Title X grants and have laws or policies restricting Title X subrecipients, the final rule would implicate state law or policy. State agencies that currently restrict subawards would need to carefully revise their current practices in order to comply with these changes.

    We estimate that current and potential recipients will spend an average of one to two hours processing the information and deciding what action to take. We note that individual responses are likely to vary, as many parties unaffected by these changes will spend a negligible amount of time in response to these changes. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,1 the average hourly wage for a chief executive in state government is $54.26, which we believe is a good proxy for the individuals who will spend time on these activities. After adjusting upward by 100 percent to account for overhead and benefits, we estimate that the per-hour cost of a state government executive's time is $108.52. Thus, the average cost per current or potential grant recipient to process this information and decide upon a course of action is estimated to be $108.52-$217.04. OPA will disseminate information to an estimated 89 Title X grant recipients. As a result, we estimate that dissemination will result in a total cost of approximately $9,700-$19,300.

    4. Summary of Impacts

    Public funding for family planning services is likely to shift to providers that see a higher number of patients and provide higher quality services. Increases in the quantity and quality of Title X service utilization will lead to fewer unintended pregnancies, improved health outcomes, reduced Medicaid costs, and increased quality of life for many individuals and families. The proposed rule's impacts will take place over a long period of time, as it will allow for the continued flow of funding to provide family planning services for those most in need, and it will prevent future attempts to provide Title X funding to subrecipients for reasons other than their ability to best meet the objectives of the Title X program.

    We estimate costs of $11,400-$24,600 in the first year following publication of the final rule, and suggest that this rule is beneficial to society in increasing access to and quality of care. We note that the estimates provided here are uncertain.

    E. Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives

    We carefully considered the option of not pursuing regulatory action. However, as discussed previously, not pursuing regulatory action means allowing the continued provision of Title X funds to subrecipients for reasons other than their ability to provide high quality family planning services. This, in turn, means accepting reductions in access to and quality of services to populations who rely on Title X. As a result, we chose to pursue regulatory action.

    F. Executive Order 13132 Federalism Review

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a final rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has federalism implications. The Department particularly invites comments from states and local governments, and will consult with them as needed in promulgating the final rule. While we do not believe this rule will cause substantial economic impact on the states, it will implicate some state laws if states wish to apply for federal Title X funds. Therefore, the following federalism impact statement is provided.

    E.O. 13132 establishes the need for Federal agency deference and restraint in taking action that would curtail the policy-making discretion of the states or otherwise have a substantial impact on the expenditure of state funds. The proposed rule simply sets the conditions to be eligible for federal funding for both public and private entities. The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on state funds as, by law, project grants must be funded with at least 90 percent federal funds. 42 U.S.C. 300a-4(a). Furthermore, states that are the project recipients of Title X grants are not required to issue subawards at all. However, those that choose to do so would be required to do so in a manner that considers only the ability of the subrecipients to meet the statutory objectives.

    States remain entirely free to set their policies and funding preferences as to family planning services paid for with state funds. While this proposed rule will eliminate the ability of states to restrict subawards with Title X funds for reasons unrelated to the statutory objectives of Title X, they remain free to set their own preferences in providing state-funded family planning services. The rule does not impose any additional requirements on states in their performance under the Title X grant, other than to avoid discrimination in making subawards, should they choose to make such subawards. And states remain free to apply for federal program funds, subject to the eligibility conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the proposed rule is designed to achieve the objectives of Title X related to providing effective family planning services to program beneficiaries with the minimal intrusion on the ability of project recipients to select their subrecipients.

    G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The amendments proposed in this rule will not impose any additional data collection requirements beyond those already imposed under the current information collection requirements which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 59

    Birth control, Family planning, Grant programs.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.

    Therefore, under the authority of section 1006 of the Public Health Service Act as amended, and for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 42 CFR part 59 as follows:

    PART 59—GRANTS FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES Subpart A—Project Grants for Family Planning Services 1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300a-4.

    2. Section 59.3 is revised to read as follows:
    § 59.3 Who is eligible to apply for a family planning services grant or to participate as a subrecipient as part of a family planning project?

    (a) Any public or nonprofit private entity in a State may apply for a grant under this subpart.

    (b) No recipient making subawards for the provision of services as part of its Title X project may prohibit an entity from participating for reasons unrelated to its ability to provide services effectively.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21359 Filed 9-2-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 5140-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0017] RIN 0750-AI95 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data and Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (DFARS Case 2012-D022) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that revises the sections of title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) that address technical data rights and validation of proprietary data restrictions. The comment period on the proposed rule is extended 16 days.

    DATES:

    For the proposed rule published on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39481), submit comments by September 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2012-D022, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2012-D022.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2012-D022” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2012-D022 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 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. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On June 16, 2016, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 39481 to implement section 815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, which—

    • Adds special provisions for handling technical data that are necessary for segregation and reintegration activities;

    • Codifies and revises the policies and procedures regarding deferred ordering of technical data necessary to support DoD major systems or subsystems, weapon systems, or noncommercial items or processes;

    • Expands the period in which DoD can challenge an asserted restriction on technical data from 3 years to 6 years;

    • Rescinds changes to 10 U.S.C. 2320 from the NDAA for FY 2011; and

    • Codifies Government purpose rights as the default rights for technical data related to technology developed with mixed funding.

    The comment period for the proposed rule is extended 16 days, from September 14, 2016 to September 30, 2016, to provide additional time for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21463 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1); Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2)] Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review; Expanding Access to Rate Relief AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is seeking comments and suggestions through this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the Board's effort to develop a new rate reasonableness methodology for use in very small disputes, which would be available to shippers of all commodities.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by November 14, 2016. Reply comments are due by December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments and replies may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on the Board's Web site, at “http://www.stb.dot.gov.” Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    Copies of written comments and replies will be posted to the Board's Web site and will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131. Copies will also be available (for a fee) by contacting the Board's Chief Records Officer at (202) 245-0238 or 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Interstate Commerce Act, Congress charged the Board with protecting the public from unreasonable pricing by freight railroads, while fostering a sound, safe, and efficient rail transportation system by allowing carriers to earn adequate revenues. See 49 U.S.C. 10101. In the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, Public Law 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895, and subsequent legislation, including the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Congress established a careful balance between these two important yet conflicting goals. On the one hand, Congress permitted differential pricing and removed regulatory controls over railroad pricing for traffic with effective competition so that carriers would have greater ability to earn the revenues necessary to attract capital and reinvest in the network. On the other hand, Congress made clear that railroad rates for traffic without effective competition must be reasonable (see 49 U.S.C. 10702, 10707), and that shippers of grain, in particular, are entitled to some additional protections (see, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 10709(g) (providing that shippers may file a complaint with the Board asking it to review agricultural contracts on certain grounds)).

    By decision served in Rail Transportation of Grain, Rate Regulation Review, Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) on December 12, 2013, the Board invited public comment on how to ensure that the Board's existing rate complaint procedures are accessible to grain shippers and provide effective protection against unreasonable freight rail transportation rates, including proposals for modifying existing procedures or new alternative rate relief methodologies. The Board received opening and reply comments from interested shipper, railroad, and government entities. The Board then held a public hearing on June 10, 2015, to further examine issues related to the accessibility of rate relief for grain shippers and to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the suggestions made during the public comment period. Following the hearing, the Board received supplemental comments from three parties.

    The Board has considered all of the written comments and oral testimony received in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1).1 A number of issues raised during the public comment period—related to the accessibility of the Board's existing rate review processes, modifications to those processes, and alternative rate review processes set forth by parties—merit further discussion, and the Board is seeking further comment on those issues.2 Based on the comments and testimony received, the Board believes that the existing rate review processes present accessibility challenges for not only grain shippers, but also small shippers of any commodity. The Board also recognizes that for small rate disputes, regardless of commodity, the litigation costs required to bring a case under the Board's existing rate reasonableness methodologies can quickly exceed the value of the case. Therefore, the Board is opening a proceeding in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2) to develop a new rate review process that would be more affordable and accessible to shippers of all commodities with small disputes.

    1 For a list of the numerous parties that have participated in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) at various stages, see Appendix A. To the extent this decision refers to parties by abbreviations, those abbreviations are listed in that appendix.

    2 We note that other significant issues have been raised in this proceeding, such as the Board's regulations concerning agricultural rate transparency and the standing required to bring a rate complaint. The Board will address these issues in a subsequent decision.

    Before discussing ideas for use in a new rate reasonableness methodology, we will discuss the Board's existing rate reasonableness standards and the comments received in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1).

    Current Rate Reasonableness Standards Statutory Framework

    Where a railroad has market dominance—i.e., there is an absence of effective competition from other rail carriers or modes of transportation—its transportation rates for common carrier service must be reasonable. 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(1), 10702, 10707(a). The Board is precluded, however, from finding market dominance if the revenues produced by a challenged rate are less than 180% of the carrier's “variable costs” 3 of providing the service. 49 U.S.C. 10707(d)(1)(A). If, upon complaint, the Board finds a challenged rate unreasonable, it will order the railroad to pay reparations to the complainant for past movements and may prescribe the maximum rate the carrier is permitted to charge. 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(1), 11704(b).

    3 Variable costs vary with the level of traffic and are developed in rate proceedings using the Board's Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS). See Adoption of Unif. R.R. Costing Sys. as Gen. Purpose Costing Sys. for All Regulatory Costing Purposes, 5 I.C.C.2d 894 (1989).

    In carrying out its regulatory functions, the Board is guided by the rail transportation policy set forth at 49 U.S.C. 10101. And in assessing the reasonableness of rail rates, it must also give due consideration to the “Long-Cannon” factors contained in 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(2)(A)-(C). The Board must recognize that rail carriers should have an opportunity to earn “adequate revenues,” which are defined as those that are sufficient—under honest, economical, and efficient management—to cover operating expenses, support prudent capital outlays, repay a reasonable debt level, raise needed equity capital, and otherwise attract and retain capital in amounts adequate to provide a sound rail transportation system. 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(2), 10704(a)(2).

    As part of ICCTA, Congress added a new provision to the rail transportation policy calling for the “expeditious handling and resolution of all proceedings.” 49 U.S.C. 10101(15). Congress further instructed the Board to establish procedures for rail rate challenges in particular, including “appropriate measures for avoiding delay in the discovery and evidentiary phases of such proceedings.” 49 U.S.C. 10704(d). Congress directed the Board to “establish a simplified and expedited method for determining the reasonableness of challenged rail rates in those cases in which a full stand-alone cost presentation is too costly, given the value of the case.” 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3). In the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015), Congress directed the Board to “initiate a proceeding to assess procedures that are available to parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation and the potential application of any such procedures to rate cases.” 129 Stat. 2228. That proceeding is currently pending before the Board. See Expediting Rate Cases, EP 733 (STB served June 15, 2016).

    Regulatory Framework

    Under the theory of “constrained market pricing” (CMP), adopted by the agency in 1985 to judge the reasonableness of rail freight rates, a captive shipper should not be required to pay more than is necessary for the carrier involved to earn adequate revenues, nor should it pay more than is necessary for efficient service, and a captive shipper should not bear the costs of any facilities or services from which it derives no benefit. Coal Rate Guidelines, Nationwide (Guidelines), 1 I.C.C.2d 520, 523 (1985), aff'd sub nom. Consol. Rail Corp. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1444 (3d Cir. 1987). CMP contains three main limits on the extent to which a railroad may charge differentially higher rates on captive traffic: The revenue adequacy constraint, the management efficiency constraint, and the stand-alone cost constraint.4 Of these three limits under CMP, the stand-alone cost (SAC) constraint has been the most widely utilized before the agency.

    4 A fourth constraint—phasing—is intended to limit the introduction of otherwise-permissible rate increases when necessary for the greater public good. Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 546-47. For a more detailed discussion of CMP, see Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 534-547.

    A SAC analysis seeks to determine whether a complainant is bearing costs resulting from inefficiencies or costs associated with facilities or services from which it derives no benefit. The SAC analysis does this by simulating the competitive rate that would exist in a “contestable market.” 5 Under the SAC constraint, the rate at issue cannot be higher than what a hypothesized stand-alone railroad (SARR) would need to charge to serve the complaining shipper while fully covering all of its costs, including a reasonable return on investment. The principal objective of the SAC approach is to restrain a railroad from exploiting market power over a captive shipper by charging more than it needs to earn a reasonable return on the cost of the infrastructure used to serve that shipper. A second objective of the SAC constraint is to detect and eliminate the costs of inefficiencies in a carrier's investments or operations. See id. at 542-46.

    5 A contestable market is defined as one that is free from barriers to entry. See Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 528 (citing William J. Baumol, John C. Panzar & Robert D. Willig, Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure (1982)). The economic theory of contestable markets does not depend on a large number of competing firms in the marketplace to ensure a competitive outcome. Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 528. In a contestable market, even a monopolist must offer competitive rates or potentially lose its customers to a new entrant. Id.

    The agency recognized that the SAC methodology adopted in Guidelines could be expensive and impractical for certain shippers. The agency therefore adopted in 1996 a simplified methodology, the Three-Benchmark methodology, under which the reasonableness of a challenged rated is determined by examining that rate in relation to three benchmark figures. Rate Guidelines—Non-Coal Proceedings, 1 S.T.B. 1004 (1996), pet. to reopen denied, 2 S.T.B. 619 (1997), appeal dismissed sub nom. Ass'n of Am. R.Rs. v. STB, 146 F.3d 942 (D.C. Cir. 1998). A decade passed, however, without any shipper bringing a case under that methodology. Accordingly, in 2007, the Board modified the Three-Benchmark test and created Simplified-SAC—a simplified alternative under CMP where a full SAC analysis was too costly given the value of the case. See Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), aff'd sub nom. CSX Transp., Inc. v. STB, 568 F.3d 236 (D.C. Cir.), vacated in part on reh'g, 584 F.3d 1076 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    In Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 13, the Board acknowledged that it is the second objective—in which the complaint seeks to detect and eliminate the cost of inefficiencies in carrier's investments or operations—that turns the case into an intricate, expensive undertaking. Accordingly, the Board limited the inquiry under the Simplified-SAC method to the first objective of SAC: whether a captive shipper is being forced to cross-subsidize other parts of the railroad's rail network. The Simplified-SAC test does so by comparing the costs and revenues of the actual operations and services provided under the assumption that all existing infrastructure along the predominant route used to haul the complainant's traffic is needed to serve the traffic on that route. Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at 1 n.2 (STB served Mar. 13, 2015); see also Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 5. The core analysis in a Simplified-SAC proceeding addresses the cost to build the existing facilities used to serve the captive shipper and the return on investment a hypothetical SARR would require to replicate those facilities. The Board then determines whether the traffic using those facilities is paying more than needed to cover operating expenses and a reasonable return on the cost of those facilities. To hold down the cost of a Simplified-SAC presentation, various simplifying assumptions and standardization measures were adopted.6 Such an approach is a less thorough application of CMP in that it would not identify inefficiencies in the current rail operation.

    6 Simplifying assumptions are used in, for example, the issue traffic's route, the configuration of the SARR, the traffic group, operating expenses, the test year, and the discounted cash flow analysis.

    Under the Three-Benchmark method, the reasonableness of a challenged rate is determined by examining that rate in relation to the following three benchmark figures, each of which is expressed as a revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) ratio: (1) Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM), which measures the average markup over variable cost that the defendant railroad would need to charge all of its “potentially captive” traffic (traffic priced above the 180% R/VC level) in order for the railroad to earn adequate revenues as measured by the Board under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(2); (2) R/VC>180, which measures the average markup over variable cost currently earned by the defendant railroad on its potentially captive traffic; and (3) R/VCCOMP, which is used to compare the markup being paid by the challenged traffic to the average markup assessed on other comparable potentially captive traffic. Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at 11 (STB served July 25, 2012).

    In Three-Benchmark cases, each party simultaneously proposes an initial comparison group, and, after critiquing the other side's proposal, a “final offer” comparison group. After receiving simultaneous rebuttal filings, the Board selects without adjustment one of the two “final offer” comparison groups. Each movement in the comparison group is adjusted by a revenue need adjustment factor, which is the ratio of RSAM ÷ R/VC>180 (each of which is a four-year average calculation). The Board then calculates the mean and standard deviation of the resulting adjusted R/VC ratios (weighted in accordance with the proper sampling factors). If the challenged rate is above a reasonable confidence interval around the estimate of the mean for the adjusted comparison group, it is presumed unreasonable and, absent any “other relevant factors,” the maximum lawful rate is prescribed at that boundary level. See Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 21.

    Since Simplified Standards, only a few Three-Benchmark cases have been decided by the Board, while no complaint has been litigated to completion under the Simplified-SAC alternative.

    There is no monetary limit on relief for a complainant that elects to use the SAC or Simplified-SAC methods, see Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at 3 (STB served July 18, 2013) (removing relief limit on Simplified-SAC cases), though rate relief in SAC cases is limited to a 10 year period, see Major Issues in Rail Rate Cases, EP 657 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 62-66 (STB served Oct. 30, 2006), and relief in Simplified-SAC cases is limited to a five-year period, Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 27-29. The maximum potential rate relief available to a complainant that elects to use the Three-Benchmark method is limited to no more than $4 million per case over a five-year period. See Rate Regulation Reforms, EP 715, slip op. at 2 (STB served Mar. 13, 2015); Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 27-29.

    Comments Received in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)

    The shipper community argues that the Board's current rate review processes are not useable to test the reasonableness of agriculture commodity rail rates. Shippers argue that the Board's existing methodologies are cost-prohibitive. (ARC Opening 21-22; NGFA Opening 13-15; AAI Reply 2.) For example, NGFA argues that even the simplest of the Board's rate reasonableness methodologies, the Three-Benchmark approach, is ineffective because railroad defendants raise numerous expert-intensive “other relevant factor” arguments and arguments for the use of current waybill data in the possession of the defendant railroad, which greatly increase the complexity and costs of those cases. (NGFA Opening 15.)

    Even if the Three-Benchmark methodology were not cost prohibitive, shippers argue that a comparison group approach is ineffective for agricultural commodities because carriers have applied “across-the-board” pricing. (ARC Opening 23; NGFA Opening 15; AAI Reply 2.) Specifically, shippers claim that carriers use their market power to impose a uniformly high rate across-the-board for certain commodities or groups of commodities. (ARC Opening 23; NGFA Opening 15.) As a result, shippers argue that the R/VCCOMP benchmark is inherently problematic for grain shippers and producers because railroad grain rates generally produce R/VCs that are uniform, or uniform in geographic areas, for states or regions. (ARC Opening 23, V.S. Whiteside 12.) According to NGFA, the fact that only defendant traffic may be included in a Three-Benchmark comparison group compounds this flaw. (NGFA Opening 15.)

    NGFA also argues that SAC and Simplified-SAC are inaccessible because many grain shippers are on low-density rural branch lines or secondary lines, and the Board's holding regarding cross-subsidies in PPL Montana, LLC v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, NOR 42054 (STB served Aug. 20, 2002) and Otter Tail Power Co. v. BNSF Railway, NOR 42058, slip op. at 11-13 (STB served Jan. 27, 2006) have essentially eliminated the ability for grain shippers to use SAC rules to test the reasonableness of rates for agricultural commodities. (NGFA Opening 13-14, 21.)

    Shippers propose both modifications to the existing methodologies and new processes for rate review. Regarding the existing methodologies, several shipper groups argue for changes to the Three-Benchmark methodology. ARC argues that the comparison groups in the Three-Benchmark method should include non-defendant traffic for grain and grain products shippers because limiting comparison groups to defendant traffic eliminates a significant amount of traffic with similar demand characteristics. (ARC Opening 22-23, V.S. Fauth 23.) 7 NGFA and ARC both argue that expanding the comparable traffic group to include non-defendant traffic would also address “across-the-board” pricing practices. (ARC Opening 23; NGFA Opening 15, 28, V.S. Crowley 9-11.) As NGFA notes, the inclusion of non-defendant traffic in a comparison group approach would establish a “market” rate, and thereby address, to some extent, the current practice of the Class I railroads to limit the ability of a captive shipper or a group of captive shippers to reach desired markets by setting rail rates that largely dictate where the shipper's commodity goes on that railroad's system. (NGFA Opening 28, V.S. Crowley 9-11.)

    7 NGFA also includes non-defendant traffic in its proposed new methodology, which is discussed in more detail below.

    Shippers also argue that comparison groups in the Three-Benchmark methodology should include non-captive traffic, i.e., traffic priced below the 180% R/VC level.8 (ARC Opening 23-24, V.S. Fauth 23-24; NGFA Opening 29.) According to NGFA, including movements with R/VC ratios below 180% is essential because captive agriculture commodity producers and elevators compete in the marketplace against other agriculture commodity shipments with rates both above and below the 180% R/VC threshold. (NGFA Opening 29.) Likewise, ARC argues that restricting the comparison group to traffic moving at an R/VC ratio greater than 180% significantly reduces the amount of traffic available for the comparison group because the majority of grain and grain products move at R/VC levels below 180%. (ARC Opening 23, V.S. Fauth 23-24.)

    8 NGFA also incorporates traffic with R/VC ratios below 180% into its proposed new methodology, which is discussed in more detail below.

    In addition, ARC proposes two adjustment factors that the Board could apply in rate challenges related to grain shipments. First, it proposes a Grain Cost Adjustment Factor (GCAF), which would be applied to the Board's URCS Phase III costing program for railroad movements of grain and grain products. ARC claims the GCAF would more accurately reflect the fact that these movements generally have certain lower costs than the system average costs, including switching, crew, locomotive, and car costs. (ARC Opening, V.S. Fauth 7.) ARC also proposes an export grain rate adjustment that takes into account the economic relationship between grain prices and grain exports. (ARC Opening, V.S. Fauth 30-31.)

    ARC and NGFA also each propose new rate review processes. ARC sets forth a “Two-Benchmark” approach for revenue adequate railroads, which would eliminate the R/VCCOMP benchmark (and rely only on the RSAM and R/VC>180 benchmarks by carrier).9 According to ARC's witness, the R/VCCOMP benchmark is designed to reflect demand-based differential pricing and is inappropriate under the revenue adequacy constraint announced many years ago in Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 520. (ARC Opening, V.S. Fauth 25.) ARC, therefore, argues that the R/VCCOMP benchmark should have no application in assessing the rates of revenue adequate carriers because it provides a means of reflecting demand-based differential pricing principles and differential pricing should not affect rates on captive traffic to the extent those rates provide revenues above revenue adequacy levels. (ARC Opening 17-19.) Under ARC's proposed Two-Benchmark test, if grain shippers have rates which generate R/VC ratios in excess of the 180%, then the R/VC ratio could not exceed the RSAM level. (ARC Opening, V.S. Fauth 26.)

    9 As indicated earlier, ARC also proposes to expand the comparison group in Three-Benchmark cases to include both non-defendant traffic and traffic moving at an R/VC ratio below 180%. (ARC Opening 20-24.)

    NGFA proposes an alternative method called the Ag Commodity Maximum Rate Methodology (ACMRM). (NGFA Opening 27-31, V.S. Crowley 6-17.) Under ACMRM, the issue traffic would be compared against all railroads (not just the defendant railroad) and movements with R/VC ratios less than 180% (although, the maximum reasonable rate produced by the analysis would be subject to the statutory 180% floor). (NGFA Opening 28-29, V.S. Crowley 9-11.) Under NGFA's proposal, the comparison group would be based on certain default factors, including a mileage band, commodity type, railcar type, railcar ownership, and movement type. (NGFA Opening, V.S. Crowley 6-7.) ACMRM also would eliminate the confidence interval adjustment and the “other relevant factors” analysis so that captive agriculture commodity rate cases could be decided quickly and at reasonable cost. (NGFA Opening 31.) The rate prescription period would be 5 years, and there would be no limits on the amount of relief that the complaining shipper or group of shippers could receive if a rate challenge is successful. (NGFA Opening 31.) ACMRM also includes a commodity-specific Revenue Adequacy Adjustment Factor, which would be used to adjust the R/VC ratio of each movement in the comparison group to account for the revenue adequacy status of each railroad. (NGFA Opening 31.) 10

    10 The formula for determining the RAAF is set forth in Exhibit 5 of the verified statement of Crowley. (NGFA Opening, V.S. Crowley Exhibit 5.)

    Carriers, on the other hand, argue that grain rates are not unreasonable and the Board's existing rules provide ample opportunity for grain shippers to pursue rate relief. (BNSF Opening 1, 26-29; UP Opening 19-20.) Carriers cite the lack of grain rate litigation as evidence that most grain rates are reasonable or not subject to the Board's jurisdiction (R/VC ratios below 180%, contract movements, or exempt commodities). (BNSF Opening 26-29; UP Opening 20; AAR Reply 9-10; CSXT Reply 4; NSR Reply 24-25.) According to carriers, rail rates for grain are effectively constrained by competition from truck, barge, and other railroads, as well as by the competitive global market for grain sales. (BNSF Opening 17-23, 27-29; UP Opening 15-20; CSXT Reply 2-3.)

    Carriers also argue that the Board has already sufficiently addressed shippers' concerns by limiting its market dominance inquiry to direct competition (i.e., not allowing product or geographic competition), creating two simplified rate reasonableness methodologies, and eliminating or increasing the relief caps for those methodologies. (AAR Opening 18-19; BNSF Opening 24-26; UP Opening 20; CSXT Reply 8.) CSXT notes that the Board also eliminated the use of movement-specific adjustments to URCS to reduce litigation costs. (CSXT Reply 6 (citing Major Issues, EP 657 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 59-60).) BNSF and CSXT also dispute the shippers' allegations that railroads impose uniformly high rates for certain commodities or groups of commodities. (BNSF Reply 14-15; CSXT Reply 8-9.) According to BNSF, shippers' concerns about broad, industry-wide rate increases are purely speculative and inconsistent with market realities. (BNSF Reply 14.)

    Generally, carriers advocate maintaining the Board's current rate review processes and ask the Board to reject the modifications and alternatives set forth by the shipper community. (See AAR Opening 18; BNSF Opening 24-26; NSR Opening 6; UP Opening 2.) Carriers argue that NGFA's proposal would result in a “ratcheting effect,” whereby, through repeated successful rate challenges, rates charged to captive shippers could be systematically lowered to the jurisdictional floor. (BNSF Reply 21, 24-25; NSR Reply 14-15; UP Reply 23-24.) Carriers also argue that the Board should reject NGFA's proposal because the methodology is not supported by sound economics and is inherently biased for grain shippers. (CSXT Reply 2, 10; NSR Reply 13-14.) According to CSXT, NGFA's proposal would eliminate demand-based differential pricing for grain traffic, prevent the Board from determining appropriate contribution to fixed costs, and “adjust” URCS in ways that would blatantly favor grain shippers over other shippers. (CSXT Reply 10-11.) Carriers also oppose the unlimited relief available under ACMRM. (BNSF Reply 29; UP Reply 34-35.)

    Carriers also find flaws in ARC's proposal. Specifically, they argue that ARC's proposal would create a disincentive for railroads to expand competitive traffic through good business practices and would result in an overall degradation of rail service, contrary to the public interest. (AAR Reply 21-22; BNSF Reply 31; UP Reply 21-22, 37.) UP further argues that ARC's proposal is inconsistent with the competitive market principles embodied in the Board's governing statute and with basic railroad economics because it disregards the railroad's need for differential pricing to recover their joint and common costs. (UP Reply 35; see also AAR Reply 16.)

    The carriers also argue that modifications to the Three-Benchmark approach, such as inclusion of non-defendant or non-captive traffic in the comparison group, lack sound economic support. Railroads dispute the idea of including non-defendant traffic in comparison groups, arguing that comparisons that include traffic moving on other railroads do not accurately establish the appropriate contribution to the defendant railroad's fixed costs. (AAR Reply 17-18; BNSF Reply 27.) BNSF further argues that including all traffic in the proposed comparison group eliminates a railroad's ability to engage in differential pricing, contrary to the basic economics of the railroad industry. (BNSF Reply 23.) NSR notes that expanding the comparison group would not simplify rate reasonableness determinations, but rather would increase the cost and complexity of the Three-Benchmark approach by requiring examination and evidence based on rates and costing from other railroads. (NSR Reply 29.)

    Likewise, carriers oppose the inclusion of non-captive traffic in the comparison group. According to NSR, there is no basis for comparing traffic over which the railroad is potentially market dominant to traffic over which the railroad is not market dominant by statute. (NSR Reply 17.) According to BNSF and UP, by seeking to include in the comparison group traffic with competitive alternatives, NGFA seeks to eliminate a railroad's ability to engage in differential pricing, contrary to the basic economics of the railroad industry. (BNSF Reply 23; UP Reply 24-26.) According to BNSF and UP, including movements with R/VC ratios below 180% in the comparison group will also lead to a ratcheting down of R/VC ratios until the 180% R/VC ratio becomes the rate ceiling. (BNSF Reply 24-25; UP Reply 23-24.)

    USDA also provided comment, arguing that a new approach is necessary and warranted, and should be explored, and that agricultural shippers require specifically designed rail rate challenge procedures. (USDA Opening 2.) USDA argues that none of the current rail rate appeals procedures are suitable for agricultural shippers because they are much too costly, complex, and time consuming, and agricultural shippers do not move large enough quantities to justify the cost of these procedures. (Id. at 6.) USDA also argues that, by the time a decision could be rendered, the routes or rates may have changed to fit new agricultural market conditions, nullifying most of the benefits from winning the case. (Id.) USDA estimates that a rate reasonableness methodology must have costs no greater than $50,000 in order to be a viable option for agriculture shippers. (Id. at 7-8.)

    Based on the comments and testimony received in this proceeding, the Board is persuaded that the existing rate review processes present accessibility challenges not only for small shippers of grain, but also for small shippers of any commodity. The Board recognizes that, for small disputes, the litigation costs required to bring a case under the Board's existing rate reasonableness methodologies, even the Board's most simplified method, Three-Benchmark, can quickly exceed the value of the case. The Board appreciates receiving the alternative methodologies proposed by ARC and NGFA; however, we are not convinced that the alternative methodologies as proposed strike the proper balance between the Board's statutory goals of providing captive shippers meaningful access to regulatory remedies for unreasonable rail rates, while permitting railroads to earn a reasonable return on their investments so that they will have the resources to make the investment needed to continue to serve the transportation needs of their customers.

    Although the Board has concerns with the proposals set forth by ARC and NGFA, several of the ideas that parties have raised as part of these methodologies, or on how to modify the Three-Benchmark methodology, warrant further exploration. In particular, if the Board could develop a process that reduces the litigation burden on parties even more than the simplest existing rate reasonableness methodology, it could achieve the goal of creating more accessible rate review processes for small disputes where even a Three-Benchmark case would be too costly, given the value of the case. Accordingly, we are considering developing a set of procedures that could comprise a new comparison-based rate reasonableness methodology for use by shippers of all commodities in very small disputes. The Board is considering a new process that would entail the following key elements.

    First, the process would include a preliminary screen that would limit its application to shippers that are more likely to be considered captive and to have rates that are outliers. Such a screen might allow for the Board to make market dominance and rate reasonableness determinations based on an abbreviated evidentiary process. Second, the process would contain a comparison-based analysis in which the Board develops an initial comparison group and then allows parties to propose modifications. By having the Board set the initial comparison group, based on pre-determined criteria, the evidentiary process could be simplified, as parties would only have to present evidence on modifications rather than creating their own comparison groups (as is currently the case in Three-Benchmark cases). Third, the process would contain other procedural modifications that help expedite and streamline the comparison-based assessment. In particular, the Board is considering ideas such as limiting discovery, establishing mandatory disclosures, limiting the length of filings, and establishing an evidentiary hearing in lieu of rebuttal evidence. Finally, because the process would only be intended for small disputes, the Board would limit the amount of relief available.

    It is the Board's goal that procedures evolving from this ANPR would shorten the case timeline and reduce litigation costs, while achieving the same objectives as the existing rate methodologies and minimizing the loss of precision. The Board is guided by the concerns raised during the public comment period in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1), namely that the Board's current rate review processes are cost-prohibitive for grain and other shippers with small disputes, and by the rail transportation policy set forth at 49 U.S.C. 10101. The Board must balance the shippers' interest in being protected from unreasonable rates, see 49 U.S.C. 10101(6), against the need to promote a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues, see 49 U.S.C. 10101(3), 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(2). We must also consider all parties' needs for expeditious handling of proceedings, see 49 U.S.C. 10101(15).

    We are seeking comment in a new docket, Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2), as we believe this methodology should be available to shippers of all commodities, not just grain, with small disputes. Many of the concerns raised about the accessibility of the Board's existing rate reasonableness procedures are general in nature. Indeed, some commenters expressly acknowledged that such concerns may be equally applicable to shippers of other commodities (see, e.g., ARC Opening 9-10 (“Many of the deficiencies in the status quo may not be unique to grain”)), while others argued that limiting the availability of a methodology to a subset of shippers or commodities would be arbitrary (see, e.g., NSR Opening 6 (“nothing in the Board's governing statutes or prior considerations of rate regulation . . . suggests that the economic basis or soundness of a [rate] methodology . . . should vary based on the shipper or commodities at issue”)). Thus, we are exploring how best to develop a new methodology available to shippers of all commodities.

    The Board seeks comment on whether the procedures set forth in this decision—or variations on these procedures—would provide a reasonable yet accessible methodology for use in very small rate disputes. The Board also welcomes comments on other means the Board could implement to keep the costs of a new process low.

    New Methodology in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 2) I. Availability of New Methodology

    Although the concerns expressed by the agricultural community in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1) and elsewhere have been instrumental in informing the Board of the need for a new approach, we do not believe that a new methodology should be limited to small shippers of only agricultural products. Instead, as discussed above, we are exploring how best to develop a new methodology that would be available to shippers of all commodities with small disputes.

    We are considering limiting this methodology, however, to disputes involving only Class I rail carriers. The Board does not envision that the new process would apply to purely local movements of a Class II or Class III carrier, which would be consistent with the Three-Benchmark methodology. See Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 102 (explaining limitations of methodology with respect to Class II and III carriers). However, we seek comment on whether this methodology, if adopted, should or should not be applicable to Class II and III rail carriers.

    II. Comparison Group Approach

    The new methodology the Board is considering would utilize a comparison group approach to determine the reasonableness of the challenged traffic's rate. Under such an approach, the issue traffic would be compared against a comparison group of similar traffic drawn from the preceding four years of data in the Board's Waybill Sample. In order to reduce litigation costs, the Board would determine an initial comparison group based on default parameters established in a rulemaking, rather than having parties develop and tender a proposed comparison group, as is done in Three-Benchmark cases. See Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 18. As discussed in more detail below, both the complainant and the defendant would have the opportunity to present arguments regarding the appropriateness of the initial comparison group determined by the Board and propose modifications to the group. After considering the arguments proposed by the parties, the Board would determine which movements would comprise the final, adjusted comparison group, which the Board would use in its rate reasonableness analysis.

    The Board is considering the following default parameters for selecting the initial comparison group and seeks comment on each.

    Traffic at or Above 180% R/VC. The Board is considering including other potentially captive traffic, i.e., traffic priced at or above the 180% R/VC level, in the comparison group, but not traffic priced below the 180% R/VC level. Excluding traffic with an R/VC level below 180% would be consistent with the Board's explanation that only captive traffic over which the carrier has market power should be included in the comparison group in the Three-Benchmark methodology. See Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 17 (“[t]he purpose of the R/VCCOMP benchmark is to use the R/VC ratios of other `potentially captive traffic' (i.e., traffic priced above the 180% R/VC level) as evidence of the reasonable R/VC levels for traffic of that sort. . . . The rates available to traffic with competitive alternatives would provide little evidence on the degree of permissible demand-based differential pricing needed to provide a reasonable return on the investment.”). Although the shipper community presented arguments in favor of including traffic below 180% R/VC in comparison groups, the Board is concerned that including shipments below 180% R/VC may be contrary to the principle of demand-based differential pricing. The Board invites comment on the advisability of including or excluding non-captive traffic in comparison groups.

    Traffic With Similar Shipping Characteristics. The comparison group would also include traffic that shares similar shipping characteristics as the issue traffic, as rail rates typically depend, at least in part, on the length of haul, shipment type, and the type of commodity being shipped. The Board, therefore, is considering limiting comparable movements to those movements that satisfy all of the following criteria:

    (a) The movement is within a +/− 15% mileage band around the actual miles travelled by the challenged traffic,

    (b) the movement is of the same shipment type (e.g., unit train traffic or non-unit train traffic), and

    (c) the movement is of a commodity classified under the same Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC).

    With respect to the last of these parameters, the Board believes that the most appropriate method of determining which commodities should be used in the comparison group is to use the same five-digit STCC as the issue traffic. Commodities listed at the five-digit STCC generally should be similar enough in characteristics for inclusion in the comparison group. However, certain other commodities differ at an even more granular level, such as chemicals (i.e., any commodity with a STCC starting with 28), and therefore may best be limited to comparisons to the seven-digit STCC. Chemicals are highly varied at the five-digit STCC designation and therefore may require a finer degree of distinction when selecting the initial comparison group.

    The Board invites comment on these comparison group procedures, and also on which commodities would be appropriately compared at the seven-digit STCC. The Board also invites comment on whether the Board should consider expanding the comparison of commodities beyond the five- or seven-digit STCC level in the event that this parameter would result in the initial comparison group containing insufficient observations. In order for any study to be statistically valid, the study sample must contain a minimum number of observations, and that minimum number varies depending on the type and complexity of the analysis to be undertaken. For the purposes of comparison-based rate reasonableness analyses, the Board is concerned that fewer than 20 observations would be insufficient. See e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. CSX Transp., Inc., NOR 42101, slip op. at 13 (STB served June 30, 2008) (deciding a Three-Benchmark rate case where the comparison group included 23 observations and the sample size was uncontested). Therefore, the Board seeks comments on whether the Board should, in instances where there are insufficient observations, relax the default STCC limitation to the next most specific STCC level that yields sufficient observations for the comparison group. For example, if a comparison group based on a seven-digit STCC code contains too few observations, we could examine the corresponding five-digit STCC, then the four-digit STCC, and so on, until the comparison group includes greater than 20 observations.

    The Board invites comments on this possible approach of broadening the STCC limitation in this manner and on whether a 20-observation minimum would be an appropriate requirement.

    Contract and Tariff Traffic. The comparison group would include contract and tariff traffic from the defendant carrier, excluding the issue traffic. As the Board noted in Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 83, excluding contract movements from the comparison group may leave insufficient movements from the Waybill Sample to perform a statistically meaningful comparison analysis. The Board is considering applying a common carrier adjustment to the comparison group to account for the contract traffic similar to the one applied in U.S. Magnesium, L.L.C. v. Union Pacific Railroad, NOR 42114, slip op. at 18-19 (STB served Jan. 28, 2010), aff'd sub nom. Union Pacific Railroad v. STB, 628 F.3d 597 (D.C. Cir. 2010). The Board invites comment on the inclusion of contract traffic and a common carrier adjustment. Additionally, the Board invites parties to propose alternative means of calculating a common carrier adjustment.

    Non-Defendant Carrier Traffic. The Board seeks comment on whether to expand the comparison group in this new methodology to include traffic from non-defendant carriers 11 operating in the same URCS region 12 as the defendant carrier. The Board has, in the past, acknowledged that varying joint and common costs can lead to inevitable differences in R/VC ratios among different carriers. See Simplified Standards, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 82-83. We are mindful of the concerns raised by the railroads, and previously acknowledged by the Board, about comparing R/VC ratios across carriers. However, shippers have also raised arguments as to why the Board should include non-defendant traffic. (See, e.g., NGFA Opening 28-29; ARC Opening 23.) Notwithstanding the Board's previously stated concerns and the concerns raised by the railroads, the Board seeks comment on whether it should reconsider this issue. Additionally, the Board is considering whether, for the purposes of a new methodology, it may be appropriate to include non-defendant traffic in the comparison group to ensure that the Board can perform a statistically meaningful comparison analysis. Including non-defendant movements could help ensure that the initial comparison group includes sufficient movements from the Waybill Sample on which the Board can base its rate reasonableness determination.13

    11 Because the Board is considering a new rate review process for use against Class I carriers, the comparison group would likewise include only rates charged by other non-defendant Class I carriers.

    12 In calculating regional data, URCS defines each of the reporting Class I carriers as being either in the Eastern Region or Western Region. The Eastern Region includes CN, CSXT, and NSR. The Western Region includes BNSF, CP, KCS, and UP.

    13 The Board intends to propose modifications to the Waybill sampling rate in a subsequent decision, which would also help ensure sufficient observations.

    The Board notes, however, that, including non-defendant traffic in the comparison group likely would necessitate third-party discovery (as to whether cost structure differences between carriers make certain movements inappropriate for the comparison group) and would affect whether parties would be required to hire outside counsel to manage the receipt of confidential Waybill Sample data from other carriers. See 49 CFR 1244.9. We recognize that these issues would add a layer of complexity to the process, potentially increasing the time and expense required to bring a case.14 We seek comment on the advisability of including non-defendant traffic in all or limited circumstances under this simplified methodology, and how such inclusion would affect the time and costs to bring a case.

    14 The necessity for third-party discovery, and what that might entail, is discussed in more detail in section III(2), Limits on Discovery, below.

    III. Procedural Considerations

    The Board recognizes that it is essential that any procedures comprising a new rate reasonableness methodology be both more streamlined and less costly than the Board's existing rate review processes. As a result, the Board is considering the procedures set forth below with the goal of achieving a shortened procedural schedule and including measures addressing concerns that the existing procedures for challenging a rate are cost-prohibitive.

    1. Preliminary Screen

    Given the abbreviated evidentiary presentation in a simplified, lower-cost process, the Board is considering requiring that challenged traffic meet certain threshold criteria in order to be eligible to be reviewed under the new methodology. This preliminary screen would seek to identify those movements for which truck transportation alternatives are unlikely and the rates are significant outliers, allowing the Board to make market dominance and rate reasonableness determinations based on the abbreviated evidentiary submissions described below. The issue traffic would, of course, have to be priced above the 180% R/VC level, which is the statutory floor for regulatory rail rate intervention. See 49 U.S.C. 10707(d).

    Additionally, the Board is considering the following criteria for the issue traffic as a preliminary screen and seeks comment on each of the following potential criteria.

    Issue Traffic Length of Haul. The origin and destination of the issue traffic would be required to be located a certain minimum distance apart. As noted in Review of Commodity, Boxcar, and TOFC/COFC Exemptions, EP 704 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 7 n.12 (STB served Mar. 23, 2016) (with Commissioner Begeman dissenting), trucking becomes less viable when the length of haul exceeds 500 miles because in many instances a transport over that threshold cannot be completed in one day. Thus, it may be appropriate to require that the origin and destination be more than 500 highway miles apart. Traffic moving fewer than 500 highway miles between origin and destination would not be eligible to be challenged under the new methodology because trucking alternatives for those movements are more likely. Such a criterion could allow the Board to consider making market dominance determinations on an abbreviated evidentiary presentation.

    Issue Traffic Revenue Per Ton Mile. As noted, part of the preliminary screen would be to determine if rates are significant outliers. The Board is considering using revenue per ton mile to make this determination. Specifically, the Board could require the revenue per ton mile of the challenged traffic to be in the top 10% or 20% of the initial, Board-determined comparison group. Another possibility would be to require the issue traffic to be at least one standard deviation above the mean revenue per ton mile of the comparison group.15 Analyzing how a movement's revenue per ton mile compares to the revenue per ton mile earned on similar movements would help identify movements with outlier rates. The Board would complete this revenue per ton mile analysis following the receipt of the defendant's answer, in which the defendant would provide the actual miles traveled by the challenged traffic. The Board invites parties to comment on these or other measures that would achieve the same objective of identifying movements in which rates are significant outliers.

    15 A standard deviation is defined as a measure of spread, dispersion, or variability of a group of numbers equal to the square root of the variance of that group of numbers. The variance of the group of numbers is computed by subtracting the mean, or average, of all the numbers, squaring the resulting difference, and computing the mean of these squared differences.

    Prior Litigation. Lastly, the Board is considering a requirement that the complainant must not have brought a case against the defendant under this methodology within a certain number of years. This limitation could correspond to the maximum rate prescription available under the new process, which is discussed in more detail in the section related to limits on relief below. By including this limitation, the Board intends to prevent attempts to divide a large dispute into multiple smaller disputes.

    2. Limits on Discovery

    The Board also is considering limiting discovery in order to reduce litigation costs for very small disputes. In particular, the Board could require that parties file certain initial disclosures with their complaint and answer. Concurrent with the filing of its complaint, the complainant could be required to disclose the nine standard inputs for the URCS Phase III costing program.16 The complainant could also be required to provide a preliminary estimate of the variable cost of the challenged movements, using the unadjusted figures produced by the URCS Phase III costing program on the Board's Web site,17 to demonstrate that the Board's jurisdictional threshold has been met. The complainant could also be required to provide to the Board and the defendant all documents that it relied upon to determine the inputs to the URCS Phase III costing program. The Board invites parties to comment on whether the URCS Phase III costing program should be used as described, or whether the availability of this new process would be improved by some alternative, such as by creating a paper form for submitting URCS Phase III inputs to the Board.

    16 The nine inputs include: (1) The carrier; (2) the type of shipment (local, received-terminated, etc.); (3) the one-way distance of the shipment; (4) the type of car; (5) the number of cars; (6) the car ownership (private or railroad); (7) commodity type (by STCC); (8) the weight of the shipment (in tons per car); and (9) the type of movement (single-car, multi-car, or unit train). In the event that a complainant does not have access to the actual miles of the length of haul, a showing of highway miles between the origin and destination pair would be sufficient for the purposes of the complainant's initial disclosures.

    17 The current version of the URCS Phase III costing program is available at http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/urcs.html.

    With regard to qualitative market dominance, the complainant could also be required to make certain required disclosures. For example, in a verified statement by a company official, the complainant could be required to submit: (i) A statement that the issue traffic has not moved more than a de minimis amount on alternative transportation modes between the same origin and destination within a certain number of years, and (ii) a statement whether the complainant has made any inquiries to, or received any responses from, alternative transportation providers for the issue traffic within a certain number of years, including copies of any such communications (if available).

    The defendant could likewise be required to provide initial disclosures to the complainant concurrent with filing its answer. Like the complainant, the defendant could be required to produce its preliminary estimate of the variable cost of the challenged movement, using the unadjusted figures produced by the URCS Phase III costing program. To the extent that the defendant disagreed with any of the URCS inputs provided in the complaint, it could also be required to provide the inputs that it used. The defendant could also be required to provide to the Board and the complainant all documents that it relied upon to determine the inputs used in the URCS Phase III costing program. Finally, the defendant could be required to disclose the actual route miles for the issue traffic and provide supporting data to the Board and, upon request, to the complainant.

    Another limit on discovery could be to limit the amount or type of party-initiated discovery or eliminating such discovery altogether, given that the need for such information would be significantly reduced by the simplifications discussed here. For example, the fact that the initial comparison group would be set by the Board (based on defined criteria) and not the parties would eliminate one need for the parties to seek discovery. In terms of limiting discovery, in preparing its answer, the defendant could reply with information that is either disclosed by the complainant in its complaint or opening evidence, or developed independently by the defendant, but the defendant would not be permitted to seek additional discovery from the complainant. Likewise, the complainant would not be permitted to serve any discovery on the defendant in preparation of its evidentiary submissions.

    Additionally, as noted above, if the Board were to include non-defendant traffic in the comparison group, the Board is concerned that it would be required to permit discovery from the non-defendant carriers whose traffic is included in the comparison group. In that case, the Board could consider limits, such as five interrogatories (including subparts) and five document requests (including subparts) per party for each non-defendant carrier, and could require that such discovery be completed by a specific number of days. Such third-party discovery would occur prior to the submission of each party's evidence.

    We therefore seek comment on whether to mandate certain initial disclosures and, if so, what those disclosures should be, and any other ways to limit or eliminate party-initiated discovery in a new, streamlined comparison group methodology for small disputes.

    3. Submission of Evidence

    The Board seeks comment on the following procedures it is considering for use in a new simplified rate reasonableness methodology.

    Complaint. A party would initiate a case by filing a complaint with the Board. In its complaint, the complainant would be required to: (i) Allege that the rates for certain traffic are unreasonable, (ii) allege that the defendant has both quantitative market dominance (i.e., the issue traffic must move at rates above 180% R/VC) and qualitative market dominance (i.e., other modes of transportation are not feasible); and (iii) submit the required initial disclosures, as described above in the section on limits on discovery. The complaint and initial disclosures would include information sufficient for the Board to determine that the issue traffic meets a preliminary screen, discussed in more detail above. Additionally, with its complaint, the complainant would submit a signed confidentiality agreement. The agreement would be standardized specifically for cases brought under the new process and available for download on the Board's Web site. By asking parties to submit the confidentiality agreement early in the process, the Board could expedite the distribution of the comparison group. The Board invites comment on the appropriate content or other issues related to the filing of the complaint.

    Answer. In its answer, the defendant would be required to admit or deny each of the allegations in the complaint and submit its initial disclosures, described above. The defendant would also file with its answer a signed copy of the standardized confidentiality agreement. The Board invites comment on the appropriate content or other issues related to the filing of the answer.

    Opening Evidence. Unlike in Three-Benchmark cases, the Board envisions sequential rather than simultaneous filings of each party's evidence. In its opening evidence, the complainant would address both qualitative market dominance 18 and the appropriateness of the initial comparison group. With respect to qualitative market dominance, given the information derived from the preliminary screen and the initial disclosure requirements, the complainant would be permitted to present an abbreviated evidentiary submission, but must explain why the use of other transportation modes is not feasible. The complainant could also expand on its initial disclosures to the extent necessary.

    18 Under the procedures envisioned, quantitative market dominance would be decided by the Board prior to the filing of opening evidence based on the information provided in the complaint and answer.

    In its opening evidence, the complainant would also have the opportunity to state whether the initial, Board-determined comparison group is appropriate. The complainant may propose adjustments to the default initial comparison group and present “other relevant factors” evidence, such as a density adjustment or PTC adjustment, among others.

    Reply Evidence. The defendant's reply would likewise address both qualitative market dominance and the appropriateness of the default initial comparison group. Specifically, in its reply evidence, the defendant would have the opportunity to reply to the complainant's qualitative market dominance evidence. As noted above, we are considering limits on discovery as it relates to qualitative market dominance. For example, in formulating its response to the complainant's qualitative market dominance evidence, the defendant could be limited to information disclosed by the complainant with its complaint or opening evidence or developed independently by the defendant.

    The defendant would also have the opportunity to respond to the complainant's arguments regarding the appropriateness of any proposed adjustments to the default initial comparison group. The defendant could also propose its own adjustments to the default initial comparison group and set forth “other relevant factors” evidence.

    Limitations on Opening and Reply Evidence. In order to minimize the time and expense associated with litigating a small rate dispute, the Board is considering placing limitations on the opening and reply evidence, such as imposing word or page limits on the complainant's opening evidence and the defendant's reply evidence. The Board seeks comment on whether to include a word or page limitation and if so, what the appropriate limitation would be.

    We recognize that, even with a word limit and limits on or exclusion of discovery, allowing parties' presentations to include “other relevant factors” evidence could substantially increase the cost and time required to prepare for submission of a case. For instance, we do not expect that the examples noted above—a density adjustment or PTC adjustment—could be easily calculated by a small entity without hiring outside consultants. Therefore, the Board invites comment on the advisability of allowing parties' presentations to include “other relevant factors” evidence. The Board also invites parties to comment on the appropriateness of sequential as opposed to simultaneous filings of each party's evidence, a reasonable time-frame for considering qualitative market dominance arguments, a reasonable word or page limit for opening and reply evidence, and any other issues related to the filing of opening and reply evidence.

    Evidentiary Hearing. In an effort to make the new process cost-effective for small disputes, the Board is considering offering an evidentiary hearing following the submission of opening and reply evidence, in lieu of formal rebuttal filings and final briefs. The evidentiary hearing, which would take place before Board staff, would permit the Board to further examine and develop the evidentiary record without requiring the parties to take on the higher litigation costs associated with formal written submissions. At the evidentiary hearing, the complainant would have the opportunity to rebut the defendant's reply and respond to Board staff's questions. The defendant would also participate in the hearing and could respond to any questions from Board staff. Board staff would have the opportunity to further explore the parties' arguments regarding the appropriateness of the comparison group. A court reporter would be present, and the transcript would become part of the record. The evidentiary hearing could also take place by conference call. We invite parties to comment on whether an evidentiary hearing in lieu of rebuttal filings and final briefs would help minimize the time or expense associated with litigating a case under a new rate methodology for small disputes.

    4. Board Determinations

    Under the procedures being considered as described in this decision, the Board would issue two decisions. First, following receipt of the defendant's answer, the Board would issue a preliminary decision in which the Board would (i) resolve any URCS Phase III input disputes, (ii) determine whether the challenged traffic meets the preliminary screen based on the initial comparison group, and (iii) make a final determination on whether the defendant carrier has quantitative market dominance over the movements at issue. In the event that the issue traffic fails to meet the preliminary screen based on the initial comparison group, the Board would dismiss the complaint without prejudice. For challenged traffic that satisfies the preliminary screen, the Board would provide the initial comparison group data pursuant to the standardized confidentiality agreements previously filed by the parties.

    Second, following the evidentiary hearing, the Board would issue a final decision addressing qualitative market dominance and rate reasonableness. With regard to qualitative market dominance, the Board expects that its qualitative market dominance analysis could be far more limited than in other rate reasonableness methodologies given the preliminary screen and initial disclosure requirements. In particular, because the screen would help identify movements that are more likely to be captive, the Board envisions determining qualitative market dominance without as extensive an analysis as under the current methodologies. The Board seeks comments on specific qualitative market dominance factors it could consider for this type of new rate reasonableness methodology.

    If the Board finds that the defendant carrier has qualitative market dominance over the challenged traffic, the Board would address each of the parties' arguments regarding the appropriateness of the initial comparison group and adjustments thereto. If the comparison group is adjusted, the Board would reevaluate the challenged traffic to ensure that it continues to satisfy the preliminary screen based on the adjusted comparison group. In the event that the issue traffic fails to meet the preliminary screen based on the adjusted comparison group, the Board would dismiss the proceeding with prejudice to the complainant challenging the same movement under the new method for a certain period, but without prejudice to the complainant challenging the same movement under one of the Board's other rate review processes.

    For the rate reasonableness determination, the Board would compute the maximum R/VC ratio for the issue traffic in a manner similar to the Three-Benchmark analysis, although with a potential modification. Specifically, the Board would apply a revenue need adjustment—which is the ratio of RSAM ÷ R/VC>180 (each of which is a four-year average calculation) 19 —to each movement in the final comparison group. The Board would then calculate the mean and standard deviation of the R/VC ratios for the adjusted comparison group (weighted in accordance with the proper sampling factors). If the challenged rate is above a reasonable confidence interval around the estimate of the mean for the adjusted comparison group, it would be determined unreasonable and the maximum lawful rate would be prescribed at that upper boundary level.20

    19 The jurisdictional threshold for rail rate regulation, R/VC>180, also serves as the floor for regulatory relief because the Board cannot prescribe a rate below the jurisdictional threshold. See 49 U.S.C. 10707(d); W. Tex. Utils. Co. v. Burlington N. R.R., 1 S.T.B. 638, 677-78 (1996), aff'd sub nom., Burlington N. R.R. v. STB, 114 F.3d 206, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

    20 The confidence interval would be a function of the number of movements in the comparison group and the standard deviation of those (potentially adjusted) R/VC ratios. A small standard deviation or large number of observations would produce a tighter confidence interval, so that we could have more “confidence” in the accuracy of our estimate of the mean of the comparison group. Using the mean (R/VCCOMP) and standard deviation (S) of the adjusted comparison group, along with the number of movements in the comparison group (n), the upper boundary of a reasonable confidence interval around the estimate of the mean would be derived as follows: Upper Boundary = R/VCCOMP + tn−1 × (S ÷ (n−1) 1/2 ). The Student's t-distribution parameter, tn−1, will range from 3.078 to 1.28 depending on the number of movements in the comparison group. The precise number can be found in statistical tables for the Student's t-distributions.

    However, the Board is considering departing from Three-Benchmark precedent with respect to the revenue need adjustment. As noted, in a Three-Benchmark case, each movement in the final comparison group is adjusted by a revenue need adjustment factor. During the public comment period in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1), NGFA proposed the creation of an alternative revenue need adjustment factor—a Revenue Adequacy Adjustment Factor (RAAF), which would be commodity-specific and would account for the revenue adequacy status of each railroad. NGFA argues that the RAAF is superior to the Board's current revenue need adjustment factor because it takes into consideration the amount of issue commodity traffic that is ostensibly captive to the railroad and allocates the burden of a revenue need adjustment factor to those commodities that provide the most revenue. (NGFA Opening, V.S. Crowley 12.) There may be merit to NGFA's suggestion that our current revenue need adjustment factor could be adapted to reflect the differences in rates and revenues carriers obtain from various commodity groups. Thus, the Board is considering whether it could make the revenue need adjustment factor commodity specific. However, if the Board were to adopt a commodity specific revenue need adjustment factor, we must ensure that we establish the most appropriate formula.

    Therefore, we seek comment on whether the Board should modify its revenue need adjustment factor to be commodity-specific, and if so, how we can effectively disaggregate the existing RSAM on a commodity-by-commodity basis. Because some commodities have a higher R/VC ratio than others, the adjusted revenue need adjustment factor should allocate the revenue shortfall in ways that reflect the different demand elasticities faced by different commodities. However, the weighted average of all commodities when totaled should equal the overall RSAM.

    We believe that, on average, differences in demand elasticities are reflected in R/VC ratios—those with higher R/VC ratios tend to enjoy less direct and indirect competition while those with lower R/VC ratios tend to enjoy somewhat more competition. In an individual proceeding, we would consider applying a commodity-specific RSAM where the resulting figure reflects this intuition. We believe such a mark-up could be done in a manner consistent with Ramsey pricing principles.21 If the Board were to adopt such a modified revenue need adjustment factor, we also seek comment on whether the reliance on a single year's data would be inappropriate. Because profits are pro-cyclical, we believe an approach that considers a longer period of time may be more appropriate. Finally, we also seek comment on whether application of a modified revenue need adjustment factor, if adopted, should be limited to a new methodology.

    21 Ramsey pricing refers to the pricing principals first advocated by the British mathematician and economist Frank P. Ramsey, whose economic pricing model was published in A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation, 37 Econ. J. 47-61 (Mar. 1927). “Ramsey pricing” is a widely recognized method of differential pricing—that is, pricing in accordance with demand. Under Ramsey pricing, each price or rate contains a mark-up above the long-run marginal cost of the product or service to cover a portion of the unattributable costs. The unattributable costs are allocated among the purchasers or users in inverse relation to their demand elasticity. Thus, in a market where shippers are very sensitive to price changes (a highly elastic market), the mark-up would be smaller than in a market where shippers are less price sensitive. The sum of the mark-ups equals the unattributable costs of an efficient producer. See Guidelines, 1 I.C.C.2d at 526-527.

    While Ramsey pricing represents the most efficient way to price above marginal cost, reliance on pure Ramsey pricing clashes with the Long-Cannon factors because it would not maximize the revenue contribution from traffic with more-elastic demand (competitive traffic) before calling on traffic with less-elastic demand (captive traffic) to make a differentially higher revenue contribution. For these reasons, the Board has not adopted pure Ramsey pricing theory. Rather, in SAC cases, the Board allocates stand-alone costs in accordance with Ramsey pricing principles, by which the SARR (and therefore the carrier) is permitted to engage in demand-based differential pricing to recover the total SAC costs. Major Issues, EP 657 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 12-13.

    5. Limits on Relief

    Because of the abbreviated nature of the process described in this decision, the Board is considering limiting relief available under this process. The ideas presented in the ANPR describe a process that would be significantly more streamlined than the process required to bring a Three-Benchmark case. As such, the relief available under this method would likewise need to be significantly less than the relief available under the Three-Benchmark approach. The Board invites parties to comment on the amount of relief that should be available and why that amount of relief would be appropriate.

    The limit on relief would apply to the difference between the challenged rate and the maximum lawful rate, whether in the form of reparations, a rate prescription, or a combination of the two. Any rate prescription would automatically terminate once the complainant has exhausted the relief available. Thus, the actual length of the prescription may be less than the prescription period if the shipper ships a large enough volume of traffic so that the relief is used up in a shorter time. The complainant would be barred from bringing another complaint against the same rate for the remainder of the prescription period.

    Where the shipper exhausts all of its relief before the end of the prescription period, the carrier's rate making freedom would be restored with a regulatory safe harbor at the challenged rate for the remainder of the prescription period, with appropriate adjustments for inflation using the rail cost adjustment factor, adjusted for inflation and productivity (RCAF-A). See R.R. Cost Recovery Procedures—Productivity Adjustment, 5 I.C.C.2d 434 (1989), aff'd sub nom. Edison Elec. Inst. v. ICC, 969 F.2d 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1992). If, however, a carrier establishes a new common carrier rate once the rate prescription expires, and the new rate exceeds the inflation-adjusted challenged rate, the shipper may bring a new complaint against the newly established common carrier rate.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this ANPR does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Board to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (RFA) do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of any comments submitted in response to this ANPR, parties may include comments or information that could help the Board assess the potential impact of a subsequent regulatory action on small entities pursuant to the RFA.

    Conclusion

    The Board seeks public input on how best to establish a new rate reasonableness process for use in small disputes, available to shippers of all commodities, to provide shippers with small disputes meaningful access to regulatory relief in those cases where even a Three-Benchmark case is too costly, given the value of the case. The Board welcomes comments from interested parties on the issues and considerations presented in this decision.

    It is ordered:

    1. Comments are due by November 14, 2016. Reply comments are due by December 19, 2016.

    2. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.

    3. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.

    4. This decision is effective on its service date.

    Decided: August 30, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Miller commented with a separate expression.

    Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.
    VICE CHAIRMAN MILLER, commenting:

    Today's decision is an important step forward for the Board. Despite the agency's well-intentioned efforts over the years to create simpler, timelier, and less costly rate dispute processes, I believe that they are still inaccessible to shippers with small disputes, denying them the opportunity to obtain rate relief. This decision focuses on filling that gap in our processes.

    While I applaud the Board for today's action, we still have work to do. Even if the Board is able to develop an abbreviated rate case methodology that can be used by shippers with small rate disputes, it will not resolve the concerns that have been raised about the SAC test. The methodology here is only intended to address small rate disputes for shippers that meet certain criteria. As such, the Board still needs to consider alternatives to the SAC test for shippers with larger disputes. A reasonable starting point to address this issue would be for the Board to publicly release the report prepared by our outside consultant on SAC alternatives and conduct a hearing to obtain feedback and reaction from our stakeholders on the report's conclusions.22 Hopefully the report will be issued soon and stakeholders given an opportunity to comment.

    22Sunbelt Chlor Alkali P'ship v. Norfolk S. Ry., NOR 42130, slip op. 44 (STB served June 30, 2016) (Miller concurrence).

    Note:

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

    Appendix A—Participants in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1)

    The Board received written comment and testimony from the following parties in Docket No. EP 665 (Sub-No. 1).

    Opening comments were received from:

    • Alliance for Rail Competition (ARC) (joined by Montana Wheat and Barley Committee, National Farmers Union, Colorado Wheat Administrative Committee, Idaho Barley Commission, Idaho Grain Producers Association, Idaho Wheat Commission, Montana Farmers Union, North Dakota Corn Growers Association, North Dakota Farmers Union, South Dakota Corn Growers Association, South Dakota Farmers Union, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Minnesota Farmers Union, Wisconsin Farmers Union, Nebraska Wheat Board, Oklahoma Wheat Commission, Oregon Wheat Commission, South Dakota Wheat Commission, Texas Wheat Producers Board, Washington Grain Commission, Wyoming Wheat Marketing Commission, USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, and National Corn Growers Association) • Association of American Railroads (AAR) • BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) • CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) • National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) • Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) • Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) • U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

    Reply comments were received from:

    • AAR • Agribusiness Association of Iowa, Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Retailers Association, American Bakers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American Soybean Association, California Grain and Feed Association, Corn Refiners Association, Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Kansas Cooperative Council, Kansas Grain and Feed Association, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois, Michigan Agribusiness Association, Michigan Bean Shippers Association, Minnesota Grain And Feed Association, Missouri Agribusiness Association, Montana Grain Elevators Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Oilseed Processors Association, Nebraska Grain and Feed Association, North American Millers' Association, North Dakota Grain Dealers Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, Ohio Agribusiness Association, Oklahoma Grain and Feed Association, Pacific Northwest Grain and Feed Association, Pet Food Institute, South Dakota Grain and Feed Association, Texas Grain and Feed Association, USA Rice Federation, and Wisconsin Agribusiness Association (collectively, AAI) • ARC (joined by the same parties that joined its opening comment as well as the Nebraska Corn Growers Association) • BNSF • CSXT • Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) • NGFA • NSR • Jay L. Schollmeyer for and on behalf of SMART-TD General Committee of Adjustment (SMART-TD) • Texas Trading and Transportation Services, LLC, dba TTMS Group, together with Montana Grain Growers Association (TTMS Group) • UP • USDA

    Testimony at the June 10, 2015 hearing was received from:

    • AAR • ARC • BNSF • Canadian National Railway Company (CN) • Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP) • CSXT • Michigan Agri-Business Association 23

    23 Written testimony only.

    • Montana Department of Agriculture • NGFA • NSR • SMART-TD • Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences • TTMS Group • UP • USDA

    Supplemental comments were received from:

    • AAR • ARC (joined by the same parties that joined its opening comment) • NSR
    [FR Doc. 2016-21305 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; FXES11130900000-167-FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BA41 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; availability of peer review and supplementary documents.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on our March 11, 2016, proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis). In our proposed rule, we emphasized that the governments of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho needed to promulgate regulations managing human-caused mortality of grizzly bears before we would proceed with a final rule. Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such mechanisms. We are also announcing the receipt of five independent peer reviews of the proposed rule. We are reopening the comment period for the proposed rule to allow all interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule in light of these documents. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparing the final rule.

    DATES:

    We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before October 7, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the search box, enter the docket number for the proposed rule, which is FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use that feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters or a petition), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

    Document availability: You may obtain the information and documents associated with this reopened public comment period and described below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042, from the Service's Mountain Prairie Region Grizzly Bear Web site https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php, or from the office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Kasworm, Acting Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-243-4903. For Tribal inquiries, contact Ivy Allen, Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone: 303-236-4575. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on the March 11, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 13174) to remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We specifically seek comments on the proposed rule in light of five peer reviews and recently finalized State regulatory mechanisms. The State regulations describe Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho's approach to managing human-caused mortality should we delist the grizzly bear in the GYE. The State regulatory mechanisms include Montana's Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulations, Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation, and the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Management and Allocation of Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Tri-State MOA). Copies of Grizzly Bear Montana Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulations, Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation, and the Tri-State MOA are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042 or at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Background

    On March 11, 2016, we published a proposed rule to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h), under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), by removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) (81 FR 13174). In the proposed rule, we explained that State regulations addressing human-caused grizzly bear mortality in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho must include five elements to maintain a recovered population of grizzly bears in the GYE:

    1. Suspension of all discretionary mortality inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), except if required for human safety, if the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate falls below 600.

    2. Suspension of grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule) are met at any time during the year (the mortality limits in these tables are reiterated in table 1 in this document, below).

    3. Prohibition of recreational harvest of female grizzly bears with young.

    4. In a given year, allowance of discretionary mortality only if nondiscretionary mortality (e.g., mortality from illegal kills, mortality from self-defense, calculated unknown/unreported mortalities, natural mortalities, and mortality from other causes such as vehicle collisions) does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year.

    5. Provisions to ensure that any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following year to ensure that long-term mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA.

    Table 1 1—Total Mortality 2 Limits for Grizzly Bears Inside the Demographic Monitoring Area [These mortality rates were calculated as those limits necessary to manage toward the long-term average population size that occurred from 2002 to 2014 using the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate method (674, 95% CI = 600-747). If the population estimate is fewer than 674, the total mortality rate for independent females and dependent young must be less than 7.6 percent. If population size is estimated at fewer than 600 in any year, no discretionary mortality will occur unless necessary for human safety.3] Total grizzly bear population estimate ≤674 675-747 >747 Mortality limit % for independent FEMALES (≥2 years) (using model-averaged Chao2 method) ≤7.6% 9% 10% Mortality limit % for independent MALES (≥2 years) (using model-averaged Chao2 method) 15% 20% 22% Mortality limit % for DEPENDENT YOUNG (using model-averaged Chao2 method) ≤7.6% 9% 10% 1 Similar to table 1 in proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11. 2016). 2Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear mortalities from all causes including but not limited to: Management removals, illegal kills, mistaken-identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the number of unknown/unreported mortalities. 3 The phrasing in the table header in the proposed rule erroneously noted that there would be no discretionary mortality at population levels fewer than or equal to 600 bears, as opposed to population levels fewer than 600 bears. We changed the phrasing here to match the phrasing in the rest of the proposed rule, the revised recovery criteria, and the draft conservation strategy.

    We noted that regulatory mechanisms containing these provisions must be in place in each State for delisting to occur because the adequacy or inadequacy of those regulatory mechanisms help inform us whether a species, once delisted, will remain recovered. The ESA requires the Service to consider existing regulatory mechanisms when making listing determinations.

    Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho recently finalized such regulatory mechanisms governing potential hunting seasons for grizzly bear. These three States also approved the Tri-State MOA, which outlines their coordinated plans for grizzly bear management and allocates discretionary mortality of grizzly bears in the GYE between the three States. The three States approved the Tri-State MOA on the following dates: Wyoming, on May 11, 2016; Montana, on July 13, 2016; and Idaho, on August 8, 2016.

    Highlights of Recently Released State Grizzly Bear Management Regulations

    Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho each used a different regulatory method, appropriate to their respective legal processes, to enact their State rules governing human-caused grizzly bear mortality. Montana's Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted hunting regulations that outline the structure of a possible future grizzly bear hunting season on July 13, 2016 (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, 2016). Montana's Fish and Wildlife Commission also approved the Tri-State MOA (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission, & Idaho Fish and Game Commission, 2016). Before adopting these regulations and the MOA, Montana released the drafts of these documents for public comment and review. The Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted the hunting regulations and the MOA in the same manner that it adopts other regulations, with public notice and comment. In the Service Assessment below, we assume the MOA and hunting regulations are regulatory in nature.

    On July 8, 2016, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved a regulatory framework that “provides for the management of grizzly bears in Wyoming to ensure a recovered population” (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 2016). The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission invited the public to participate in the process of developing these regulations with a public comment period. Once the Governor of Wyoming approves and signs these regulations, they will be incorporated into Chapter 67 of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission's regulations. In the Service Assessment, set forth below, we anticipate that, prior to publication of our final rule, the Governor of Wyoming will sign the version of the regulations that was approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.

    Idaho's Fish and Game Commission issued a proclamation relating to the limit of the take of grizzly bears in the GYE on August 8, 2016 (Idaho Fish and Game Commission, 2016). Idaho Code Section 36-105 authorizes the Idaho Fish and Game Commission to use proclamations, which “have full force and effect as law,” as a means of “setting any season or limit on numbers, size, sex or species of wildlife classified by the commission as game animals.” Since grizzly bears are classified as game animals in Idaho Administrative Code 13.01.06.100.01e, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission may use a proclamation to establish binding limits on the take of grizzly bears (Idaho Administrative Code 13.01.06.100.01e).

    Table 2 cross-references the aforementioned requirements in the proposed rule with the content of each State's regulations. The full text of the State regulations and the Tri-State MOA can be found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042 or https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Table 2—Cross-Reference Between the Regulatory Requirements in the Proposed Rule To Remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From Listing Under the Endangered Species Act (81 FR 13174; March 11, 2016) and the State Grizzly Bear Regulatory Mechanisms Required element described in the proposed rule Montana (Tri-state memorandum of agreement (MOA) and Grizzly Bear hunting regulations) Wyoming (Chapter 67 of WY Game and Fish Commission regulations) Idaho (ID Fish and Game Commission proclamation) Requirement 1: Suspension of all discretionary mortality inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA), except if required for human safety, if the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate falls below 600 Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(a)(i), section IV(2)(c)(i), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6) Section 4(c) Section 2. Requirement 2: Suspension of grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1, 2, and 3 in the proposed rule) are met at any time during the year (these mortality limits are reiterated in table 1 in this document) Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6) Section 4(d) Section 3 and section 5. Requirement 3: Prohibition of recreational harvest of female grizzly bears with young Tri-State MOA: section IV(4)(b); Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, pp. 4 and 7 Section 4(e) Section 4. Requirement 4: In a given year, allowance of discretionary mortality only if non-discretionary mortality (e.g., mortality from illegal kills, self-defense, calculated unknown/unreported mortalities, natural mortalities, and other causes such as vehicle collisions) does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c), section IV(4)(a), and section IV(6) Section 4(d) and section 4(k) Section 5. Requirement 5: Provisions to ensure that any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following year to ensure that long-term mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA Tri-State MOA: section IV(2)(c) Section 4(g), section 4(k), and section 4(l) Section 6. Service Assessment

    The Service has reviewed the recently finalized State regulations governing the management of grizzly bears in the GYE and the regulation of human-caused mortality (including the Tri-State MOA, Montana's Grizzly Bear Hunting Regulations, Chapter 67 of Wyoming's Game and Fish Commission regulations, and Idaho's Fish and Game Commission Proclamation). Our preliminary assessment is that these documents are consistent with the letter or intent of the regulatory requirements regarding human-caused mortality that we outlined in the proposed rule. Thus, based on our review, we believe the regulatory framework in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, in combination with the Tri-State MOA, will maintain a recovered population of grizzly bears in the GYE. We are accepting public comments on these State regulations and our preliminary assessment that they provide adequate regulatory mechanisms such that we can conclude that the population no longer meets the definition of threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

    Peer Review and Public Comments

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we subjected the proposed delisting rule to peer review. We received submissions from five independent peer reviewers, and their input is available as described under ADDRESSES. These peer reviews were conducted by third-party selected scientific experts in large carnivore ecology and management with expertise in one or more of the following areas: population ecology, management, demographics, conservation, and population genetics. We welcome any comments on the proposed rule in light of these reviews (see compiled reviews in Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016). Previously received public comments, and the data and information they provided, can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available: on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; from the Service's Mountain Prairie Region Grizzly Bear Web site https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php; or upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 16, 2016. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21368 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    81 173 Wednesday, September 7, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0087] Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee). The meeting is being convened to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable industry issues and to provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can tailor programs and services to better meet the needs of the U.S. produce industry. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and Wednesday, October 26, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee meeting will be held in the Tidewater I&II Conference Room at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel @Ronald Reagan National Airport, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official, USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program; Telephone: (202) 720-3334; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Committee in 2001, to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2015, for a two-year period.

    AMS Deputy Administrator for the Specialty Crops Program, Charles Parrott, serves as the Committee's Manager. Representatives from USDA mission areas and other government agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry are periodically called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee. AMS is giving notice of the Committee meeting to the public so that they may attend and present their views. The meeting is open to the public.

    Public Comments: All written public comments must be submitted electronically by October 1, 2016, for the Committee's consideration to Pamela Stanziani at [email protected] or to www.regulations.gov, or mailed to: 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2077-South, STOP 0235, Washington, DC 20250-0235. The meeting will be recorded, and information about obtaining a transcript will be provided at the meeting.

    Agenda items may include, but are not limited to, welcome and introductions, administrative matters, progress reports from committee working group chairs and/or vice chairs, potential working group recommendation discussion and proposal, and presentations by subject matter experts.

    Meeting Accommodations: The Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel @Ronald Reagan National Airport is ADA compliant and provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this public meeting, please notify Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official, at [email protected] or (202) 720-3334, by September 30, 2016. Determinations for reasonable accommodations will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Dana Coale, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21425 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in South Jordan, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/uwcnf/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 28, 2016, from 6:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Forest Service Office, Room #314, 857 West South Jordan Parkway, South Jordan, Utah. The meeting will also be available via teleconference. For anytone who would like to attend via teleconferenc, please visit the Web site listed in the Summary section or contact the person listed under the For Information Contact section.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received on the Web site listed in the Summary section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Loyal Clark, RAC Coordinator by phone at 801-999-2113, or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to review and recommend project proposals.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 14, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Loyal Clark, RAC Coordinator, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 857 West South Jordan Parkway, South Jordan, Utah 84095; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 801-253-8118.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. David C. Whittekiend, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21423 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Business Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a Business Meeting of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will be convened at 10 a.m. on Friday, September 9, 2016.

    DATES:

    Friday, September 9, 2016, at 10 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 (Entrance on F Street NW.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, Communications and Public Engagement Director. Telephone: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least five business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda II. Business Meeting A. Program Planning • Discussion and Vote on Press Release on National Voting Rights Act Report • Discussion and Vote on Press Release on 2016 Statutory Enforcement Report • Discussion and Vote on Commission Statement on Hispanic Heritage Month • Update on Preliminary 60th Anniversary Planning by Brian Walch B. State Advisory Committees. • Missouri SAC Chair, S. David Mitchell presentation of the Committee Report on Police—Community Relations in Missouri • State Advisory Committee Appointments • North Carolina C. Management and Operations. • Discussion on October Meeting with Special Guest Sylvia Mendez to discuss her experiences as the plaintiff in Mendez v. Westminster. • Completion of Web site Migration. • Staff Director's Report. III. Adjourn Meeting Dated: September 2, 2016. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21670 Filed 9-2-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-010] Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective September 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Pedersen, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2769.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 18, 2015, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic products from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (Order).1 On February 3, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order.2 The Department received multiple timely requests for an administrative review of the Order. On April 7, 2016, in accordance with section 751(a) of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of an administrative review of the Order.3 The administrative review was initiated with respect to 27 companies or groups of companies, and covers the period from July 31, 2014, through January 31, 2016. Requesting parties have subsequently timely withdrawn all review requests for 18 of the 27 companies or groups of companies for which the Department initiated a review, as discussed below.

    1See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order; and Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 8592 (February 18, 2015).

    2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 5712, 5713 (February 3, 2016).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016.

    Rescission of Review, in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All requesting parties withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of the 18 companies or groups of companies listed in the Appendix to this notice within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice. Accordingly, the Department is rescinding this review with respect to these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).4 The administrative review will continue with respect to all other firms for which a review was requested and initiated.

    4See Appendix. As stated in Change in Practice in NME Reviews, the Department will no longer consider the non-market economy (“NME”) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews. See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013) (“Change in Practice in NME Reviews”). The PRC-wide entity is not subject to this administrative review because no interested party requested a review of the entity. See Initiation Notice.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that the reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. APPENDIX • Jinko Solar Co. Ltd./Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd.5

    5 In the final determination of the underlying investigation we treated Jinko Solar Co. Ltd. and Jinko Solar Import and Export Co., Ltd. together with Renesola Jiangsu Ltd. and Renesola Zhejiang Ltd. as a single entity. See Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79 FR 76970 (December 23, 2014).

    • Canadian Solar International Limited • Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. • Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang) Inc. • Risen Energy Co., Ltd. • Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. • Yingli Energy (China) Company Limited • Yingli Green Energy International Trading Limited • Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd. • Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd. • Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Shenzhen Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co., Ltd. • Shanghai BYD Co., Ltd. • Canadian Solar Inc.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21499 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-820] Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India (hot-rolled steel). The period of review (POR) is December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. This review covers four companies, Ispat Industries Ltd. (Ispat), JSW Steel Ltd. (JSW), JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. (JSW Ispat), and Tata Steel Ltd. (Tata). We preliminarily determine that Ispat, JSW, JSW Ispat, and Tata had no entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George McMahon or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 and (202) 482-6071, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Products subject to this order may also enter under HTSUS subheadings: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.1

    1 A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, titled “Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Ispat, JSW, JSW Ispat, and Tata submitted timely-filed certifications that they had no exports, sales, or entries of subject merchandise during the POR,2 and a query of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data did not show any POR entries of subject merchandise by Ispat, JSW, JSW Ispat, and Tata.3 In addition, CBP did not identify any entries of subject merchandise from Ispat, JSW, JSW Ispat, and Tata during the POR in response to an inquiry from the Department asking CBP for such information.4 Based on the foregoing, the Department preliminarily determines that Ispat, JSW, JSW Ispat, and Tata had no shipments of the subject merchandise, and, therefore, no reviewable transactions, during the POR.

    2See Letter from JSW titled, “Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: No Shipment Certification of JSW Steel Ltd.” (February 12, 2016). JSW's letter stated, “{p}lease note that this statement applies as well to the companies listed in the Department's initiation notice as Ispat Industries Ltd. and JSW Ispat Steel Ltd. Those companies no longer exist as separate entities, but have been merged into JSW Steel.” See also Letter from Tata titled, “Antidumping Duty Review of Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Tata Steel Limited Certification of No Shipments” (March 11, 2016); see also Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 6832 (February 9, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to the File titled, “Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Data Query Results,” dated February 17, 2016.

    4See CBP Message Numbers: 6083305 and 6083306, dated March 23, 2016.

    Assessment Rate

    Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    In accordance with the Department's “automatic assessment” practice,5 for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.

    5See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for respondents noted above, which claimed no shipments, will remain unchanged from the rates assigned to the companies in the most recently completed review of the companies; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 38.72 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair value investigation, as amended. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.6 Parties who submit comments are requested to submit: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.7 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), (d)(2).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, using Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS system within 30 days of publication of this notice.8 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined.9 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised by the parties in their case briefs, within 120 days after issuance of these preliminary results.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and increase the subsequent assessment of the antidumping duties by the amount of antidumping duties reimbursed.

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Results Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-21490 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-433-812, A-423-812, A-351-847, A-580-887, A-583-858, A-489-828, C-580-888] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey; Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from certain producers and exporters from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey.

    DATES:

    Effective September 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edythe Artman at (202) 482-3931 (Austria), Elizabeth Eastwood at (202) 482-3874 (Belgium), Mark Kennedy at (202) 482-7883 (Brazil), Steve Bezirganian at (202) 482-1131 (Korea-AD), John Corrigan at (202) 482-7438 (Korea-CVD), Tyler Weinhold at (202) 482-1121 (Taiwan), or Dmitry Vladimirov at (202) 482-0665 (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    In response to petitions filed on April 8, 2016,1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations concerning imports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), France, the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany), Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey 2 and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations concerning CTL plate from Brazil, the PRC, and Korea.3 On July 26, 2016, the Department received timely allegations, pursuant to sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey.4 Based on information provided by the petitioners, data placed on the record of these investigations by the mandatory respondents, and data collected by the Department from Global Trade Atlas (GTA), the Department preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist for imports of CTL plate from certain producers and exporters from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Taiwan, and Turkey.

    1See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey—Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, dated April 8, 2016 (collectively, the petitions). The petitioners for these investigations are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, and SSAB Enterprises, LLC (the petitioners).

    2See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, South Africa, Taiwan, and the Republic of Turkey: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 27089 (May 5, 2016).

    3See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 81 FR 27098 (May 5, 2016).

    4See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-To-Length Plate From Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey: Critical Circumstances Allegations, July 26, 2016 (Allegations).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2), the petitioners requested that the Department issue a preliminary affirmative determination of critical circumstances on an expedited basis. In accordance with sections 703(e)(1) and 733(e)(1) of the Act, because the petitioners submitted their critical circumstances allegations more than 20 days before the scheduled date of the final determination, the Department must promptly issue preliminary critical circumstances determinations.

    Section 703(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will determine that critical circumstances exist in CVD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A) That “the alleged countervailable subsidy” is inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) of the World Trade Organization, and (B) that “there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.” Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that the Department will preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist in AD investigations if there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect: (A)(i) That “there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise,” or (ii) that “the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales,” and (B) that “there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.” Section 351.206(h)(2) of the Department's regulations provides that, generally, imports must increase by at least 15 percent during the “relatively short period” to be considered “massive” and section 351.206(i) defines a “relatively short period” as normally being the period beginning on the date the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the petition is filed) 5 and ending at least three months later.6 The regulations also provide, however, that, if the Department “finds that importers, or exporters or producers, had reason to believe, at some time prior to the beginning of the proceeding, that a proceeding was likely,” the Department “may consider a period of not less than three months from that earlier time.” 7

    5See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(40) (providing that a proceeding begins on the date of the filing of a petition).

    6See 19 CFR 351.206(i).

    7Id.

    Alleged Countervailable Subsidies Are Inconsistent With the SCM Agreement

    To determine whether an alleged countervailable subsidy is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, in accordance with section 703(e)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department considered the evidence currently on the record of the Korea CVD investigation. Specifically, as determined in our initiation checklist, the following subsidy programs, alleged in the petition and supported by information reasonably available to the petitioners, appear to be either export contingent or contingent upon the use of domestic goods over imported goods, which would render them inconsistent with the SCM Agreement: Korean Export-Import Bank Short-Term Export Credits; Korean Export-Import Bank Export Factoring; Korean Export-Import Bank Export Loan Guarantees; Korean Export-Import Bank Trade Bill Rediscounting Program; Korea Development Bank (KDB) Short-Term Discounted Loans for Export Receivables; Loans under the Industrial Base Fund; Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K-SURE) Short-Term Export Credit Insurance; and K-SURE Export Credit Guarantees.8

    8See Korea CVD Initiation Checklist, April 28, 2016, at 7-16.

    Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines for purposes of this critical circumstances determination that there are alleged subsidies in the Korea CVD investigation that are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.

    History of Dumping and Material Injury/Knowledge of Sales Below Fair Value and Material Injury

    In order to determine whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, the Department generally considers current or previous AD orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders imposed by other countries with regard to imports of the same merchandise.9 Although the Department has not previously issued, nor are we aware of any other World Trade Organization member issuing, AD orders on CTL plate from the six countries, the petitioners point to a pattern of dumping of similar merchandise by companies subject to these investigations.

    9See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination, 74 FR 59117, 59120 (November 17, 2009) unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances and Final Determination of Targeted Dumping, 75 FR 20335 (April 19, 2010).

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling at less than fair value, we typically consider the magnitude of dumping margins, including margins alleged in petitions.10 The Department has found margins of 15 to 25 percent (depending on whether sales are export price sales or constructed export price sales) to be sufficient for this purpose.11 The Department initiated these AD investigations based on the following estimated dumping margins: (1) Austria ranges from 35.50 to 121.90 percent; (2) Belgium is 51.78 percent; (3) Brazil is 74.52 percent; (8) Korea ranges from 44.70 to 248.64; (10) Taiwan ranges from 8.30 to 77.13 percent; and (11) Turkey ranges from 34.03 to 50.00 percent.12 All of these margins are above the 15 to 25 percent threshold.13 Therefore, on that basis, we preliminarily conclude that importers knew or should have known that exporters in all six countries were selling subject merchandise at less than fair value.

    10See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances: Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Australia, the People's Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, and the Russian Federation, 67 FR 19157, 19158 (April 18, 2002) (unchanged in the final determination).

    11See, e.g., Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 (June 11, 1997) (unchanged in the final determination) and Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672 (July 16, 2004) (unchanged in the final determination).

    12See CTL Plate Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 27089, 27094. These margins differ from those in the petitions with respect to Austria, Brazil, Korea, and Taiwan.

    13 Although the lowest margin for Taiwan is below the threshold, the Taiwan margins ranged as high as 77.13 percent which is well above the threshold.

    To determine whether importers knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury, we typically consider the preliminary injury determinations of the International Trade Commission (ITC).14 If the ITC finds material injury (rather than the threat of injury), we normally find that the ITC's determination provided importers with sufficient knowledge of injury. In these investigations, the ITC's preliminary finding of material injury by reason of imports of CTL plate from, inter alia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey is sufficient to impute knowledge of the likelihood of material injury for each of these countries.15

    14See, e.g., Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 24572, 24573 (May 5, 2010), unchanged in Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30377 (June 1, 2010).

    15See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-559-561 and 731-TA-1317-1328 (Preliminary), USITC Publication 4615, May 2016) at 1.

    Massive Imports

    In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to sections 703(e)(1)(B) and 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (i.e., the “base period”) to a comparable period of at least three months following the filing of the petition (i.e., the “comparison period”). Imports normally will be considered massive when imports during the comparison period have increased by 15 percent or more compared to imports during the base period.

    Thus, because the petitions were filed on April 8, 2016, in order to determine whether there has been a massive surge in imports for each cooperating mandatory respondent, the Department compared the total volume of shipments during the period April 2016 through June 2016 with the volume of shipments during the preceding three-month period of January 2016 through March 2016. For Brazil and Turkey, because the mandatory respondents refused to participate in the investigations, we determine, on the basis of adverse facts available, that there has been a massive surge in imports. For “all-others,” the Department relied on GTA data which demonstrates that the volume of CTL plate from Brazil and Turkey increased massively in the three month period April 2016 through June 2016 when compared to the prior three-month period.16

    16See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.

    For the cooperating respondents in the investigations on Austria, Belgium, Korea, and Taiwan, we compared the total volume of shipments during the period April 2016 through June 2016 with the volume of shipments during the preceding three-month period of January 2016 through March 2016. For “all-others,” the Department compared GTA data for the same time periods.17 We subtracted shipments reported by the mandatory respondents from the GTA data. With respect to Korea, the shipment data do not demonstrate massive surges in imports for any producers/exporters. Therefore, we are reaching a preliminary negative critical circumstances determination with respect to Korea. With respect to Austria, Belgium, and Taiwan, we preliminarily determine the following producers/exporters had massive surges in imports.18

    17 The Department gathered GTA data under the following harmonized tariff schedule numbers: 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7225.40.1110, 7225.40.1180, 7225.40.3005, 7225.40.3050, 7226.20.0000, and 7226.91.5000.

    18See respective preliminary critical circumstances memoranda for each proceeding, dated concurrently with this notice.

    • Austria (A-433-812): Voestalpine Grobblech GmbH, voestalpine Steel & Service Center GmbH, Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, BOHLER Bleche GmbH & Co. KG, Bohler Uddeholm Corporation, and Strudell Industries, Inc. (collectively, Voestalpine);

    • Belgium (A-423-812): Industeel Belgium SA and NLMK Clabecq

    • Taiwan (A-583-858): China Steel Corporation and All-Other producers/exporters.

    Conclusion

    Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of CTL plate shipped by certain producers/exporters. Our findings are summarized as follows.

    Country Case No. Affirmative preliminary critical circumstances determinations Negative preliminary critical circumstances determinations Austria A-433-812 Voestalpine All-Other producers/exporters. Belgium A-423-812 Industeel Belgium SA, NLMK Clabecq All-Other producers/exporters. Brazil A-351-847 All producers/exporters Korea A-580-887 POSCO/POSCO Daewoo Corporation, All-Other producers/exporters. Korea C-580-888 POSCO/POSCO Daewoo Corporation, All-Other producers/exporters. Taiwan A-583-858 China Steel Corporation All-Other producers/exporters Shang Chen Steel Co., Ltd. Turkey A-489-828 All producers/exporters Final Critical Circumstances Determinations

    We will issue final determinations concerning critical circumstances when we issue our final countervailing duty and less than fair value determinations. All interested parties will have the opportunity to address these determinations in case briefs to be submitted after completion of the preliminary countervailing duty and less than fair value determinations.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with sections 703(f) and 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determinations.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(e)(2) of the Act, because we preliminarily found that critical circumstances exist with regard to exports made by certain producers and/or exporters, if we make an affirmative preliminary determination that sales at less than fair value have been made by these same producers/exporters at above de minimis rates,19 we will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from these producers/exporters that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date that is 90 days prior to the effective date of “provisional measures” (i.e., the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value at above de minimis rates). At such time, we will also instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated preliminary dumping margins reflected in the preliminary determination published in the Federal Register. This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    19 The preliminary determinations concerning sales at less than fair value are currently due on September 15, 2016.

    Because we preliminarily found that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to the CVD investigation of CTL plate from Korea, we will not order any retroactive suspension of liquidation under section 703(e)(2) of the Act in the event of an affirmative preliminary countervailing duty determination in this investigation.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2).

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21501 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Alaska American Fisheries Act (AFA) Permits.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0393.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 27.

    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes for Application for AFA Permit Application: Rebuild, Replace, or Remove Vessel; 2 hours for Application for AFA Inshore Catcher Vessel Cooperative Permit; 4 hours for Vessel Contract Fishing Notification; 8 hours for Application for Approval as an Entity Eligible to Receive Transferable Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation; 1 hour for Application to Transfer of Bering Sea Chinook Salmon PSC Allocation.

    Burden Hours: 135.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council developed regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the American Fisheries Act (AFA) to govern commercial fishing for Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) pollock according to the requirements of the AFA. These regulations are necessary to achieve the AFA's objective of decapitalization and rationalization of the BSAI pollock fishery.

    With exceptions noted below, all participants in the AFA pollock fishery are already permitted and the permits are issued with an indefinite expiration date. The permanent AFA permits are: AFA catcher vessel, AFA catcher/processor, AFA mothership, and AFA inshore processor. The permit exceptions are issued annually—the inshore vessel cooperative permit and inshore vessel contract fishing permit. In addition, the AFA vessel replacement application may be submitted to NMFS at any time.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21405 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) will meet September 21, 2016. The meeting will be held, in accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and with Section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled as follows: September 21, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and a closed session will be held from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public portion of the meeting will be held at The Aerospace Corporation, Gambit Auditorium, Room L0037, 14745 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tahara Dawkins, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; (301) 713-3385, [email protected], or Samira Patel at (301) 713-7077, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As required by section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1982) and its implementing regulations, see 41 CFR 102-3.155, notice is hereby given of the meeting of ACCRES. ACCRES was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on May 21, 2002, to advise the Secretary of Commerce through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote sensing space industry and on [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]'s activities to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce set forth in the National and Commercial Space Programs Act of 2010 (51 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).

    Exceptional Circumstances

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is being given fewer than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting due to the following exceptional circumstances: (i) The review and clearance process for the Notice of Determination to partially close the meeting, which is required under 41 CFR 102-3.155, involved administrative and timing limitations, including in this instance the additional delay resulting from the Labor Day holiday; and (ii) due to preexisting commitments and statutorily-established deadlines, delaying the September 21, 2016 meeting would make it substantially more difficult for ACCRES to complete its required consultation on the report mandated by Section 202 of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch and Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-90.

    Purpose of the Meeting and Matters To Be Considered

    The first part of the meeting will be open to the public pursuant to Section 10(a)(1) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (FACA). During the open portion of the meeting, the Committee will receive updates on NOAA's Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs activities. The Committee will also be available to receive public comments on its activities.

    The second part of the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of FACA as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409 and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(1) of Title 5, United States Code, which authorizes closure of meetings likely to disclose matters that are “specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive order to be kept secret in the interests of national defense or foreign policy and . . . in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” The part of the meeting which will be closed will address the ongoing review and implementation of the 2015 U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act and related national security, foreign policy concerns and future technology considerations for NOAA's licensing decisions. These discussions are likely to disclose matters that are specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive Order 13526 to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. In compliance with Section 10(d) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.155, ACCRES has obtained an agency determination of closure, and the notice of this determination is available upon request.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed to ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

    Additional Information and Public Comments

    Any member of the public who plans to attend the open meeting should RSVP to Samira Patel at (301) 713-7077, [email protected] by September 15, 2016. Any member of the public wishing further information concerning the meeting or who wishes to submit oral or written comments should contact Tahara Dawkins, Designated Federal Officer for ACCRES, NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA, 1335 East West Highway, Room 8260, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Copies of the draft meeting agenda can be obtained from Samira Patel at (301) 713-7077, fax (301) 713-1249, or email [email protected]

    ACCRES expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral presentation may be limited to a total time of five minutes. Written comments (provide at least 20 copies) sent to NOAA/NESDIS/CRSRA on or before September 21, 2016 will be provided to Committee members in advance of the meeting. Comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be provided to Committee members at the meeting.

    Stephen M. Volz, Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21461 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-HR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0649-XE863 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter Advisory Panel (AP).

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene Monday, September 26, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday, September 27, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Doubletree New Orleans Airport hotel, located at 2150 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Kenner, LA 70062; telephone: (504) 467-3111.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Ava Lasseter, Anthropologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected]; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

    Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter Advisory Panel Agenda, Monday, September 26, 2016, 1 p.m.-5 p.m., and Tuesday, September 27, 2016, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    I. Adoption of Agenda II. Approval of March 2016 Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter AP meeting summary III. Evaluation of proposed program to distribute harvest tags to anglers for use on charter vessels IV. Draft Amendment 41: Red Snapper Management for Federally Permitted Charter Vessels, overview and status update V. Review program goals and objectives, and provide recommendations to the Council on the design of a Red Snapper Management Program for Charter Vessels VI. Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting Requirements Generic Amendment, comments and recommendations VII. Other Business —Meeting Adjourns—

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the File Server link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Ad Hoc Red Snapper Charter AP”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21433 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE862 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold two Coral Grant Stakeholder Engagement Meetings to educate fishermen using bottom contacting gear on the importance of coral reef habitats and to gather input on potential coral protection mechanisms and proposed areas that may warrant Habitat Area of Particular Concern designation.

    DATES:

    These meetings will be held September 26 and 27, 2016; and will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Meeting addresses: The stakeholder engagement meetings will be held in Houma, LA and Bayou La Batre, AL. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Council staff will give a brief presentation on coral reef habitats in the Gulf of Mexico and present information on potential coral protection mechanisms. Following the presentation, Council staff will open the meeting for questions and public comments on proposed areas that may warrant Habitat Area of Particular Concern designation. The schedule is as follows:

    Locations, Schedules, and Agendas

    Monday, September 26, 2016; Courtyard Marriott, 142 Library Drive, Houma, LA 70360; telephone: (985) 223-8996.

    Tuesday, September 27, 2016; Bayou La Batre Community Center, 12745 Padgett Switch Road, (County Road 23), Irvington, AL 36544; telephone: (251) 824-7918.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21432 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-C-2016-0028] Performance Review Board (PRB) AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In conformance with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announces the appointment of persons to serve as members of its Performance Review Board.

    ADDRESSES:

    Director, Human Capital Management, Office of Human Resources, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anne Mendez at (571) 272-6173.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:

    Russell D. Slifer, Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Frederick W. Steckler, Vice Chair, Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark Office Mary Boney Denison, Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office Anthony P. Scardino, Chief Financial Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office John B. Owens II, Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office Sarah T. Harris, General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office Shira Perlmutter, Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office Bismarck Myrick, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity, United States Patent and Trademark Office

    Alternates

    Sharon R. Marsh, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, United States Patent and Trademark Office Andrew I. Faile, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, United States Patent and Trademark Office Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21434 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATE:

    10 a.m. EDT, Thursday, September 8, 2016.

    PLACE:

    CFTC Headquarters Lobby-Level Hearing Room, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will hold this meeting to consider two final rules and a comparability determination. The agenda for this meeting is available to the public and posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov. In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

    Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21537 Filed 9-2-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFFPB-2016-0044] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing a new generic information collection plan titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for Surveys Using the Consumer Credit Panel.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before October 7, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for Surveys Using the Consumer Credit Panel.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

    Type of Review: Request for a new OMB Control Number.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,500.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,250.

    Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is charged with researching, analyzing, and reporting on topics relating to the Bureau's mission, including consumer behavior, consumer awareness, and developments in markets for consumer financial products and services. In order to improve its understanding of how consumers engage with financial markets, the CFPB has successfully used the Consumer Credit Panel (CCP), a proprietary sample dataset from one of the national credit reporting agencies, as a frame to survey people about their experiences in consumer credit markets. The Bureau seeks to obtain approval for a generic information collection plan for these types of surveys. Surveys conducted under this generic information collection plan will support the Bureau's research agenda to monitor developments in consumers' financial situations, related changes in their use of financial products, and the impacts that these decisions have on their balance sheets. All research under this plan will be for general, formative, and informational research on consumer financial markets and consumers' use of financial products and will not directly provide the basis for specific policymaking at the Bureau.

    REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on March 3, 2015 (80 FR 15194). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Upon submission of this request to OMB the Bureau issued a 30-day Federal Register notice on June 25, 2015 (80 FR 36521). After further consultation with OMB, the Bureau revised this request to include additional 30 day public notices for each study submitted to OMB for review under this information collection plan. Therefore, upon submission of each study submitted to OMB under this information collection plan, the Bureau will publish a notice in the Federal Register proving the public 30 days to comment on each study. Comments will be directed to OMB to inform its review of each request made under this information collection plan. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: August 31, 2016. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21389 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0098] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Repayment Plan Selection Form AGENCY:

    Department of Education, Federal Student Aid.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0098. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Repayment Plan Selection Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0014.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 660,000.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 110,220.

    Abstract: The Repayment Plan Request form serves as the means by which Direct Loan borrowers notify the Department of their choice of an initial repayment plan under the Standard, Extended or Graduated options before their loans enter repayment. The form may also be used by borrowers to request a change in the Standard, Extended or Graduated repayment plans options after their loans have entered repayment. If a borrower does not select an initial repayment plan, the borrower is placed on the Standard Repayment Plan in accordance with 34 CFR 685.210(a)(2).

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21401 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0081] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2017 National Supplement AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0081. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2017 National Supplement.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0870.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 12,626.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,960.

    Abstract: The Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) is a cyclical, large-scale study of adult skills and life experiences focusing on education and employment, designed internationally to assess adults in different countries over a broad range of abilities, from simple reading to complex problem-solving skills, and to collect information on individuals' skill use and background. In the United States, PIAAC is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). PIAAC defines four core competency domains of adult cognitive skills seen as key to facilitating the social and economic participation of adults in advanced economies: Literacy, reading components, numeracy, and problem solving in technology-rich environments. PIAAC also surveys adults on their education background, work history, the skills they use on the job and at home, their civic engagement, and sense of their health and well-being. The results are used to compare participating countries on the skills capacities of their workforce-aged adults and to learn more about relationships between educational background, employment, and other outcomes. PIAAC is coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and developed by participating countries with the support of the OECD. U.S. participated in the PIAAC Main Study data collection in 2012, conducted a national supplement in 2014, and in this submission requests to conduct the PIAAC 2017 National Supplement data collection from February to September 2017 with a nationally representative sample of 3,800 adults ages 16-74, in a new sample of 80 primary sampling units (PSUs).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21378 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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; Correction AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Energy (DOE) published a document in the Federal Register (81 FR 58921) on August 26, 2016, announcing a 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. The document contained an error regarding the agency that granted the amendment to the Waste Control Specialists facility near Andrews, Texas, to allow disposal of depleted uranium. This document corrects that error.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on DOE's DUF6 long-term management and disposal program, please contact 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.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (81 FR 58921) of August 26, 2016, FR Doc. 2016-20501, on page 58922, third column, first paragraph, the first sentence is corrected to read: “In August 2014, the WCS facility near Andrews, Texas, was granted a license amendment by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that would allow disposal of large quantities of depleted uranium.”

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2016. Mark Senderling, Acting Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory and Policy Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21428 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14329-002] Columbia Basin Hydropower; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 14329-002.

    c. Date Filed: June 27, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: Columbia Basin Hydropower.

    e. Name of Project: Banks Lake Pumped Storage Project.

    f. Location: On Banks Lake and Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, in Grant and Douglas Counties, Washington. The project occupies about 65 acres of United States lands administered by Bureau of Reclamation.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Tim Culbertson, Columbia Basin Hydropower, P.O. Box 219, Ephrata, WA 98823; (509) 754-2227; email: [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Karen Sughrue at (202) 502-8556; or email at [email protected]

    j. Columbia Basin Hydropower filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on June 27, 2016. Columbia Basin Hydropower provided public notice of its request on August 4, 2016. In a letter dated August 31, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Columbia Basin Hydropower's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. With this notice, we are designating Columbia Basin Hydropower as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. Columbia Basin Hydropower filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21420 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2509-000] Rutherford Farm, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Rutherford Farm, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 20, 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 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21443 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2511-000] Stanford University Power LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Stanford University Power LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 20, 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 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21444 Filed 9-6-16; 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: EC16-134-000.

    Applicants: Chaves County Solar, LLC, Live Oak Solar, LLC, Marshall Solar, LLC, River Bend Solar, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 24, 2016 Application for Authorization Under FPA Section 203 of Chaves County Solar, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-174-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Inc., Elwood Energy LLC, J-POWER USA Generation, L.P.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets and Purchase of Securities Under FPA Sections 203(a)(1) and 203(a)(2) of Elwood Energy LLC, Dynegy Inc. and J-POWER USA Generation, L.P.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5276.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2239-005.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy Transmission West, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: NextEra Energy Transmission West, LLC Compliance Filing to be effective 10/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-200-004.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Supplemental Compliance Filing Reactive ER16-200 to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1255-001.

    Applicants: Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 5/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2307-001.

    Applicants: Vista Energy Marketing, L.P.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Vista Energy MBR Filing to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2411-001.

    Applicants: Luning Energy Holdings LLC.

    Description: Second Supplement to August 12, 2016 Luning Energy Holdings LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2412-001.

    Applicants: Luning Energy LLC.

    Description: Second Supplement to August 12, 2016 Luning Energy LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5280.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2512-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-WAPA-Carey SS BA Mtr Install Agrmt to be effective 10/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5063.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2513-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3246 Tenaska Power and Montana-Dakota Utilities Att AO to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2514-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Schedules 4 & 9 Revisions to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2515-000.

    Applicants: Black River Hydroelectric, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession and Order No. 816 Compliance Filing to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2516-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 284—ANPP Delaney Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5174.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2517-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement ACES Project to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2518-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Revisions re: Earlier Queue Submittal to be effective 10/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2519-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-31—Posting of Day-Ahead Market Ex Post Prices to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2520-000.

    Applicants: Grand View PV Solar Two LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Grand View Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 10/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2521-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-31—SA 2937 Tennessee Valley-NRG-Entergy MS C&P Agreement to be effective 8/24/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5315.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/21/16.

    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 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21442 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-109-000] Virginia Electric and Power Company v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. PJM Settlement, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on August 29, 2016, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2012), and Rules 206 and 207(a)(5) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 207(a)(5) (2016), Dominion Resources Services, Inc. (Dominion) on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power Company (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection L.L.C. and PJM Settlement, Inc. (Respondents) alleging that Respondents violated its Open Access Transmission Tariff and Amended and Restated Operating Agreement by denying Dominion's request for a fuel cost adjustment resulting from the need to run Ladysmith Power Station Units 2-5 on back-up fuel oil rather than less expensive natural gas for reliability in real-time, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Dominion certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Respondent listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for 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.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 19, 2016.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21417 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. PF15-25-000] Freeport LNG Development, L.P.; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Freeport LNG Train 4 Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the expanded Freeport LNG Train 4 Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Freeport LNG Development, L.P. (Freeport LNG) in Brazoria County, Texas. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the planned project is in the public interest.

    We 1 are issuing this supplemental notice to inform the public of changes to the originally proposed Project. Freeport LNG has modified the planned Project by deleting the non-jurisdictional feed-gas pipeline previously planned to provide gas to the Liquefaction Plant on Quintana Island. To replace the feed gas, Freeport LNG plans to construct a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline extending from the meter station at Stratton Ridge to the Pretreatment Plant on Levee Road/State Road 690 and then to the Liquefaction Plant on Quintana Island. The Pretreatment Plant would be expanded to handle the additional gas processing.

    1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    The comment period for the original scoping notice of the Project was from August 19, 2015 to September 18, 2015. This supplemental notice announces the opening of an additional scoping period the Commission will use to gather input from the new landowners potentially affected by changed to the planned Project, and inform interested agencies of the changes

    As the modifications would affect new landowners; therefore, the Commission is issuing this supplemental notice to provide these new landowners an opportunity to comment on the Project. You can access detailed mapping of the modifications to the proposed pipeline route on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using eLibrary. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Comments submitted during the original comment period have been made part of the docket and do not need to be resubmitted.

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, comments may be submitted in writing as described in the public participation section of this notice. Please note that comments on this supplemental notice should be filed with the Commission by October 3, 2016.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF15-25-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Planned Project

    Freeport LNG intends to add a fourth liquefaction unit (Train 4), a supply pipeline, and associated infrastructure and utilities to Freeport LNG's natural gas Liquefaction Plant on Quintana Island in Brazoria County, Texas (Appendix 1, Figure 1). The Project would be located adjacent to the facilities authorized and currently under construction for the Phase II Modification Project (Docket No. CP12-29-000) and Liquefaction Project (Docket No. CP12-509-000), which comprises three liquefaction trains and related facilities. The planned Train 4 liquefaction unit would be within the existing Freeport LNG site boundary. The modified and extended pipeline route (Apendix 1, Figure 3) would connect the existing Stratton Ridge meter station, the proposed pretreatment unit within the existing Pretreatment Plant, and the existing Liquefaction Plant.

    Freeport LNG would expand the Pretreatment Plant that was approved under Docket CP12-509 (Appendix 1, Figure 2).

    Freeport LNG indicates that the Train 4 Project would provide additional liquefaction capacity of approximately 5.1 million metric tonnes per annum (“mtpa”) of LNG for export. The additional liquefaction capacity provided by Train 4 would equate to a natural gas throughput capacity of approximately 0.74 billion cubic feet per day. This would enable Freeport LNG to respond favorably and proactively to short- and longer-term fluctuations in domestic and global gas markets.

    The Freeport LNG Train 4 Project would consist of the following major components:

    Quintana Island Terminal • A propane pre-cooled mixed refrigerant LNG unit • An electrical high-voltage substation Pretreatment Plant • A natural gas pretreatment unit • Tank storage for amine solution, aqueous ammonia, heating medium, slop, and demineralized water • Inlet and outlet compression • Emergency electric generator • An electric substation Pipeline Facilities • An 11.5-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter pipeline with a maximum allowable operating pressure of 1,440 pounds per square inch between the existing Stratton Ridge meter station, Pretreatment Plant, and the Quintana Island Terminal • Pig launcher and receiver • Mainline valves • Stratton Ridge Meter Station

    The general locations of project facilities are shown in Appendix 1.2

    2 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    Land Requirements for Construction

    The operational and construction footprint for the Train 4 Project would be primarily within Freeport LNG's previously disturbed areas authorized as part of the Liquefaction and Phase II Modification Projects (Docket Nos. CP12-29-000 and CP12-509-000) on Quintana Island in Brazoria County, Texas.

    The Train 4 Project would affect about 558 acres during construction and the permanent operational footprint would be about 235 acres. Following construction, temporary construction areas would be restored and revert to former uses in areas other than the Quintana Island Terminal and Pretreatment Plant which have been disturbed by prior and present construction. These areas would be permanently maintained for industrial use.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers an authorization to export natural gas under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned project under these general headings:

    • geology and soils; • land use; • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands; • cultural resources; • vegetation and wildlife; • endangered and threatened species; • socioeconomics; • visual impacts; • air quality and noise; • public safety; and • cumulative impacts.

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. If we publish and distribute the EA to the public there will be an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. Currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy have expressed their intention to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this project.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

    4 The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

    Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Freeport LNG. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.

    • geology and soils • water resources, fisheries, and wetlands • visual impacts • noise and air emissions • traffic • cumulative impacts Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Freeport LNG files its application with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor,” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at: http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

    Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a formal application for the project.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-25). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21421 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. OR16-23-000] Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. v. Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on August 30, 2016, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, section 343.2 of the Commission's Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2 (2016), and sections 1, 8, 9, 13(1), 15, and 16(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. app. §§ 1, 8, 9, 13(1), 15, & 16(1) (1988), Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. (Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC, (Enterprise TEPPCO or Respondent) challenging the lawfulness of the existing jet fuel rates and charges for services on the interstate oil pipeline of Enterprise TEPPCO running from Lima, Ohio to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts for Enterprise TEPPCO as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for 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.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 19, 2016.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21419 Filed 9-6-16; 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 rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2249-006.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Portland General Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5116.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1706-003.

    Applicants: Newark Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5151.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2254-002.

    Applicants: Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing: Settlement Compliance Filing to be effective 9/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1707-003.

    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3rd Amended Project Services Agreement to be effective 9/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2226-000.

    Applicants: McHenry Battery Storage, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 18, 2016 McHenry Battery Storage, LLC tariff filing [substitute Attachment D] under ER16-2226.

    Filed Date: 8/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20160804-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2293-001.

    Applicants: Drift Sand Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: MBR Tariff to be effective 9/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5138.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2496-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil I, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 9/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2497-000.

    Applicants: CXA Sundevil II, Inc.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 9/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2498-000.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PGE11 MBR Revisions Sec 6 and 7 update to be effective 8/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2499-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2698 Exelon Generation Market Participant Agr Cancellation to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5139.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2500-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to First Revised WMPA, SA No. 2933, Queue No. W2-076 to be effective 5/23/2014.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5141.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2501-000.

    Applicants: Nicolis, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 8/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2502-000.

    Applicants: Tropico, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 8/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2503-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Att R-PSCo Comp to ER16-1088 Filing to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2504-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo Wind Integ Compl to ER14-1969-006 to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2505-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended and Restated Power Coordination Agreement RS No. 267 to be effective 10/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160829-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    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 29, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21527 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR16-69-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Revisions to Appendix A of Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 8/1/2016; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 8/29/2016.

    Accession Number: 201608295318, http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/19/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1195-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate—BBPC Release to Macquarie Energy 792012 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1196-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rates—Mpower Energy Releases to Enhanced Energy to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1197-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rates—Ratio Energy contract 792017 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1198-000.

    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: EPC and Fuel Update Filing to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160830-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1199-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Sep 2016 to be effective 9/1/2016

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1200-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Nonconforming October 2016 P2 Contract to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5010.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1201-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Atlanta 8438 to various eff 9-1-2016) to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1202-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Encana 37663 to ConocoPh 46987, Texla 46986) to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1203-000.

    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Cost and Revenue Study.

    Filed Date: 8/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160831-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/12/16.

    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 date(s). 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 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21555 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Privacy Act of 1974: Notice of Altered Systems of Records AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of altered systems of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission), under the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, is publishing a description of an altered system of records (FERC-46).

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be directed to the following address: Office of the General Counsel, General and Administrative Law Division, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    DATES:

    The proposed revised system will become effective October 17, 2016 unless further notice is given. The Commission will publish a new notice if the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made based on comments received. To be assured of consideration, comments should be received on or before October 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Allen, Office of the General Counsel, General and Administrative Law Division, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8585.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Report on the Altered Systems A. Background

    The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, requires that each agency publish a notice of the existence and character of each new or altered “system of records.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(5). This Notice identifies and describes the Commission's altered systems of records. A copy of this report has been distributed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate as the Act requires.

    The Commission has adopted an altered system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. The notice includes for this systems of records the name; location; categories of individuals on whom the records are maintained; categories of records in the system; authority for maintenance of the system; each routine use; the policies and practices governing storage, retrievability, access controls, retention and disposal; the title and business address of the agency official responsible for the system of records; procedures for notification, access and contesting the record; and the source for the records in the system. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4).

    B. New or Altered System of Records

    FERC-46 Commission Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request Files http://www.ferc.gov/privacy/sorn-maps.pdfhttp://www.ferc.gov/privacy/sorn-fpps.pdf.

    FERC-46 SYSTEM NAME:

    Commission Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Request Files.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of External Affairs, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    All individuals requesting records from FERC under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act (PA) of 1974.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Requester's name and address, request number, description of request, billing information, tracking information, and all correspondence with the requester.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; Executive Order 12009.

    PURPOSE(S):

    To record, track and maintain a complete record of events and ensure proper document control of time sensitive responses to FOIA and PA inquiries.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    To maintain a tracking system to expedite responses within the statutory time limits for the FOIA requests; to contact FOIA requesters; to prepare an annual report to the U.S. Department of Justice for submission to Congress each fiscal year under section 552(e) of the Freedom of Information Act; to prepare periodic activity reports for the Director, Office of External Affairs, to serve as a point of reference for all events and documents pertinent to the request in case of litigation; and to provide the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to the extent necessary with information to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with FOIA and to facilitate OGIS offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Records are maintained in electronic and paper format. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases and/or on computer disc. Paper records and records on computer disc are stored in locked file rooms and/or file cabinets.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    The records are retrieved by the names of the individual requester, affiliation (where applicable), and subject matter.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are maintained in lockable metal file cabinets in a lockable room with a key distributed to those whose official duties require access. Computer data is secured by password. The building is guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    The retention period is two years after completion date if the information is released or six years after completion date if any or all information is withheld from the requester. Computer records are deleted and paper records are shredded and destroyed.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    FOIA Liaison, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Requests from individuals to determine if a system of records contains information about them should be directed to the System Manager.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Requests for access to records should be directed to the Director, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Same as notification procedure above.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The subject individual; system manager; FERC staff, and the Director, Office of External Affairs.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Dated: August 30, 2016 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21418 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9951-89-OARM] Good Neighbor Environmental Board; Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public advisory committee teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (Board) will hold a public teleconference on October 14, 2016 from 12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. For further information regarding the teleconference and background materials, please contact Mark Joyce at the number and email provided below.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. By statute, the Board is required to submit an annual report to the President on environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with Mexico.

    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss and approve the Board's Seventeenth Report to the President, which focuses on climate change along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    General Information: The agenda and teleconference materials, as well as general information about the Board, can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/gneb. If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five days prior to the teleconference.

    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at (202) 564-2130 or email at [email protected] To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: August 25, 2016. Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21462 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10002 Miami Valley Bank, Lakeview, Ohio

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10002 Miami Valley Bank, Lakeview, Ohio (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Miami Valley Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective September 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21466 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10346 San Luis Trust Bank, FSB; San Luis Obispo, California

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10346 San Luis Trust Bank, FSB, San Luis Obispo, CA (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of San Luis Trust Bank, FSB (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective September 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Date: August 31, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21354 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination, 10046 TeamBank, N.A., Paola, Kansas

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10046 TeamBank, N.A., Paola, Kansas (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of TeamBank, N.A (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective September 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21465 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL [Docket No. AS16-08] Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:

    Location: Federal Reserve Board—International Square location, 1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    Date: September 14, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m.

    Status: Open.

    Reports Chairman Executive Director Delegated State Compliance Reviews Financial Report Action and Discussion Items July 13, 2016 Open Session Minutes Appraisal Foundation FY17 Grant Proposal ASC FY17 Budget Proposal How To Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting

    If you plan to attend the ASC Meeting in person, we ask that you send an email to [email protected] You may register until close of business four business days before the meeting date. You will be contacted by the Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Unit on security requirements. You will also be asked to provide a valid government-issued ID before being admitted to the Meeting. The meeting space is intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. James R. Park, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21367 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6700-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., EDT, September 27, 2016.

    Place: Patriots Plaza I, 395 E Street SW., Room 9000, Washington, DC 20201. The meeting is also available via webcast.

    Status: This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 33 people. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment period, 12:30 p.m.-12:45 p.m. EDT, September 27, 2016.

    Please note that the public comment period ends at the time indicated above or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Members of the public who want to comment must sign up by providing their name by mail, email, or telephone, at the addresses provided below by September 23, 2016. Each commenter will be provided up to five minutes for comment. A limited number of time slots are available and will be assigned on a first come-first served basis. Written comments will also be accepted from those unable to attend the public session via an on-line form at the following Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/contact.html. The meeting is also open to the public via webcast. If you wish to attend in person or by webcast, please see the NIOSH Web site to register (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/) or call (404-498-2539) at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Teleconference is available toll-free; please dial (888) 397-9578, Participant Pass Code 63257516. Adobe Connect webcast will be available at https://odniosh.adobeconnect.com/nioshbsc/ for participants wanting to connect remotely.

    Purpose: The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and by delegation the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Sections 301 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The Board of Scientific Counselors provides guidance to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on research and prevention programs. Specifically, the Board provides guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings and disseminating results. The Board evaluates the degree to which the activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: (1) conform to appropriate scientific standards, (2) address current, relevant needs, and (3) produce intended results.

    Matters for Discussion: NIOSH Director's update; Chronic Kidney Disease and Pesticide Exposure; NIOSH Oil and Gas Sector Program; Engineering Controls for Additive (3D) Manufacturing, and Engineering Controls and Nanomaterials.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    An agenda is also posted on the NIOSH Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/). Members of the public who wish to address the NIOSH BSC are requested to contact the Executive Secretary for scheduling purposes (see contact information below). Alternatively, written comments to the BSC may be submitted via an on-line form at the following Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/contact.html.

    Contact Person for More Information: Paul J. Middendorf, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E20, Atlanta, GA 30329-4018, telephone (404) 498-2500, fax (404) 498-2526.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, MPH, DLP, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    [FR Doc. 2016-21399 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Times and Dates: 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, September 27, 2016; 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., EDT, September 28, 2016.

    Place: CDC, Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Building 19, Auditorium B3, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.

    Status: The meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available.

    Purpose: The BSC, OID, provides advice and guidance to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; the Director, OID; and the Directors of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, and the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, in the following areas: strategies, goals, and priorities for programs; research within the national centers; and overall strategic direction and focus of OID and the national centers.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include updates from CDC's infectious disease national centers; a report from the Board's Food Safety Modernization Act Surveillance Working Group; and focused discussions on several program priorities, including viral hepatitis, Zika, and antimicrobial resistance.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Robin Moseley, M.A.T., Designated Federal Officer, OID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-4461.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, MPH, DLP, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    [FR Doc. 2016-21400 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0514] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requests for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Categorization AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0607. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Requests for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 Categorization—42 CFR 493.17—OMB Control Number 0910-0607—Extension

    A guidance document entitled “Guidance for Administrative Procedures for CLIA Categorization” was released on May 7, 2008. The document describes procedures FDA uses to assign the complexity category to a device. Typically, FDA assigns complexity categorizations to devices at the time of clearance or approval of the device. In this way, no additional burden is incurred by the manufacturer because the labeling (including operating instructions) is included in the premarket notification (510(k)) or premarket approval application (PMA). In some cases, however, a manufacturer may request Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 (CLIA) categorization even if FDA is not simultaneously reviewing a 510(k) or PMA. One example is when a manufacturer requests that FDA assign CLIA categorization to a previously cleared device that has changed names since the original CLIA categorization. Another example is when a device is exempt from premarket review. In such cases, the guidance recommends that manufacturers provide FDA with a copy of the package insert for the device and a cover letter indicating why the manufacturer is requesting a categorization (e.g. name change, exempt from 510(k) review). The guidance recommends that in the correspondence to FDA the manufacturer should identify the product code and classification as well as reference to the original 510(k) when this is available.

    In the Federal Register of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24820), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours Total operating and
  • maintenance costs
  • Request for CLIA Categorization 60 15 900 1 900 $46,800 1 There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information.

    The number of respondents is approximately 60. On average, each respondent will request categorizations (independent of a 510(k) or PMA) 15 times per year. The cost, not including personnel, is estimated at $52 per hour (52 × 900), totaling $46,800. This includes the cost of copying and mailing copies of package inserts and a cover letter, which includes a statement of the reason for the request and reference to the original 510(k) numbers, including regulation numbers and product codes. The burden hours are based on FDA familiarity with the types of documentation typically included in a sponsor's categorization requests, and costs for basic office supplies (e.g., paper).

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21352 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0731] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Establishment Registration and Listing; Eligibility Determination for Donors; and Current Good Tissue Practice AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection requirements for FDA regulations related to human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) involving establishment registration and listing using Form FDA 3356; eligibility determination for donors; and current good tissue practice (CGTP).

    DATES:

    Submit either written or electronic comments on the collection of information by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0731 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Establishment Registration and Listing; Eligibility Determination for Donors; and Current Good Tissue Practice.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 11601 Landsdown St., 10A-12M, North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products: Establishment Registration and Listing; Eligibility Determination for Donors; and Current Good Tissue Practice— OMB Control Number 0910-0543—Extension

    Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA may issue and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases between the States or possessions or from foreign countries into the States. As derivatives of the human body, all HCT/Ps pose some risk of carrying pathogens that could potentially infect recipients or handlers. FDA has issued regulations related to HCT/Ps involving establishment registration and listing using Form FDA 3356, eligibility determination for donors, and CGTP.

    Establishment Registration and Listing; Form FDA 3356

    The regulations in part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271) require domestic and foreign establishments that recover, process, store, label, package, or distribute an HCT/P described in § 1271.10(a), or that perform screening or testing of the cell or tissue donor to register with FDA (§ 1271.10(b)(1)) and submit a list of each HCT/P manufactured (§ 1271.10(b)(2)). Section 1271.21(a) requires an establishment to follow certain procedures for initial registration and listing of HCT/Ps, and § 1271.25(a) and (b) identifies the required initial registration and HCT/P listing information. Section 1271.21(b), in brief, requires an annual update of the establishment registration. Section 1271.21(c)(ii) requires establishments to submit HCT/P listing updates if a change as described in § 1271.25(c) has occurred. Section 1271.25(c) identifies the required HCT/P listing update information. Section 1271.26 requires establishments to submit an amendment if ownership or location of the establishment changes. FDA requires the use of a registration and listing form, Form FDA 3356: Establishment Registration and Listing for Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps), to submit the required information (§§ 1271.10, 1271.21, 1271.25, and 1271.26). To further facilitate the ease and speed of submissions, electronic submission is accepted at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EstablishmentRegistration/TissueEstablishmentRegistration/default.htm.

    Form FDA 3356 is being revised as follows: (1) Adding import contact information including an email address and phone number; (2) deleting columns related to HCT/Ps subject to registration and listing under 21 CFR part 207 or 807; and (3) revising the instructions accordingly. The estimated burden is not affected by these changes.

    Eligibility Determination for Donors

    In brief, FDA requires certain HCT/P establishments described in § 1271.1(b) to determine donor eligibility based on donor screening and testing for relevant communicable disease agents and diseases except as provided under § 1271.90. The documented determination of a donor's eligibility is made by a responsible person as defined in § 1271.3(t) and is based on the results of required donor screening, which includes a donor medical history interview (defined in § 1271.3(n)), and testing (§ 1271.50(a)). Certain records must accompany an HCT/P once the donor-eligibility determination has been made (§ 1271.55(a)). This requirement applies both to an HCT/P from a donor who is determined to be eligible as well as to an HCT/P from a donor who is determined to be ineligible or where the donor-eligibility determination is not complete if there is a documented urgent medical need, as defined in § 1271.3(u) (§ 1271.60). Once the donor-eligibility determination has been made, the HCT/P must be accompanied by a summary of records used to make the donor eligibility determination (§ 1271.55(b)), and a statement whether, based on the results of the screening and testing of the donor, the donor is determined to be eligible or ineligible (§ 1271.55(a)(2)). Records used in determining the eligibility of a donor, i.e., results and interpretations of testing for relevant communicable disease agents, the donor-eligibility determination, the name and address of the testing laboratory or laboratories, and the name of the responsible person (defined in § 1271.3(t)) who made the donor-eligibility determination and the date of the determination, must be maintained (§ 1271.55(d)(1)). If any information on the donor is not in English, the original record must be maintained and translated to English, and accompanied by a statement of authenticity by the translator (§ 1271.55(d)(2)). HCT/P establishments must retain the records pertaining to a particular HCT/P at least 10 years after the date of its administration, or, if the date of administration is not known, then at least 10 years after the date of the HCT/P's distribution, disposition, or expiration, whichever is latest (§ 1271.55(d)(4)).

    When a product is shipped in quarantine, as defined in § 1271.3(q), before completion of screening and testing, the HCT/P must be accompanied by records identifying the donor stating that the donor-eligibility determination has not been completed and stating that the product must not be implanted, transplanted, infused, or transferred until completion of the donor-eligibility determination, except in cases of urgent medical need, as defined in § 1271.3(u) (§ 1271.60(c)). When a HCT/P is used in cases of documented urgent medical need, the results of any completed donor screening and testing, and a list of any required screening and testing that has not yet been completed also must accompany the HCT/P (§ 1271.60(d)(2)). When a HCT/P is used in cases of urgent medical need or from a donor who has been determined to be ineligible (as permitted under § 1271.65), documentation by the HCT/P establishment is required showing that the recipient's physician received notification that the testing and screening were not complete (in cases of urgent medical need), and upon the completion of the donor-eligibility determination, of the results of the determination (§§ 1271.60(d)(3) and (d)(4), and 1271.65(b)(3)).

    An HCT/P establishment is also required to establish and maintain procedures for all steps that are performed in determining eligibility (§ 1271.47(a)), including the use of a product from a donor of viable, leukocyte-rich cells or tissue testing reactive for cytomegalovirus (§ 1271.85(b)(2)). The HCT/P establishment must record and justify any departure from a procedure relevant to preventing risks of communicable disease transmission at the time of its occurrence (§ 1271.47(d)).

    Current Good Tissue Practice (CGTP)

    FDA requires HCT/P establishments to follow CGTP (§ 1271.1(b)). Section 1271.155(a) permits the submission of a request for FDA approval of an exemption from or an alternative to any requirement in subpart C or D of part 1271. Section 1271.290(c) requires establishments to affix a distinct identification code to each HCT/P that they manufacture that relates the HCT/P to the donor and to all records pertaining to the HCT/P. Whenever an establishment distributes an HCT/P to a consignee, § 1271.290(f) requires the establishment to inform the consignee, in writing, of the product tracking requirements and the methods the establishment uses to fulfill these requirements. Non-reproductive HCT/P establishments described in § 1271.10 are required under § 1271.350(a)(1) and (a)(3) to investigate and report to FDA adverse reactions (defined in § 1271.3(y)) using Form FDA 3500A (§ 1271.350(a)(2)). Form FDA 3500A is approved under OMB control number 0910-0291. Section 1271.370(b) and (c) requires establishments to include specific information either on the HCT/P label or with the HCT/P.

    The standard operating procedures (SOP) provisions under part 1271 include the following: (1) § 1271.160(b)(2) (receiving, investigation, evaluating, and documenting information relating to core CGTP requirements, including complaints, and for sharing information with consignees and other establishments); (2) § 1271.180(a) (to meet core CGTP requirements for all steps performed in the manufacture of HCT/Ps); (3) § 1271.190(d)(1) (facility cleaning and sanitization); (4) § 1271.200(b) (cleaning, sanitizing, and maintenance of equipment); (5) § 1271.200(c) (calibration of equipment); (6) § 1271.230(a) and (c) (validation of a process and review and evaluation of changes to a validated process); (7) § 1271.250(a) (controls for labeling HCT/Ps); (8) § 1271.265(e) (receipt, predistribution shipment, availability for distribution, and packaging and shipping of HCT/Ps); (9) § 1271.265(f) (suitable for return to inventory); (10) § 1271.270(b) (records management system); (11) § 1271.290(b)(1) (system of HCT/P tracking); and (12) § 1271.320(a) (review, evaluation, and documentation of complaints as defined in § 1271.3(aa)).

    Section 1271.155(f) requires an establishment operating under the terms of an exemption or alternative to maintain documentation of FDA's grant of the exemption or approval and the date on which it began operating under the terms of the exemption or alternative. Section 1271.160(b)(3) requires the quality program of an establishment that performs any step in the manufacture of HCT/Ps to document corrective actions relating to core CGTP requirements. Section 1271.160(b)(6) requires documentation of HCT/P deviations. Section 1271.160(d) requires, in brief, documentation of validation of computer software if the establishment relies upon it to comply with core CGTP requirements. Section 1271.190(d)(2) requires documentation of all cleaning and sanitation activities performed to prevent contamination of HCT/Ps. Section 1271.195(d) requires documentation of environmental control and monitoring activities. Section 1271.200(e) requires documentation of all equipment maintenance, cleaning, sanitizing, calibration, and other activities. Section 1271.210(d) requires, in brief, documentation of the receipt, verification, and use of each supply or reagent. Section 1271.230(a) requires documentation of validation activities and results when the results of processing described in § 1271.220 cannot be fully verified by subsequent inspection and tests. Section 1271.230(c) requires that when changes to a validated process subject to § 1271.230(a) occur, documentation of the review and evaluation of the process and revalidation, if necessary, must occur. Section 1271.260(d) and (e) requires documentation of any corrective action taken when proper storage conditions are not met and documentation of the storage temperature for HCT/Ps. Section 1271.265(c)(1) requires documentation that all release criteria have been met before distribution of an HCT/P. Section 1271.265(c)(3) requires documentation of any departure from a procedure relevant to preventing risks of communicable disease transmission at the time of occurrence. Section 1271.265(e) requires documentation of the activities in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, which must include identification of the HCT/P and the establishment that supplied the HCT/P, activities performed and the results of each activity, date(s) of activity, quantity of HCT/P subject to the activity, and disposition of the HCT/P. Section 1271.270(a) requires documentation of each step in manufacturing required in part 1271, subparts C and D. Section 1271.270(e) requires documentation of the name and address, and a list of responsibilities of any establishment that performs a manufacturing step for the establishment. Section 1271.290(d) and (e) require documentation of a method for recording the distinct identification code and type of each HCT/P distributed to a consignee to enable tracking from the consignee to the donor and to enable tracking from the donor to the consignee or final disposition. Section 1271.320(b) requires an establishment to maintain a record of each complaint that it receives. The complaint file must contain sufficient information about each complaint for proper review and evaluation of the complaint and for determining whether the complaint is an isolated event or represents a trend.

    Respondents to this information collection are establishments that recover, process, store, label, package, or distribute any HCT/P, or perform donor screening or testing. The estimates provided below are based on most recent available information from FDA's database system and trade organizations. The hours per response and hours per record are based on data provided by the Eastern Research Group, or FDA experience with similar recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

    There are an estimated 2,218 HCT/P establishments (conventional tissue, eye tissue, peripheral blood stem cell, stem cell products from cord blood, reproductive tissue, and sperm banks), including 667 manufacturers of HCT/P products regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262), that have registered and listed with FDA. In addition, we estimate that 182 new establishments have registered with FDA (§§ 1271.10(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 1271.25(a) and (b)). There are an estimated 1,221 listing updates (§§ 1271.10(b)(2), 1271.21(c)(ii), and 1271.25(c)) and 588 location/ownership amendments (§ 1271.26).

    Under § 1271.55(a), an estimated total of 2,206,890 HCT/Ps (which include conventional tissues, eye tissues, hematopoetic stem cells/progenitor cells, and reproductive cells and tissues), and an estimated total of 2,066,890 non-reproductive cells and tissues (total HCT/Ps minus reproductive cells and tissues) are distributed per year by an estimated 1,551 establishments (2,218−667 = 1,551) with approved applications).

    Under § 1271.60(c) and (d)(2), FDA estimates that 1,375 establishments shipped an estimated 572,000 HCT/P under quarantine, and that an estimated 25 establishments requested 78 exemptions from or alternative to any requirement under part 1271, subpart C or D, specifically under § 1271.155(a).

    Under §§ 1271.290(c) and 1271.370(b) and (c), the estimated 1,561 non-reproductive HCT/P establishments label each of their 2,066,890 HCT/Ps with certain information. These establishments are also required to inform their consignees in writing of the requirements for tracking and of their established tracking system under § 1271.290(f).

    FDA estimates 34 HCT/P establishments submitted 166 adverse reaction reports with 136 involving a communicable disease (§ 1271.350(a)(1)).

    FDA estimates that 182 new establishments will create SOPs, and that 2,218 establishments will review and revise existing SOPs annually.

    FDA estimates that 1,109 HCT/P establishments (2,218 × 50 percent = 1,109) and 781 non-reproductive HCT/P establishments (1,561 × 50 percent = 781) record and justify a departure from the procedures (§§ 1271.47(d) and 1271.265(c)(3)).

    Under § 1271.50(a), HCT/P establishments are required to have a documented medical history interview about the donor's medical history and relevant social behavior as part of the donor's relevant medical records for each of the estimated total of 109,019 donors (which include conventional tissue donors, eye tissue donors, peripheral and cord blood stem cell donors, and reproductive cell and tissue donors), and the estimated total of 103,419 non-reproductive cells and tissue donors (total donors minus reproductive cell and tissue donors).

    FDA estimates that 665 HCT/P establishments (2,218 × 30 percent = 665) document an urgent medical need of the product to notify the physician using the HCT/P (§§ 1271.60(d)(3) and 1271.65(b)(3)).

    FDA also estimates that 1,774 HCT/P establishments (2,218 × 80 percent = 1,774) have to maintain records for an average of 2 contract establishments to perform their manufacturing process (§ 1271.270(e), and 1,249 HCT/P establishments (1,561 × 80 percent = 1,249) maintain an average of 5 complaint records annually (§ 1271.320(b)).

    In some cases, the estimated burden may appear to be lower or higher than the burden experienced by individual establishments. The estimated burden in these charts is an estimated average burden, taking into account the range of impact each regulation may have.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per response Total hours 3
    1271.10(b)(1) and 1271.21(b) 2 2,218 1 2,218 .5 (30 minutes) 1,109 1271.10(b)(1) and (b)(2), 1271.21(a), and 1271.25(a) and (b) 2 182 1 182 .75 (45 minutes) 137 1271.10(b)(2), 1271.21(c)(2)(ii) and 1271.25(c) 2 1,221 1 1,221 .5 (30 minutes) 611 1271.26 2 588 1 588 .25 (15 minutes) 147 1271.155(a) 25 3.12 78 3 234 1271.350(a)(1) and (a)(3) 34 4.88 166 1 166 Total 2,404 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Using Form FDA 3356. 3 Rounded to the nearest whole number.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of record-keepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours 3 New SOPs 2 182 1 182 48 8,736 SOP Update 2 2,218 1 2,218 24 53,232 1271.47(d) 1,109 1 1,109 1 1,109 1271.50(a) 2,218 49.15 109,019 5 545,095 1271.55(d)(1) 2,218 49.15 109,019 1 109,019 1271.55(d)(2) 2,218 1 2,218 1 2,218 1271.55(d)(4) 2,218 1 2,218 120 266,160 1271.60(d)(3) and (d)(4) 1271.65(b)(3)(iii) 665 1 665 2 1,330 1271.155(f) 25 3.12 78 .25 (15 minutes) 20 1271.160(b)(3) and (b)(6) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.160(d) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.190(d)(2) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.195(d) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.200(e) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.210(d) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.230(a) 1,561 12 18,732 1 18,732 1271.230(c) 1,561 1 1,561 1 1,561 1271.260(d) 1,561 12 18,732 .25 (15 minutes) 4,683 1271.260(e) 1,561 365 569,765 .083 (5 minutes) 47,291 1271.265(c)(1) 1,561 1,324.08 2,066,890 .083 (5 minutes) 171,552 1271.265(c)(3) 781 1 781 1 781 1271.265(e) 1,561 1,324.08 2,066,890 .083 (5 minutes) 171,552 1271.270(a) 1,561 1,324.08 2,066,890 .25 (15 minutes) 516,723 1271.270(e) 1,774 2 3,548 .5 (30 minutes) 1,774 1271.290(d) and (e) 1,561 66.25 103,419 .25 (15 minutes) 25,855 1271.320(b) 1,249 5 6,245 1 6,245 Total 2,066,060 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Sections 1271.47(a), 1271.85(b)(2), 1271.160(b)(2) and (d)(1), 1271.180(a), 1271.190(d)(1), 1271.200(b), 1271.200(c), 1271.230(a), 1271.250(a), and 1271.265(e). 3 Rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average burden per disclosure Total hours
    1271.55(a) 1,551 1,422.88 2,206,890 .5 (30 minutes) 1,103,445 1271.60(c) and (d)(2) 1,375 416 572,000 .5 (30 minutes) 286,000 1271.290(c) 1,561 1,324.08 2,066,890 .083 (5 minutes) 171,552 1271.290(f) 1,561 1 1,561 1 1,561 1271.370(b) and (c) 1,561 1,324.08 2,066,890 .25 (15 minutes) 516,723 Total 2,079,281 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: August 31, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21351 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1486] Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of Zika Virus; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization) for an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of the Zika virus in response to the Zika virus outbreak in the Americas. FDA issued this Authorization under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) as requested by Viracor-IBT Laboratories, Inc. The Authorization contains, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized in vitro diagnostic device. The Authorization follows the February 26, 2016, determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves Zika virus. On the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared on February 26, 2016, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic tests for detection of Zika virus and/or diagnosis of Zika virus infection, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under the FD&C Act. The Authorization, which includes an explanation of the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.

    DATES:

    The Authorization is effective as of July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the EUA to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the Authorization may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the Authorization.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmen Maher, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4347, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510 (this is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help assure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

    Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (3) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or (4) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b) sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad.

    Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons for the action. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize the introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use when the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use may include products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or licensed under sections 505, 510(k), or 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360(k), and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262). FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances), FDA1 concludes: (1) That an agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that: (A) The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition or (ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent, and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable; (3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition; and (4) that such other criteria as may be prescribed by regulation are satisfied.

    1 The Secretary of HHS has delegated the authority to issue an EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

    No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act. Because the statute is self-executing, regulations or guidance are not required for FDA to implement the EUA authority.

    II. EUA Request for an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Detection of the Zika Virus

    On February 26, 2016, the Secretary of HHS determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves Zika virus. On February 26, 2016, under section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, and on the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic tests for detection of Zika virus and/or diagnosis of Zika virus infection, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under section 564 of the FD&C Act. Notice of the determination and declaration of the Secretary was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10878). On July 7, 2016, Viracor-IBT Laboratories, Inc. requested, and on July 19, 2016, FDA issued, an EUA for the Zika Virus Real-time RT-PCR test, subject to the terms of the Authorization.

    III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorization are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. The Authorization

    Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of the Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has authorized the emergency use of an in vitro diagnostic device for detection of Zika virus subject to the terms of the Authorization. The Authorization in its entirety (not including the authorized versions of the fact sheets and other written materials) follows and provides an explanation of the reasons for its issuance, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act:

    BILLING CODE 4164-01-P EN07SE16.020 EN07SE16.021 EN07SE16.022 EN07SE16.023 EN07SE16.024 EN07SE16.025 EN07SE16.026 EN07SE16.027 EN07SE16.028 Dated: August 31, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21353 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-C
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2523] Request for Comment on the Status of Vinpocetine AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is requesting comments related to the regulatory status of vinpocetine. Specifically, we request comments on our tentative conclusion that vinpocetine is not a dietary ingredient and is excluded from the definition of dietary supplement in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This action is being taken as part of an administrative proceeding to determine the regulatory status of vinpocetine. All comments submitted by the comment deadline (see DATES) will be accepted as part of the official record for this proceeding.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the notice by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-N-2523 for “Request for Comment on the Status of Vinpocetine.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cara Welch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-810), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2333.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    We are initiating an administrative proceeding under 21 CFR 10.25(b) to determine the regulatory status of vinpocetine (chemical name: Ethyl apovincaminate). Specifically, we are trying to determine: (1) Whether vinpocetine is a dietary ingredient within the meaning of the FD&C Act and (2) whether it is excluded from being a dietary supplement under the FD&C Act.

    A. Statutory Background

    Under section 201(ff)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff)(1)), the term “dietary supplement” is defined in part as a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients: (A) A vitamin; (B) a mineral; (C) an herb or other botanical; (D) an amino acid; (E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or (F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).

    Additionally, under section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act, a dietary supplement cannot include “an article authorized for investigation as a new drug . . . for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public” unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food before such authorization.

    Recently, questions have been raised as to whether vinpocetine is a dietary ingredient and is excluded from the definition of dietary supplement under sections 201(ff)(1) and (3) of the FD&C Act, respectively.

    B. Factual Background

    According to records on file in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, vinpocetine was authorized for investigation as a new drug in 1981.1 A trade press article from 1985 reported that four single-center phase 3 clinical trials 2 of vinpocetine had been completed and that two major multicenter studies were ongoing (Ref. 1). A 1986 article in a major newspaper reported that Ayerst had recently completed a study of vinpocetine for the treatment of multiple-infarct dementia at eight institutions in the United States (Ref. 2). An article published in a medical journal in 1986 reported on the results of a double-blind study of vinpocetine in elderly patients with central nervous system degenerative disorders (Ref. 3). A trade press article published in 1988 reported that vinpocetine was in phase 3 clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease (Ref. 4). These articles document that substantial clinical investigations of vinpocetine were instituted and that the existence of these substantial clinical investigations was made public.

    1 An article becomes “authorized for investigation as a new drug” after the sponsor has submitted an investigational new drug application (IND) to FDA and the IND has gone into effect. Unless FDA notifies the sponsor that the clinical investigation described in the IND has been placed on clinical hold, the IND goes into effect 30 days after being submitted to FDA (21 CFR 312.40(b)). Although FDA will not disclose the existence of an IND that has not previously been publicly disclosed or acknowledged (see 21 CFR 312.130), the existence of the 1981 IND for vinpocetine was publicly disclosed in the press no later than 1986 (Ref. 2).

    2 Generally speaking, under our regulations pertaining to investigational new drugs, there are three phases of a clinical investigation of a new drug; phase 3 trials are the last in the sequence and are “expanded controlled and uncontrolled trials” that are “performed after preliminary evidence suggesting effectiveness of the drug has been obtained, and are intended to gather the additional information about effectiveness and safety that is needed to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide an adequate basis for physician labeling” (21 CFR 312.21(c)).

    On July 8, 1997, a new dietary ingredient notification 3 for vinpocetine was submitted to FDA (see FDA's Table of New Dietary Ingredient Notifications (available on the Web at http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/newdietaryingredientsnotificationprocess/ucm109764.htm#new_din)). Four additional new dietary ingredient notifications for vinpocetine were later submitted to FDA.4

    3 As defined in section 413(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(d)), the term “new dietary ingredient” means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States before October 15, 1994. Section 413(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)) requires manufacturers and distributors who wish to market dietary supplements that contain “new dietary ingredients” to submit a notification containing safety information to FDA before they begin marketing, unless the new dietary ingredient and all other dietary ingredients in the dietary supplement have been present in the food supply, without chemical alteration, as articles used for food.

    4 We acknowledged receipt of each of those new dietary ingredient notifications without objection.

    C. Vinpocetine and Section 201(ff)(1) of the FD&C Act

    We first consider whether vinpocetine is a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the FD&C Act—specifically, whether it is a vitamin, mineral, herb or other botanical, amino acid, dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake, or a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of dietary ingredients from the preceding categories. We are not aware of any argument that vinpocetine is a vitamin, a mineral, or an amino acid. Thus, vinpocetine does not appear to qualify as a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1)(A), (B), or (D) of the FD&C Act.

    Vinpocetine is not an herb or other botanical, nor is it a constituent of any botanical. Rather, vinpocetine is a synthetic compound, derived from vincamine, an alkaloid found in the Vinca minor plant, or tabersonine, an alkaloid found in Voacanga seeds (Ref. 5). Vinpocetine can be formed synthetically from vincamine, including via a “one-pot” synthesis, through transesterification and/or dehydration of vincamine in ethanol using Lewis acids and catalyzed by ferric chloride (Refs. 5 and 6). The process to prepare vinpocetine from tabersonine involves first converting to vincamine via hydrogenation, oxidation, reduction and, finally, isolation of vincamine (Ref. 7). The previously discussed method of producing vinpocetine from vincamine can then be used. As a synthetic compound, vinpocetine is not an herb or other botanical. Thus, vinpocetine does not appear to qualify as a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act.

    Vinpocetine is not a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake. Extensive database and literature searches did not identify any food use of vinpocetine. Thus, vinpocetine does not appear to qualify as a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1)(E) of the FD&C Act.

    Finally, vinpocetine is not a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in section 201(ff)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of the FD&C Act. We are not aware of any factual basis to conclude that vinpocetine is a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of a vitamin, mineral, amino acid, or dietary substance. As described earlier, vinpocetine is not found in V. minor, Voacanga, or any other botanical, but rather is a synthetic derivative of vincamine or tabersonine. Therefore, vinpocetine cannot be a concentrate, constituent, or extract of a botanical. After extensive literature and database searches, we have been unable to find any evidence that vinpocetine is a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of another dietary ingredient or dietary ingredients. Therefore, vinpocetine does not appear to qualify as a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1)(F) of the FD&C Act.

    We therefore tentatively conclude that vinpocetine is not a dietary ingredient under section 201(ff)(1) of the FD&C Act because it does not fit any of the dietary ingredient categories.

    D. Vinpocetine and Section 201(ff)(3) of the FD&C Act

    As noted above, the statutory definition of “dietary supplement” excludes an article authorized for investigation as a new drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and made public, unless the article was marketed as a dietary supplement or as a food before such authorization (see section 201(ff)(3)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act).

    Based on FDA's IND records and articles published between 1985 and 1988 that mention or report on phase 3 clinical trials for vinpocetine (Refs. 1 to 4), it appears that: (1) Vinpocetine was authorized for investigation as a new drug in 1981, long before the first new dietary ingredient notification for vinpocetine was filed in 1997 and, therefore, also long before vinpocetine was marketed as a dietary supplement; (2) substantial clinical investigations of vinpocetine have been instituted, and (3) the existence of such investigations has been made public.

    We therefore tentatively conclude that vinpocetine is excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act.

    E. Tentative Conclusion

    Based on the evidence available to us to date, we tentatively conclude that vinpocetine is not a dietary ingredient as defined in section 201(ff)(1) of the FD&C Act. We further tentatively conclude that vinpocetine is excluded from the dietary supplement definition under section 201(ff)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act and therefore may not be marketed as or in a dietary supplement. We are interested in receiving information that would inform our final decision on the regulatory status of vinpocetine, such as information about any food uses of vinpocetine and information on the date vinpocetine was first marketed as a food or as a dietary supplement.

    To afford all interested parties an adequate opportunity to participate in this matter, we request comments and other supporting information related to this matter. Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.

    II. References

    The following references are on display in FDA's Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. The Pink Sheet, “Ayerst Planning on First Quarter 1986 NDA Submission for Alredase (Tolrestat) in Diabetic Neuropathy; Firm is Shooting for Early 1987 Market Launch,” June 17, 1985. Retrieved from: https://pink.pharmamedtechbi.com/PS008480/AYERST-PLANNING-ON-FIRST-QUARTER-1986-NDA-SUBMISSION-FOR-ALREDASE-TOLRESTAT-IN-DIABETIC-NEUROPATHY-F. 2. Maugh II, T. H., “Firm Hopes to Market New ‘Memory’ Drug,” The Los Angeles Times, April 15, 1986. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-04-15/news/mn-4847_1_vinpocetine. 3. Manconi, E., F. Binaghi, and F. Pitzus, “A Double-Blind Clinical Trial of Vinpocetine in the Treatment of Cerebral Insufficiency of Vascular and Degenerative Origin,” Current Therapeutic Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1986.

    4. The Pink Sheet, “American Home Products' ‘Third Generation’ TPA Entering Clinicals,” March 21, 1988. Retrieved from: https://pink.pharmamedtechbi.com/PS013359/AMERICAN-HOME-PRODUCTS-THIRD-GENERATION-TPA-ENTERING-CLINICALS.

    5. National Toxicology Program, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Chemical Information Review Document for Vinpocetine [CAS No. 42971-09-5].” Retrieved from: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/vinpocetine091613_508.pdf. 6. Y. Kuge, H. Nakazawa, T. Kometani, et al., “A Facile One-Pot Synthesis of Vinpocetine,” Synthetic Communications: An Internal Journal for Rapid Communication of Synthetic Organic Chemistry, vol. 24, no. 6, 1994. 7. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, “Process of Preparation of Vincamine from Tabersonine.” Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/patents/US3892755.
    Dated: August 31, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21350 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0990-new-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate below or any other aspect of the ICR. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before [November 7, 2016].

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-0990-new-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: National Tissue Recovery through Utilization Survey.

    Abstract: Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval on a new (ICR). This survey is being conducted to generate national estimates of recovery through utilization activity; of donated human tissue for calendar years 2012 and 2015, and to compare metrics across three data collection periods that includes results from a 2007 survey, the most recent year these data were collected. The survey and data collection and analysis methods will be similar to the 2007 survey. The general categories of information to be collected are listed under the Survey Section of the Annualized Burden Hour table below. Policy advice provided by the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and Availability to the HHS Secretary and Assistant Secretary for Health is used to direct departmental efforts to address transfusion and transplantation issues; such as emergency preparedness and infectious disease transmission related to donated human tissue.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents for this survey would be U.S. tissue banks that screen and recover tissue from living and deceased donors, and process, store, and/or distribute tissues grafts for transplantation from these donors.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Survey section Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Tissue bank activities, tissue types handled, and inspections All tissue banks 110 5 5/60 46 Referrals, authorization, and informed consent; tissue recovery and acquisition Tissue banks that handle referrals, Recover/acquire tissue 80 36 30/60 1440 Tissue processing Tissue banks that process tissue 35 17 30/60 298 Tissue storage Tissue banks that store tissue 65 4 10/60 5 Tissue distribution Tissue banks that distribute tissue 58 16 15/60 232 Communicable disease testing and adverse outcome reports Tissue banks that have donor infectious disease testing performed and may handle adverse outcome reports 35 4 30/60 70 Total 2091

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Terry S. Clark, Asst Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21360 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of Office of Urban Indian Health Programs Strategic Plan AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Indian Health Service (IHS) has entered into a contract with the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to assist in the development of a five-year strategic plan. Funding for this project was provided by Congress in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which directs IHS to develop the plan in consultation with urban Indians and the Academy.

    As part of this project, the Academy project team is in the process of conducting extensive outreach to IHS/Office of Urban Indian Health Programs (OUIHP) leadership and employees, as well as conferring with urban Indian organizations and other key external stakeholder groups. The final product will be a strategic plan to guide the work of the headquarters office of OUIHP, area urban coordinators, and urban Indian organizations participating in IHS programs. The strategic plan will be completed by the end of December 2016.

    IHS is requesting input on the strategic planning process, the strengths and weaknesses of OUIHP, and the opportunities and threats facing the program. Comments will be used to help develop the mission, goals, objectives, and strategies to be included in the strategic plan.

    DATES:

    Submit your input to the Academy no later than September 16, 2016. All comments submitted to the Academy are not for attribution.

    Written Comments: Send input by email to [email protected] with the subject line: UIHP Strategic Plan.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Haze, Project Director, National Academy of Public Administration, 1600 K St. NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006, (201) 204-3682.

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21485 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License: The Development of an Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) for the Treatment of Human Cancers AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, that the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive patent license to practice the inventions embodied in the following Patents and Patent Applications and all continuing U.S. and foreign patents/patent applications to Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. located in Richmond, California, USA:

    Intellectual Property

    U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/006,313, filed 2 June 2014 and entitled “Chimeric Antigen Receptors Targeting CD-19” [HHS Ref. E-042-2014/0-US-01]; and PCT Patent Application PCT/US2015/033473, filed 1 June 2015 and entitled “Chimeric Antigen Receptors Targeting CD-19” [HHS Ref. E-042-2014/0-PCT-02].

    The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the Government of the United States of America.

    The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the field of use may be limited to the use of Licensed Patent Rights for the following: “The integration of a monospecific anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) into genome-edited, allogeneic T cells (where the donor and recipient are different), where the monospecific CAR has at least: (a) The complementary determining region (CDR) sequences of the anti-CD19 47G4 antibody; and (b) a T cell signaling domain, for the prophylaxis and treatment of CD19-positive malignancies.”

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before September 22, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for copies of the patent application, inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated exclusive license should be directed to: David A. Lambertson, Ph.D., Senior Licensing and Patenting Manager, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rm. 1-E530 MSC9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This invention concerns an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and methods of using the CAR for the treatment of CD19-expressing cancers, including B cell malignancies. With regard to the proposed license, the CAR covered by the invention will be integrated into a genome-edited allogeneic (where the donor and recipient of the T cell are different individuals) T cell, and the resulting anti-CD19 CAR-expressing genome-edited allogeneic T cell will be introduced into a cancer patient to exhibit a therapeutic effect. CD19 is a cell surface antigen that is preferentially expressed on certain types of cancer cells, particularly cancers of B cell origin such as Non-Hodgkin's Leukemia (NHL), acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The anti-CD19 CARs of this technology contain (1) antigen recognition sequences that bind specifically to CD19 and (2) signaling domains that can activate the cytotoxic functions of a T cell. The anti-CD19 CAR can be integrated into genome-edited allogeneic T cells; from there, genome-edited allogeneic T cells expressing the anti-CD19 CAR are selected, expanded and then introduced into a patient. Once the anti-CD19 CAR-expressing genome-edited allogeneic T cells are introduced into the patient, the T cells can selectively bind to CD19-expressing cancer cells through its antigen recognition sequences, thereby activating the T cell through its signaling domains to selectively kill the cancer cells. Through this mechanism of action, the selectivity of the a CAR allows the T cells to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy, essential cells unharmed. This can result in an effective therapeutic strategy with fewer side effects due to less non-specific killing of cells.

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.7.

    Complete applications for a license in the prospective field of use that are filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated Exclusive Patent License Agreement. Comments and objections submitted to this notice will not be made available for public inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Richard U. Rodriguez, Associate Director, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21366 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Biology Subcommittee; Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Biology.

    Date: October 18, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Peter Zelazowski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, SRB, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6902, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Reproduction, Andrology, and Gynecology Subcommittee.

    Date: October 21, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, PH.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2717, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 31, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21363 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; A Review of Proposals for Medical Devices for Congenital Heart Defects.

    Date: September 29, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Stephanie J Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0291, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 31, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21365 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel Gene-Environmental Pathways for Obesity Prevention.

    Date: October 18, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Priscah Mujuru, DRPH, COHNS, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-6908, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Developmental Consequences of Birth Interventions SUPPLEMENT.

    Date: November 29, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Peter Zelazowski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-6902, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Assessing Human Placental Development and Function Using Existing Data.

    Date: December 1, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Peter Zelazowski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, 301-435-6902, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 31, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21364 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Project: Uniform Application for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant and Substance Abuse and Prevention Treatment Block Grant FY 2016-2017 Application Guidance and Instructions (OMB No. 0930-0168)—NEW

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is requesting an approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an amendment to the FY 2016-2017 Uniform Application, Section III. Behavioral Health Assessment and Plan, C. Environmental Factors and Plan. The intent of this amendment is to gather information regarding the states' and jurisdictions' plans to implement elements of a syringe services program at 1 or more community-based organizations that receive amounts from the grant to provide substance use disorder treatment and recovery services to persons who inject drugs. In response to the emergence of prescription drug and heroin overdoses and associated deaths in many states and jurisdictions, SAMHSA issued guidance on April 2, 2014, to the states and jurisdictions regarding the use of SABG funds for prevention education and training regarding overdoses and the purchase of naloxone (Narcan®) and related materials to assemble overdose prevention kits.

    Respondents are the 50 states and the jurisdictions (District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Republic of Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota).

    The following reporting burden is based on estimates developed considering the State substance abuse and mental health authorities responsible for these activities and represents the average total hours to assemble, format, and produce the requested information.

    Respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Response per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Total burden Hourly wage cost Total hour cost
    States and Jurisdictions 60 1 60 40 hours per State (1500 hours) $45.00 $1800 per state/jurisdiction ($108,000 Total).

    Link for the application: http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/blockgrant/.

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857, OR email a copy to [email protected] Written comments should be received by November 7, 2016.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21395 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0819] Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet in Savannah, Georgia to discuss various issues relating to safety in the commercial fishing industry. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 27, Wednesday September 28, and Thursday September 29, 2016 from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. However, on Tuesday September 27 from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., administrative items and issues will be discussed with Committee members only. The public meeting will commence at 10 a.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee will meet at the United States Federal Building located at 124 Barnard Street, Savannah, Georgia, 31401 in Conference Room #1.

    If you are planning to attend the meeting, you will be required to pass through a security checkpoint. You will be required to show valid government identification. Please arrive at least 30 minutes before the planned start of the meeting in order to pass through security.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, as soon as possible.

    Instructions: To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Agenda” section below. Written comments must be submitted no later than September 9, 2016 if you want Committee members to be able to review your comments before the meeting. You must include “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number USCG-2016-0819. Written comments may be submitted using Federal Electronic Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. For assistance with technical difficulties, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005 issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number in the “SEARCH” box, press Enter and then click on the item you wish to view.

    Public oral comment periods will be held during the meeting after each presentation and at the end of each day. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that the public oral comment periods may end before the prescribed ending time following the last call for comments. Contact Mr. Jack Kemerer as indicated below to register as a speaker.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jack Kemerer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer for the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, Commandant (CG-CVC-3), United States Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, South East, Mail Stop 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501; telephone 202-372-1249, facsimile 202-372-8385, electronic mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., Appendix.

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by Title 46 United States Code Section 4508. The Committee's purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels.

    A copy of available meeting documentation will be posted to the docket, as noted above, and at http://fishsafe.info/ by September 9, 2016. Post-meeting documentation will be posted to the Web site, noted above, within 30 days after the meeting, or as soon as possible. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Jack Kemerer as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Agenda

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee will meet to review, discuss and formulate recommendations on topics contained in the agenda.

    Day 1

    The meeting will include administrative matters, reports, presentations, discussions, as follows:

    (1) 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. Committee Members Only. Federal Advisory Committee Act administrative matters to include Commercial Fishing Safety Committee member training.

    (2) 10 a.m. Open to the Public. Introductions, swearing-in of new members, election of Chair and Vice-Chair.

    (3) Status of Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Rulemaking projects resulting from requirements set forth in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 and the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012.

    (4) Coast Guard District Commercial Fishing Vessel Safety Coordinator reports on activities and initiatives.

    (5) Updates on safety and survival equipment developments by Committee member and any industry representatives present.

    (6) Presentation and discussion on casualties, by regions and fisheries, and an update on safety and risk-reduction-related projects by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

    (7) Presentation and discussion on E-charts, Automatic Identification Systems, and Digital Selective Calling by the United States Coast Guard Navigation Office.

    (8) Public Comment Period.

    (9) Adjournment of meeting.

    Day 2

    The meeting will include a review and discussion of the United States Coast Guard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (46 CFR part 28, Commercial Fishing Vessels—Implementation of 2010 and 2012 Legislation) published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2016 but will primarily be dedicated to Subcommittee/working group sessions, on the following topics:

    (1) Development of an Enhanced Oversight Program as outlined in Coast Guard Marine Safety Information Bulletin 11-16 dated July 20, 2016.

    (2) Development of guidance to ensure compliance with construction standards for vessels 50-79 feet under Title 46 U.S.C section 4503(c)(2).

    (3) Goals and objectives for operator competency training as set forth in Title 46 United States Code section 4502.

    (4) Status Reports from Subcommittee Chairs to full Committee.

    (5) Public Comment Period.

    (6) Adjournment of meeting.

    Day 3

    The meeting will include Subcommittee/working group discussions, reports and recommendations as follows:

    (1) Subcommittee/working groups meet.

    (2) Subcommittee/working groups report to full Committee and make recommendations.

    (3) There will be a comment period for Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee members and a comment period for the public after each report and discussion. The Committee will review the information presented on any issues, deliberate on any recommendations presented in Subcommittee reports, and formulate recommendations for the Department's consideration.

    (4) Future plans and goals for the Committee.

    (5) Next Committee meeting, plans and recommended location.

    (6) Comments on the meeting from Committee members.

    (7) Adjournment of meeting.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. J.F. Williams, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21479 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022] Technical Mapping Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; notice of rescheduled Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) teleconference meeting scheduled for September 13 and 14, 2016 is rescheduled for September 23 and 26, 2016. FEMA previously published a notice announcing this meeting in the Federal Register on July 27, 2016 at 81 FR 49235.

    DATES:

    The rescheduled TMAC meeting will be held on Friday, September 23, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and on Monday, September 26 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The rescheduled TMAC meeting will be held via conference call.

    Written comments concerning this rescheduled TMAC meeting may be submitted by one of the following methods and should be identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

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

    Email: Address the email TO: [email protected] and CC: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the email.

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Federal Emergency Management Agency” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 500 C St SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-4023, and email [email protected] The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21376 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4273-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001] West Virginia; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of West Virginia (FEMA-4273-DR), dated June 25, 2016, and related determinations.

    EFFECTIVE DATE:

    August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William C. Watrel, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of Albert Lewis as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21372 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-66] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on June 21, 2016 at 81 FR 40340.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0540.

    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: In order for nonprofit organizations to participate in FHA Nonprofit and Government Entity Programs they must submit an application and be approved by FHA. The FHA Nonprofit programs include: HUD Homes where a nonprofit may be able to buy a FHA REO property at the discount; FHA Mortgagor where a nonprofit can qualify for an FHA insured loan; and Secondary Financing where a nonprofit can provide financial assistance to low to-moderate- income family in the purchase of a home. Once a Nonprofit submits and application that is approved, the Nonprofit is placed on the FHA Nonprofit Organization Roster. The Nonprofit must recertify every two years and maintain documentation for reporting purposes and to permit FHA to monitor their activities to ensure compliance with program requirements.

    Respondents: Nonprofit Organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 395.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 731.

    Frequency of Response: 1 to 4.

    Average Hours per Response: 24.25.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 8692.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    C. Authority

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21482 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5875-N-01] Single Family Mortgage Insurance: Revision of Section 203(k) Consultant Fee Schedule—Solicitation of Comment AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; solicitation of comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Section 203(k) Program is HUD's primary program for the rehabilitation and repair of single family properties. The Section 203(k) mortgage program enables homebuyers and homeowners to finance the purchase, or refinance of a home and include the rehabilitation costs through a single mortgage. There are two types of 203(k) rehabilitation mortgages: Standard 203(k) and Limited 203(k).

    The Standard 203(k) mortgage may be used for remodeling, rehabilitation and repairs that may have structural components, involve more complex work and the total rehabilitation costs must be greater than $5,000. The Limited 203(k) mortgage may only be used for minor remodeling and non-structural repairs. The total rehabilitation cost may not exceed $35,000 and there is no minimum cost.

    As part of the Section 203(k) program requirements, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) maintains a list of approved 203(k) Consultants on the FHA 203(k) Consultant Roster in FHA Connection. An FHA-approved 203(k) Consultant is required for all Standard 203(k) mortgages. A 203(k) Consultant is not required under the Limited 203(k) program, but may be used. FHA-approved 203(k) Consultants are required to perform responsibilities during the processing and rehabilitation phase of the 203(k) program. FHA-approved 203(k) Consultants who are placed on FHA's 203(k) Consultant Roster are deemed qualified to complete these duties and therefore permitted to collect a fee for this service. In 1995, HUD issued its current Section 203(k) Consultant Fee Schedule and now seeks to update the Section 203(k) Fee Schedule to align with similarly performed services and the corresponding fees collected for such services. As a result, this notice seeks public comment on revising the current structure of the fee and the maximum amount of fees a 203(k) Consultant would be permitted to charge on a Section 203(k) mortgage.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the notice.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled in advance by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number). Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin L. Stevens, Director, Home Mortgage Insurance Division, Office of Single Family Program Development, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9266, Washington, DC 20410-9000, telephone number 202-402-4137 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 203(k) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(k)) authorizes HUD to insure a purchase or a refinance mortgage on an existing 1-4 unit single family structure and include the rehabilitation costs through a single mortgage. The Section 203(k) Program is HUD's primary program for the rehabilitation and repair of single family properties. The Section 203(k) program is important for neighborhood revitalization and homeownership opportunities. The regulations implementing the Section 203(k) Program are codified at 24 CFR 203.50.

    The Section 203(k) Program fills a unique and important role for homebuyers. In the conventional loan market, a homebuyer who purchases a home that is in need of repair or modernization usually has to follow a complicated and costly process. The homebuyer must obtain financing to purchase the dwelling, additional financing for the rehabilitation work, and a permanent mortgage after rehabilitation is completed to pay off the interim loans. The interim acquisition and improvement loans often have relatively high interest rates and short repayment terms. The Section 203(k) Program addresses this by permitting a homebuyer to obtain a single loan, at a long-term fixed or variable rate, to finance both the acquisition and rehabilitation of the property.

    There are two types of 203(k) rehabilitation mortgages: Standard 203(k) and Limited 203(k). The Standard 203(k) mortgage may be used for remodeling, rehabilitation and repairs that may have structural components involve complex work and must have a total rehabilitation costs greater than $5,000. The Limited 203(k) mortgage may only be used for minor remodeling and non-structural repairs, the total rehabilitation cost may not exceed $35,000 and there is no minimum rehabilitation cost.

    The extent of the rehabilitation covered by the Section 203(k) mortgage may range from relatively minor to virtual reconstruction. For example, a home that will be demolished as part of rehabilitation is eligible, provided that the existing foundation remains in place. In addition to typical home rehabilitation projects, the Section 203(k) Program can be used to convert a property of any size to a one- to four-unit dwelling. Section 203(k) mortgage insurance can also be used to augment Energy Efficient Mortgages, Section 203(h) Mortgage Insurance for Victims of a Presidentially-Declared Major Disaster Area, and Mortgage Insurance for Solar and Wind Technologies. All improvements, renovations, or repairs undertaken with Section 203(k) mortgage insurance must comply with the HUD Minimum Property Requirements, HUD Minimum Property Standards and all local codes and ordinances.

    II. Section 203(k) Consultants

    An FHA-approved 203(k) Consultant is required for all Standard 203(k) mortgages and may be used for Limited 203(k) mortgages. As part of the Section 203(k) program requirements, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) maintains a list of approved 203(k) Consultants on the FHA 203(k) Consultant Roster from which the Mortgagee must select a 203(k) Consultant and assign the 203(k) Consultant to the transaction, if required.

    When a Section 203(k) Consultant is required, the Consultant will enter into a written agreement with the Borrower that outlines the services that the Consultant will perform. In some cases, the Mortgagee or Borrower may require the Consultant to conduct a Feasibility Study to determine if the 203(k) mortgage is achievable, based on the costs of the rehabilitation project. The 203(k) Consultant conducts a Feasibility Study by completing a preliminary inspection of the property, and estimates the material and labor costs for the project.

    The 203(k) Consultant must inspect the property to ensure:

    • There are no rodents, dry rot, termites and other infestation the property;

    • there are no defects that will affect the health and safety of the occupants;

    • there exists adequate structural, heating, plumbing, electrical and roofing systems; and

    • there are upgrades to the structure's thermal proportion (when necessary).

    The Consultant must prepare a report on the current condition of the property that categorically examines the structure utilizing a 35 point checklist. The Consultant must determine the repairs/improvements that are required to meet the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD's) Minimum Property Requirements, Minimum Property Standards and local requirements. The report must address any deficiencies that exist. The Consultant is responsible for identifying all required architectural exhibits. The Consultant must prepare the exhibits, or, if not qualified to prepare all of the necessary exhibits, must obtain the exhibits from a qualified subcontractor.

    The Consultant must prepare an unbiased Work Write-up and Cost Estimate without using a contractor's estimate. The Work Write-Up and Cost Estimate must be detailed as to the work being performed based on the project proposal, including all required reports.

    The Consultant must physically inspect the work for completion, quality of workmanship, conformity to local codes and ordinances, and ensure that all building permits are onsite for the work that was performed at each draw request.

    At the Borrower's or Mortgagee's request, the Consultant must review proposed changes to the Work Write-Up and prepare a Change Order Form HUD-95277. The Consultant must inform the Mortgagee of the progress of the rehabilitation and of any problems that arise, including:

    • Work stoppages for more than 30 consecutive days or work not progressing;

    • significant deviations from the Work Write-Up without the Consultant's approval;

    • any issues that could affect adherence to the program requirements or property eligibility; or

    • any issues that could affect the health and safety of the occupants or the security of the structure.

    The Borrower is responsible for the fee charged by the Section 203(k) Consultant. Under the Standard 203(k) program, the Consultant fee charged for the Feasibility Study, Work Write-Up, Mileage (not associated with a Draw inspection) and Architectural Exhibit preparation, may be included in the mortgage as a part of the cost of rehabilitation.

    III. Section 203(k) Consultants Fee Schedule

    Under the existing structure, the fee is based on a range of repair costs, recognizing that more extensive repairs would require more time and are costlier for the Consultant to complete. It also allows for some level of change over time as repair costs increase. HUD establishes and monitors the maximum fees that a Section 203(k) Consultant may charge a Borrower to prepare the Work Write-Up for repairs associated with the Section 203(k) mortgage. The Work Write-Up includes the initial inspection, Architectural Exhibit Review and Cost Estimate. The current fee schedule, which HUD issued in 1995, is as follows:

    Maximum consultant fee Cost of repairs Maximum amount that can be
  • financed
  • 203(k) Consultant Fee Schedule for preparing the Work Write-up $400 Less than $7,500 $400 $500 Between $7,501 and $15,000 500 $600 Between $15,001 and $30,000 600 $700 Between $30,001 and $50,000 700 $800 Between $50,001 and $75,000 800 $900 Between $75,001 and $100,000 900 $1,000 Above $100,000 1,000 Plus an additional $25 for each additional Dwelling Unit, not to exceed $75 The 203(k) Roster Consultant may charge a fee for additional services listed below $100 Feasibility Study (if one is performed) 100 $100 For Preparing a Change Order Request 100 $50 For each Re-Inspection requested 50

    The 203(k) Roster Consultant may also charge a reasonable and customary fee, not to exceed $350 for each draw inspection request plus mileage at the current Internal Revenue Service mileage rate when the place of business is more than 15 miles from the property.

    HUD has determined that the existing fee structure may discourage Consultant participation in the Section 203(k) Program and has the potential to limit access to credit. Between 2012 and 2015, the volume of loans requiring the use of a Consultant fell from 6,753 to 5,359. Based on the first two quarters of 2016, the projected volume of loans requiring the use of a Consultant is 5,132, while the projected volume of loans not requiring the use of a Consultant is 14,224. This data suggests that Borrowers are choosing the less complicated repair work, not requiring a Consultant. HUD believes that establishing a fee structure that is more in alignment with market rates would increase Consultants' participation in the Section 203(k) program and expand access to credit by encouraging and enabling more Borrowers to purchase properties that require substantial rehabilitation. The willingness and ability of Borrowers to purchase properties involving substantial rehabilitation would contribute to the reduction in build-up of HUD's Real Estate Owned inventories, result in an increase in energy efficient homes and assist in the stabilization of the housing market.

    As part of its policy consolidation effort, HUD posted on the Single Family Housing Policy Drafting Table 1 its draft 203(k) Consultant Product Sheet section of the Single Family Policy Handbook 4000.1 and requested comments.2 The feedback that HUD received was that the fee schedule is not in alignment with current market rates and needs to be revised. Most commenters stated that the fee schedule was out-of-date and did not reflect the current cost of business. For example, some commenters stated that Consultants are dealing with issues like mold, radon, and other environmental hazards that were not widely recognized as issues in 1995 when HUD issued the current fee schedule. In addition, the feedback questioned the structure of the current fee schedule. For example, one commenter stated that the Consultant is limited to charging the same fee whether the home is 4,100 square feet with a crawlspace or 1,200 square feet on a slab.

    1 See, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/SFH_policy_drafts.

    2 See, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=SFH_POLI_203K_CSL.PDF.

    IV. Request for Public Comments on Updating the Section 203(k) Consultant Fee Schedule

    In order to better inform HUD, this notice seeks public comment on ways to revise the fee schedule for 203(k) Consultants. HUD is specifically seeking information to determine whether Consultant fees should continue to be based on the total cost of repairs or on some other metric. While all comments on updating the Consultant fee schedule are welcome, HUD is soliciting specific comments on the following options:

    1. Retain the current fee structure but update maximum fees. Under this option, HUD would continue to base Consultant fees on the total cost of repairs and continue to allow Borrowers the ability to finance all fees into the 203(k) mortgage. If HUD uses this option, should it continue to use the current ranges for cost of repair, and if not, how should HUD set these thresholds and why? What should be the maximum Consultant fee at each threshold and why? Should the fees be tied to Consumer Price Index to account for regional differences in the cost of services?

    2. Allow Consultants to charge fees that are reasonable and customary. Under this option, Consultants would be allowed to charge fees that are reasonable and customary in the market for similar work performed by professionals with similar qualifications. If HUD uses this option, how can it manage risk associated with this concept? Should HUD continue to permit all fees to be financed or should it establish a maximum amount that can be financed in the 203(k) loan? If HUD uses this option what should be used to establish the financeable portion of the fee? Would requiring the Borrower to pay the excess fees adversely limit the number of Section 203(k) loan origination? Would this method of setting fees lead to an increase in the number of loans with negative equity? Would this method of setting fees lead to an increase in the number of loans with negative equity and how could HUD protect against this?

    3. Develop a different metric on which to base Consultant fees. Under this option, Consultants' fees would be based on a metric other than cost of repairs. For example, HUD could set fees based on a straight percentage of the repair amount or a fixed fee plus a percentage of the repair amount. If HUD uses this option, at what level should HUD set the amount? Would this option allow for regional differences in the cost of services or in the variation and complexity of services provided in a specific loan transaction? Are there other metrics upon which HUD could base Consultant fees? If so, what are the pros and cons of each metric?

    4. Index Section 203(k) Consultant fees to another measure. Under this option, Consultant fees could be tied to Consumer Price Index or the Annual Rate of Inflation. HUD could then revise the fees under such measure and alert the public by Mortgagee Letter or Handbook publication. What are the pros and cons of tying the 203(k) Consultant fee schedule to either of these two measures? Are there other measures that would more accurately establish maximum fees? Would there be any reason for HUD to establish a maximum amount of the fee that can be financed into the 203(k) mortgage using either of these measures?

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21226 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-67] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: ConnectHome Use and Benefits Telephone Survey AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on February 4, 2016 at 81 FR 6036.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: ConnectHome Use and Benefits Telephone Survey.

    OMB Approval Number: 2528-New.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Form Number: Survey.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: President Barack Obama and Secretary Julián Castro announced ConnectHome on July 15, 2015, as the next step in the Obama Administration's efforts to increase access to high-speed Internet access for all Americans. Through public-private partnerships, nonprofits, businesses, and Internet service providers (ISPs) ConnectHome will offer high-speed Internet service, devices, technical training, and digital literacy programs to residents of HUD assisted housing in 28 pilot communities, including the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

    As communities begin to implement ConnectHome in 2016 and connect residents to internet within their homes, this telephone survey will illuminate how families are taking advantage of ConnectHome. The telephone survey will explore ConnectHome subscribers' previous broadband access, current and planned use patterns, and current and anticipated benefits of their at-home high-speed Internet access. The survey will particularly focus on educational Internet use such as completing homework, connecting parents with educators, and applying to college.

    Table 1—Data Collection Activities and Anticipated Burden Information collection
  • (instruments)
  • Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual burden
  • hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    Telephone Survey Instrument (Appendix B) 2,500 1 2,500 .33 (15-20 minutes) 825 $15.00 $12,375.00 Total Burden Hours 2,500 825 15.00 12,375.00
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information

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

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 31, 2016. Anna P. Guido, Department Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21480 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R2-ES-2016-N140; FXES11120200000-167-FF02ENEH00] Receipt of an Incidental Take Permit Application for Participation in the Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle resulting from activities associated with the geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued under the approved Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (ICP).

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicant's ITP application by one of the following methods. Please refer to the proposed permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.

    U.S. Mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species—HCP Permits, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103.

    Electronically: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Review Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on an incidental take permit (ITP) application for take of the federally listed American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) resulting from activities associated with geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma. If approved, the permit would be issued to the applicant under the Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (ICP). The original ICP was approved on May 21, 2014 (publication of the FONSI notice was on July 25, 2014; 79 FR 43504). The draft amended ICP was made available for comment on March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12113), and approved on April 13, 2016. The ICP and the associated environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact are available on the Web site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/ABBICP. However, we are no longer taking comments on these finalized, approved documents.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following application under the ICP, for incidental take of the federally listed ABB. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (e.g., TE-123456) when requesting application documents and when submitting comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with this application are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

    Permit TE04297C

    Applicant: Rose Rock Midstream Crude, Limited Partnership, Tulsa, OK.

    Applicant requests an amended permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas well field infrastructure, as well as construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation of oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure within Oklahoma.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Joy E. Nicholopoulos, Acting, Regional Director, Southwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21408 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCAC01000 L16600000.XZ0000 16XL1109AF LXSIOVHD0000] Notice of Public Meeting of the Central California Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central California Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    A tour of tree mortality areas in the Mother Lode Field Office will be held from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016, followed by a business meeting from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA. Time for public comment is reserved from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. The RAC will reconvene beginning at 8 a.m. on Friday, Oct 21, until business is concluded, no later than noon.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    BLM Central California District Manager Este Stifel, (916) 978-4626; or BLM Public Affairs Officer David Christy, (916) 941-3146. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339, to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the Central California District, which includes the Bishop, Bakersfield, Central Coast, Ukiah and Mother Lode Field Offices. The meeting will include consideration by the RAC of proposed campground fee increases for the Bishop Field Office. The RAC charter states:

    Upon the request of the Designated Federal Official (DFO), the Council may make recommendations regarding a standard amenity recreation fee or an expanded recreation amenity fee, whenever the recommendations related to public concerns in the state or region covered by the council regarding:

    (A) The implementation of a standard amenity recreation fee or an expanded amenity recreation fee or the establishment of a specific recreation fee site;

    (B) The elimination of a standard amenity recreation fee or an expanded amenity recreation fee; or

    (C) The expansion or limitation of the recreation fee program.

    The Council may make these recommendations for the BLM when amenity recreation fees are at issue and it would facilitate implementation of the REA. With the concurrence of the Forest Service (FS) when their amenity recreation fees are at issue, the Council may also make these recommendations for BLM and/or FS if that would facilitate the effective implementation of the REA.

    There will be a presentation on the fee proposal at 3 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 20. Information on the proposed fee increase is available on the web at http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bishop.html.

    Additional ongoing business will be discussed by the council. All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. The meeting is open to the public. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

    Ruben Leal, Associate District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21407 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLIDC000000.16XL1109AF .L11200000.MR0000.241A.00; 4500096833] Notice of Public Meeting, Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council, Idaho AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coeur d'Alene District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Coeur d'Alene District RAC will meet at the North Fork District Office of the Nez Perce/Clearwater National Forest located at 12730 Highway 12, Orofino, ID 83544. A business meeting will take place the afternoon of Tuesday, October 4, followed by a field tour of the Clearwater River Corridor on Wednesday, October 5. The business meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end no later than 5:00 p.m. The public comment forum will take place from 3:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. The field tour will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude by 2:00 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Endsley, Coeur d'Alene District, Idaho, 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, 83815, Telephone: (208) 769-5004. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The meeting agenda will include a review of proposed recreation fee increases on multiple sites on the Nez Perce/Clearwater Forest, information on BLM's Planning 2.0 process and updates on projects within the Cottonwood and Coeur d'Alene Field Offices. Additional agenda topics or changes to the agenda will be announced in local press releases. The field tour will include stops at sites along the Clearwater River managed by BLM and the Clearwater Management Council. More information is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/get_involved/resource_advisory/coeur_d_alene_district.html.

    RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-1

    Dated: August 29, 2016. Linda Clark, BLM Coeur d'Alene District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21414 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRSS-15890; PPWONRADE2.PMP00EI05.YP0000] Final Environmental Impact Statement Non-Federal Oil and Gas Regulations AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability, Final Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Nonfederal Oil and Gas Regulations (36 CFR part 9, subpart B) Revisions.

    DATES:

    September 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the FEIS will be available for public review at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/FEIS9B. A limited number of hard copies will be available upon request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Steensen, Chief, Geologic Resource Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225; phone (303) 969-2014. The responsible official for this FEIS is the Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the FEIS evaluates the impacts of three alternatives, including the following alternative elements:

    • Elimination of two regulatory provisions that exempt 60% of the oil and gas operations in System units. All operators in System units would be required to comply with the 9B regulations.

    • Elimination of the financial assurance (bonding) cap. Financial assurance would be equal to the reasonable estimated cost of site reclamation.

    • Improving enforcement authority by incorporating existing NPS penalty provisions. Law enforcement staff would have authority to write citations for noncompliance with the regulations.

    • Authorizing compensation to the federal government for new access on federal lands and waters outside the boundary of an operator's mineral right.

    • Reformatting the regulations to make it easier to identify an operator's information requirements and operating standards that apply to each type of operation.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Raymond M. Sauvajot, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, Washington Office, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21186 Filed 9-2-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NER-BOHA-21830; PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] [PPNEBOHAS1] Notice of September 19, 2016, Meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the meeting of the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area Advisory Council (Council). The agenda includes updates from Boston Harbor Now and the National Park Service as well as an informational session about the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

    DATES:

    September 19, 2016, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. (Eastern).

    ADDRESSES:

    New England Aquarium, Harborside Learning Lab, Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giles Parker, Superintendent and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area, 15 State Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02109, telephone (617) 223-8669, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is open to the public. Those wishing to submit written comments may contact the DFO for the Council, Giles Parker, by mail at National Park Service, Boston Harbor Islands, 15 State Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02109 or by email [email protected] Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The Council was appointed by the Director of the National Park Service pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 460kkk(g). The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the implementation of a management plan and park operations. Efforts have been made locally to ensure that the interested public is aware of the meeting dates.

    Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21447 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2010-0015] Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes Standard (29 CFR 1910.180).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service: When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-0015, Occupational Safety and health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0015) for the Information Collection Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

    This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act, or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).

    The Standard specifies several paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of each of these requirements is to prevent workers from using unsafe cranes and ropes, thereby reducing their risk of death or serious injury caused by a crane or rope failure during material handling.

    (A) Inspection of and Certification Records for Cranes (§ 1910.180(d)(4) and (d)(6))

    Paragraph 1910.180(d) specifies that employers must prepare a written record to certify that the monthly inspection of critical items in use on cranes (such as brakes, crane hooks, and ropes) has been performed. The certification record must include the inspection date, the signature of the person who conducted the inspection, and the serial number (or other identifier) of the inspected crane. Employers must keep the certificate readily available. The certification record provides employers, workers, and OSHA compliance officers with assurance that critical items on cranes have been inspected, and that the equipment is in good operating condition so that the crane and rope will not fail during material handling. These records also enable OSHA to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

    (B) Rated Load Tests (§ 1910.180(e)(2))

    This provision requires employers to make available written reports of load-rating tests showing test procedures and confirming the adequacy of repairs or alterations, and to make readily available any rerating test reports. These reports inform the employer, workers, and OSHA compliance officers of a crane's lifting limitations, and provide information to crane operators to prevent them from exceeding these limits and thereby causing crane failure.

    (C) Inspection of and Certification Records for Ropes (§ 1910.180(g)(1) and (g)(2)(ii))

    Paragraph (g)(1) requires employers to thoroughly inspect any rope in use at least once a month. The authorized person conducting the inspection must observe any deterioration resulting in appreciable loss of original strength and determine whether or not the condition is hazardous. Before reusing a rope that has not been used for at least a month because the crane housing the rope is shut down or in storage, paragraph (g)(2)(ii) specifies that employers must have an appointed or authorized person inspect the rope for all types of deterioration. Employers must prepare a certification record for the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(ii). These certification records must include the inspection date, the signature of the person conducting the inspection, and the identifier for the inspected rope; paragraph (g)(1) states that employers must keep the certificates “on file where readily available,” while paragraph (g)(2)(ii) requires that certificates “be . . . kept readily available.” The certification records assure employers, workers, and OSHA that the inspected ropes are in good condition.

    II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

    • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

    • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

    III. Proposed Actions

    There are no adjustments or program changes associated with the information collection requirements in the standard. The Agency is requesting that it retain its previous estimate of 30,511 burden hours. Table I describes each of the requested burden hours.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Title: Crawler, Locomotive, and Truck Cranes (29 CFR 1910.180).

    OMB Control Number: 1218-0221.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 34,994.

    Frequency of Responses: On occasion; Monthly, Semi-annually.

    Average Time per Response: Varies from 1 hour to conduct rated load tests to monthly to inspect ropes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 30,511.

    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

    IV. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0015). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them to your comments.

    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627).

    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web site.

    All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's “User Tips” link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

    V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 31, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21398 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2016-047] Records Management; General Records Schedule (GRS); GRS Transmittal 26 AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of new General Records Schedule (GRS) Transmittal 26.

    SUMMARY:

    NARA is issuing a new set of General Records Schedules (GRS) via GRS Transmittal 26. The GRS provides mandatory disposition instructions for administrative records common to several or all Federal agencies. Transmittal 26 announces changes we have made to the GRS since we published Transmittals 24 and 25 in August and September 2015. We are concurrently disseminating Transmittal 26 (the memo and the accompanying records schedules and documents) directly to each agency's records management official and have also posted it on NARA's Web site.

    DATES:

    This transmittal is effective the date it publishes in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You can find this transmittal on NARA's Web site at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs/. You can download the complete current GRS, in PDF format, from NARA's Web site at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/grs.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information about this notice or to obtain paper copies of the GRS, contact Kimberly Keravuori, External Policy Program Manager, at [email protected], or by telephone at 301.837.3151.

    You may contact NARA's GRS Team with general questions about the GRS at [email protected] Writing and maintaining the GRS is the GRS Team's responsibility. This team is part of Records Management Services in the National Records Management Program, Office of the Chief Records Officer at NARA.

    Your agency's records officer may contact the NARA appraiser or records analyst with whom your agency normally works for support in carrying out this transmittal and the revised portions of the GRS. You may access a list of the appraisal and scheduling work group and regional contacts on our Web site at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/appraisal/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: What does GRS Transmittal 26 do?

    GRS Transmittal 26 announces changes to the General Records Schedules (GRS) made since NARA published GRS Transmittals 24 and 25 in August and September 2015. The GRS provide mandatory disposition instructions for records common to several or all Federal agencies.

    We are completely rewriting the GRS over the course of a five-year project. Because we are phasing in the entire change from old to new gradually over five years, the GRS during this interim period will necessarily include both old and new formats. New schedules (in table format) come first in the new transmittal, followed by the old schedules (in outline format) annotated to show which items are still current and which have been superseded by new schedules. With GRS Transmittal 26, we have superseded 39 percent of the old GRS by new schedules.

    Each transmittal also includes frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the GRS, the GRS Update Project, and each new schedule, as well as new-to-old crosswalks for each new schedule and an overall old-to-new crosswalk.

    What changes does this transmittal make to the GRS?

    GRS Transmittal 26 publishes one new schedule:

    GRS 4.4 Library Records (DAA-GRS-2015-0003)

    It also publishes new or updated items in four schedules:

    GRS 1.1 Financial Management and Reporting Records (see question 3) GRS 2.8 Employee Ethics Records (see question 4) GRS 4.2 Information Access and Protection Records (see question 5) GRS 6.1 Capstone Electronic Mail Records (see question 6)

    We have altered GRS 1.2, items 020-022. The note and exclusion previously (and incorrectly) shown in the overview covering all three items now modifies only item 020.

    How has GRS 1.1 changed? How might these changes affect my agency?

    We have added five new items (012, 013, 060, 070, and 071), per DAA-GRS-2016-0001.

    If you store records that fall under GRS 1.1, item 010, you should carefully review your stored holdings to determine if new item 012 correctly describes any of them. These potentially voluminous records are immediately disposable, so you may be able to save on storage fees or space.

    The old-to-new crosswalk and GRS 1.1 crosswalk now show old GRS 3, item 3d (Data submitted to the Federal Procurement Data System), superseded by GRS 1.1, item 013 (Data submitted to the Federal Procurement Data System), rather than by GRS 1.1, item 010 (Financial transaction records related to procuring goods and services, paying bills, collecting debts, and accounting). Originally, GRS 3, item 3d, was among the many old schedule items folded into GRS 1.1, item 010. General Services Administration requested that we restore the stand-alone item because these records do not concern individual financial transactions, but monitor Government procurement process transparency and equity. New item 013 therefore covers the same records as old GRS 3, item 3d, but as a stand-alone item.

    How has GRS 2.8 changed? How might these changes affect my agency?

    We have changed item 010, General ethics program records, to clarify the disposition instruction. The previous wording may have confused agencies about how long to keep some ethics records; agencies may need to keep them for longer than the old schedule seemed to indicate. Agency ethics officials provide employees with ethics advice that may pertain to a single situation or event, or that may apply to a recurring event or long-term situation. In the case of a single situation or event, the ethics determination (the ethics advice and counseling to individual employees, and supporting records) for that event is usually in effect only for the duration of that event. However, in the case of a recurring or long-term situation, the ethics determination is usually in effect throughout the period during which the recurring or long-term events occur, which could be years. The revised instruction clarifies that agencies should retain records for six years after an ethics determination is no longer in effect, rather than six years from when the agency issues the determination. For example, if the ethics official provides advice for a single, isolated event, the agency should retain the determination records for six years after that event occurs. But if the ethics official provides advice for a long-term situation that lasts for 15 years, the agency should retain the determination records for 15+6 years. Similarly, if the determination involves ethics advice about a recurring action or event an employee engages in off and on during 12 years, the agency should retain the determination records for 12+6 years. Since agencies may need to provide these records in a criminal prosecution, you should carefully note the determination date, including how long it is in effect, to ensure that the agency keeps the information available for six years after the ethics determination no longer applies.

    How has GRS 4.2 changed? How might these changes affect my agency?

    An exclusion formerly in item 020, Access and disclosure request files (“Record copies of requested records are not covered by this item. They remain covered by their original disposal authority”), has become a note (“Record copies of requested records remain covered by their original disposal authority, but if disposable sooner than their associated access/disclosure case file, may be retained under this item for disposition with that case file”). Records may acquire a new business purpose once they become the subject of a FOIA, Privacy Act, or Mandatory Declassification Review request. The previous exclusion text did not account for this new business purpose and thus could have led to offices destroying original records when their original retention period ended instead of when the new business purpose period ended. We have clarified the coverage for items 030, 032, and 040 to eliminate confusion reported by agencies.

    Items 150, 160, 161, and 170 are new.

    How has GRS 6.1 changed? How might these changes affect my agency?

    We have altered permanent item 010's transfer date from 15 years to a 15-to-25-year band. FAQ 8 provides information about this change. In addition, we changed the cut-off for item 010 from the end of the calendar year to “In accordance with agency's business needs,” a change announced by AC 18.2016. FAQ 7 gives further information about this change. Finally, new FAQs 19 and 21-26 address how agencies may handle legacy email.

    What old GRS items does GRS Transmittal 26 rescind?

    Most old GRS items are, or will be, superseded by new GRS items. A few old items, however, have outlived their usefulness and cannot be crosswalked to new items. GRS Transmittal 26 rescinds two such items.

    GRS 21, items 12 (Routine Scientific, Medical, or Engineering Footage) and 19 (Routine Scientific, Medical, or Engineering Video Recordings), have fallen out of use. These media-specific items cover very technical subject matter almost always created by research and development (R&D) functions. Federal Records Centers (FRCs) held records under these codes from only two agencies. The FRCs and the agencies agreed that we should reschedule these records under agency-specific authorities. The few agencies with such functions must therefore schedule the records their R&D programs create. These two items will not crosswalk to any anticipated future GRS item, so we are rescinding them.

    How do I cite new GRS items?

    When you send records to an FRC for storage, you should cite the records' legal authority—the “DAA” number—in the “Disposition Authority” column of the table. For informational purposes, please include schedule and item number. For example, “DAA-GRS-2013-0001-0004 (GRS 4.3, item 020).”

    Do I have to take any action to implement these GRS changes?

    NARA regulations (36 CFR 1226.12(a)) require agencies to disseminate GRS changes within six months of receipt.

    Per 36 CFR 1227.12(a)(1), you must follow GRS dispositions that state they must be followed without exception.

    Per 36 CFR 1227.12(a)(3), if you have an existing schedule that differs from a new GRS item that does not require being followed without exception, and you wish to continue using your agency-specific authority rather than the GRS authority, you must notify NARA within 120 days of the date of this transmittal.

    If you do not have an already existing agency-specific authority but wish to apply a retention period that differs from that specified in the GRS, you must create a records schedule in the Electronic Records Archives and submit it to NARA for approval.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21361 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities: Meeting #72 AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the 72nd meeting of the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (PCAH) will tentatively be held at the Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20540. Please contact PCAH for specific location information. Ending time is approximate.

    DATES:

    September 23, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anjali Lalani of the President's Committee at (202) 682-5409 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting, on Friday, September 23rd, will begin with welcome and remarks from the co-chairs. This will be followed by updates on Committee programs (National Arts and Humanities Youth Program Awards, Turnaround Arts, National Student Poets Program, and Cultural Diplomacy). There also will be reports from the President's Committee partners and ex officio members, such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), National Gallery of Art, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of State. The meeting will adjourn after closing remarks.

    The President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities was created by Executive Order in 1982, which currently states that the “Committee shall advise, provide recommendations to, and assist the President, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services on matters relating to the arts and the humanities.”

    Any interested persons may attend as observers, on a space available basis, but seating is limited. Therefore, for this meeting, individuals wishing to attend are advised to contact Anjali Lalani of the President's Committee seven (7) days in advance of the meeting at (202) 682-5409 or write to the Committee at Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506. Further information with reference to this meeting can also be obtained from Ms. Lalani at [email protected]

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506, (202) 682-5532, TDY-TDD (202) 682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: September 1, 2016. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21437 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400 will hold a meeting on September 21-22, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016-8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 22, 2016-8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the APR 1400 Safety Evaluation Reports with open items—Chapters 2 (site) and 5 (reactor coolant system). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015, (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: August 30, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21435 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Diverse Actuation System Cabinet Changes AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Exemption and combined license amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an exemption to allow a departure from the certification information of Tier 1 of the generic design control document (DCD) and is issuing License Amendment No. 50 to Combined Licenses (COLs), NPF-91 and NPF-92. The COLs were issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC, MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC, MEAG Power SPVP, LLC, Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee); for construction and operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, located in Burke County, Georgia.

    The granting of the exemption allows the changes to Tier 1 information asked for in the amendment. Because the acceptability of the exemption was determined in part by the acceptability of the amendment, the exemption and amendment are being issued concurrently.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. The request for the amendment and exemption was submitted by letter dated October 15, 2015, and available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15288A549.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2809; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    The NRC is granting an exemption from paragraph B of section III, “Scope and Contents,” of appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000,” to part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), and issuing License Amendment No. 50 to COLs, NPF-91 and NPF-92, to the licensee. The exemption is required by Paragraph A.4 of Section VIII, “Processes for Changes and Departures,” appendix D, to 10 CFR part 52 to allow the licensee to depart from Tier 1 information. With the requested amendment, the licensee sought proposed changes that would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific DCD Tier 2 information. The proposed amendment also involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL Appendix C information. Specifically, the licensee requested reconfiguration and relocation of the diverse actuation system cabinets. Part of the justification for granting the exemption was provided by the review of the amendment. Because the exemption is necessary in order to issue the requested license amendment, the NRC granted the exemption and issued the amendment concurrently, rather than in sequence. This included issuing a combined safety evaluation containing the NRC staff's review of both the exemption request and the license amendment. The exemption met all applicable regulatory criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and Section VIII.A.4 of appendix D to 10 CFR part 52. The license amendment was found to be acceptable as well. The combined safety evaluation is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A438.

    Identical exemption documents (except for referenced unit numbers and license numbers) were issued to the licensee for VEGP Units 3 and 4 (COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92). The exemption documents for VEGP Units 3 and 4 can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16103A412 and ML16103A419, respectively. The exemption is reproduced (with the exception of abbreviated titles and additional citations) in Section II of this document. The amendment documents for COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92 are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16103A407 and ML16103A410, respectively. A summary of the amendment documents is provided in Section III of this document.

    II. Exemption

    Reproduced below is the exemption document issued to VEGP Units 3 and Unit 4. It makes reference to the combined safety evaluation that provides the reasoning for the findings made by the NRC (and listed under Item 1) in order to grant the exemption:

    1. In a letter dated October 15, 2015, the licensee requested from the Commission an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, Section III.B, as part of license amendment request 15-005, “Diverse Actuation System (DAS) Cabinet Changes (LAR 15-005).”

    For the reasons set forth in Section 3.1, “Evaluation of Exemption,” of the NRC staff's safety evaluation, which can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16103A438, the Commission finds that:

    A. The exemption is authorized by law;

    B. the exemption presents no undue risk to public health and safety;

    C. the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security;

    D. special circumstances are present in that the application of the rule in this circumstance is not necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule;

    E. the special circumstances outweigh any decrease in safety that may result from the reduction in standardization caused by the exemption; and the exemption will not result in a significant decrease in the level of safety otherwise provided by the design.

    2. Accordingly, the licensee is granted an exemption from the certified DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to Appendix C of the Facility COLs as described in the licensee's request dated October 15, 2015. This exemption is related to, and necessary for, the granting of License Amendment No. 50, which is being issued concurrently with this exemption.

    3. As explained in Section 5.0, “Environmental Consideration,” of the NRC staff's safety evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. ML16103A438), this exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.

    4. This exemption is effective as of the date of its issuance.

    III. License Amendment Request

    By letter dated October 15, 2015, the licensee requested that the NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units 3 and 4, COLs NPF-91 and NPF-92. The proposed amendment is described in Section I of this Federal Register notice.

    The Commission has determined for these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or COL, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65807). No comments were received during the 30-day comment period.

    The Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments.

    IV. Conclusion

    Using the reasons set forth in the combined safety evaluation, the staff granted the exemption and issued the amendment that the licensee requested on October 15, 2015. The exemption and amendment were issued on April 12, 2016 as part of a combined package to the licensee (ADAMS Accession No. ML16103A382).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Jennifer Dixon-Herrity, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21438 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on

    Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors (ESBWR); Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on ESBWR will hold a meeting on September 22, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Thursday, September 22, 2016—1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the North Anna Unit 3 Combined License Application (COLA). The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Detroit Edison, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Girija Shukla (Telephone 301-415-6855 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21436 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 500-1] In the Matter of Preston Royalty Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading September 2, 2016.

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Preston Corp. (a/k/a Preston Royalty Corp.) (CIK No. 0001594219) because of questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of available information about Preston Corp. in light of a false statement about the permitting status of a mine in the company's August 10, 2016 press release and questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of clarifications Preston Corp. provided in a September 1, 2016, press release about the mining project. Preston Corp. is a Nevada corporation whose principal place of business is located in Austin, Texas. Its stock is quoted on OTC Link (previously “Pink Sheets”) operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the ticker symbol PSNP.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.

    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on September 2, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 16, 2016.

    By the Commission.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21584 Filed 9-2-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78740; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-88] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Prior Rule Change, SR-PHLX-2016-38 August 31, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend prior rule change, SR-Phlx-2016-38,3 which inadvertently contained the incorrect Exhibit 3.

    3See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 77475 (Match 30, 2016), 81 FR 19664 (April 5, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-36) [sic].

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend the previously submitted filing SR-Phlx-2016-38, which contained an incorrect version of the Exchange's membership application as Exhibit 3. This rule filing seeks to provide the current membership application in Exhibit 3(a) which became operative on July 1, 2016.

    Following the filing of SR-PHLX-2016-38 the Exchange continued to use the “legacy” membership application though June 30, 2016 which is contained in Exhibit 3, however, the Exchange did not receive any membership applications. The membership application which is contained in Exhibit 3(a) and was filed on May 2 [sic], 2016 as part of SR-PHLX-2016-38 is a new consolidated membership form which is applicable to The Nasdaq Stock Market, Nasdaq BX, and Nasdaq PHLX which went into effect following the effectiveness of Rule 921(b) and does not require the Executive Representative of a PHLX member firm to provide evidence of their designation as the Executive Representative.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,5 in particular, in that it is designed to protect investors and the public interest by streamlining various aspects of the membership process. The filing of the updated membership form will promote just and equitable principles of trade, and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by eliminating confusion among forms.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 6 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.7

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii) [sic].

    7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2016-88 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-88. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission 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/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 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. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-88 and should be submitted on or before September 28, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.8

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.

    8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    [FR Doc. 2016-21379 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 32248; 812-14572] Voya ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of Application August 30, 2016. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.

    APPLICANTS:

    Voya ETF Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust that will be registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company; Voya Investments, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, and Directed Services LLC, a Delaware a limited liability company (together the “Initial Advisers” and individually, each an “Initial Adviser”), each registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; and Voya Investments Distributor, LLC (“Distributor”), an Arizona limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

    DATES:

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 27, 2015, and amended on April 7, 2016.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 26, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 7337 East Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite 100, Scottsdale, Arizona 85258.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6826, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).1 Fund shares will be purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units only. All orders to purchase Creation Units and all redemption requests will be placed by or through an “Authorized Participant”, which will have signed a participant agreement with the Distributor. Shares will be listed and traded individually on a national securities exchange, where share prices will be based on the current bid/offer market. Certain Funds may operate as Feeder Funds in a master-feeder structure. Any order granting the requested relief would be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.

    1 Applicants request that the order apply to the initial series of the Trust and any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or series thereof, that may be created in the future (each, included in the term “Fund”), each of which will operate as an ETF and will track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”). Any Fund will (a) be advised by an Initial Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with an Initial Adviser (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application.

    2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.2

    2 Each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site the identities and quantities of the investment positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to maintain full portfolio transparency will help address, together with other protections, conflicts of interest with respect to such Funds.

    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.

    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.

    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.

    6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.

    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.3 The purchase of Creation Units by a Fund of Funds directly from a Fund will be accomplished in accordance with the policies of the Fund of Funds and will be based on the NAVs of the Funds.

    3 The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of Funds and redemptions of those shares. Applicants, moreover, are not seeking relief from section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will not apply to, transactions where a Fund could be deemed an Affiliated Person, or a Second-Tier Affiliate, of a Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser provides investment advisory services to that Fund of Funds.

    9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).

    10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21248 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78743; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 6.67(c) by Revising the Clearing Member Requirements for Entering an Order into the Electronic Order Capture System August 31, 2016.

    On March 22, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend Rule 6.67(c) to change the timing for recording the name of the Clearing Member 3 in the Electronic Order Capture system (“EOC”). On March 29, 2016,4 the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission published the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, for comment in the Federal Register on Apri