Federal Register Vol. 81, No.177,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 177 (September 13, 2016)

Page Range62809-63049
FR Document

81_FR_177
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 62863 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 62923 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 62886 - Clearing Target of 114 Megahertz Set for Stage 2 of the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction; Stage 2 Bidding in the Reverse Auction Will Start on September 13, 2016PDF
81 FR 62889 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62944 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 62867 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 62864 - Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances ReviewPDF
81 FR 62865 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 62870 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
81 FR 62874 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 62871 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
81 FR 62926 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 62876 - Advisory Committee and Species Working Group Technical Advisor AppointmentPDF
81 FR 62876 - Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; Fall MeetingPDF
81 FR 62884 - Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board: Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review PanelPDF
81 FR 62883 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Confidentiality RulesPDF
81 FR 62967 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Abandonment Exemption-in Kalamazoo, Mich.; and Grand Elk Railroad, L.L.C.-Discontinuance Exemption-in Kalamazoo, Mich.PDF
81 FR 62889 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62854 - Inviting Applications for the Delta Health Care Services Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 62924 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Astrophysics Subcommittee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 62966 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on the Extension of the Cape Town Convention to Agricultural, Construction, and Mining EquipmentPDF
81 FR 62966 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Electronic CommercePDF
81 FR 62970 - BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 62878 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 62877 - Advisory Board of the National Technical Information ServicePDF
81 FR 62921 - Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the U.S.-Morocco FTA Rules of OriginPDF
81 FR 62920 - Certain Athletic Footwear; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 62910 - Use of Nucleic Acid Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 62968 - Notice of Intent To Rule on Request for a Land Release of a 6.1 Acre Non-Contiguous Airport Owned Parcel Near the Long Island Macarthur Airport, New York. The Parcel Is Located at 1612 Coates Avenue, Holbrook, New YorkPDF
81 FR 62968 - Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 62977 - Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62908 - Qualification of Biomarker-Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 62811 - Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters To Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 62881 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 62880 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 62972 - Hazardous Materials: International Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (SSR-6); Draft Revision Available for CommentPDF
81 FR 62977 - Reasonable Charges for Inpatient MS-DRGs and SNF Medical Services; v3.19, Fiscal Year 2017 UpdatePDF
81 FR 62935 - Service Level I, II, III, and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
81 FR 62925 - Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62826 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid)PDF
81 FR 62904 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 62975 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 62922 - Invitation for Membership on Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 62974 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 62976 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 62975 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 62975 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
81 FR 62975 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
81 FR 62976 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 62968 - Twenty Fourth Meeting of SC-222 AMS(R)SPDF
81 FR 62925 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 62833 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
81 FR 62880 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Disclosure TemplatePDF
81 FR 62969 - Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations at Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, Los Angeles County, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 62847 - Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2603; Fort Carson, COPDF
81 FR 62967 - Notice of Release From Federal Grant Assurance Obligations at Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 62877 - Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 62854 - Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 62918 - Receipt of Application for Renewal of Incidental Take Permit for Morro Shoulderband Snail; Kellaway Habitat Conservation Plan; Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 62917 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 62976 - Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62879 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test RecruitmentPDF
81 FR 62907 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations-Airline and Traveler Information Collection: Domestic Manifests and the Passenger Locator Form; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 62907 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 62882 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
81 FR 62881 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 62919 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Acquisition of Trust LandPDF
81 FR 62923 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; ETA Quick Turnaround SurveysPDF
81 FR 62973 - Advisory Board; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 62937 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Section 907.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Adjust the Timing of Entitlements to Complimentary Products and Services for Special Purpose Acquisition CompaniesPDF
81 FR 62942 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 62939 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 903 and Rule 900.2NY(50)PDF
81 FR 62944 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.1(b)(41) and Rule 6.4PDF
81 FR 62963 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Clearing Agency Investment PolicyPDF
81 FR 62947 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30 To Require Disclosure of Mark-Ups and Mark-Downs to Retail Customers on Certain Principal Transactions and To Provide Guidance on Prevailing Market PricePDF
81 FR 62875 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 62916 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 62915 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 62913 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 62919 - Certain Quartz Slabs and Portions Thereof (II); Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 62904 - ON Semiconductor Corporation; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
81 FR 62906 - World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory MeetingPDF
81 FR 62863 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee To Discuss Project Concepts in Preparation To Select the Committee's Next Topic of Civil Rights StudyPDF
81 FR 62912 - Office of the Director Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 62917 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62914 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62914 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62912 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62914 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 62915 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 62885 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments RequestPDF
81 FR 62864 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 62911 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Healthy Start Evaluation and Quality ImprovementPDF
81 FR 62817 - Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramPDF
81 FR 62849 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
81 FR 62835 - Receiverships for Uninsured National BanksPDF
81 FR 62809 - National Dairy Promotion and Research ProgramPDF
81 FR 62850 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization ProgramPDF
81 FR 62937 - 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan; Notice of Availability and Request for Public CommentPDF
81 FR 62973 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Real Estate Lending and AppraisalsPDF
81 FR 62810 - Modification of Class D Airspace; Peru, INPDF
81 FR 62845 - Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLCPDF
81 FR 62818 - Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling ServicesPDF
81 FR 62980 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration SystemsPDF
81 FR 62969 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Action on I-35 Improvements From Rundberg Lane to US 290 East in Austin, Travis County, TexasPDF
81 FR 62813 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone, 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Lead NAAQSPDF
81 FR 62812 - Adjustment of Cable Statutory License Royalty RatesPDF

Issue

81 177 Tuesday, September 13, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES National Dairy Promotion and Research Program, 62809-62810 2016-21841 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62907-62908 2016-21922 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Airline and Traveler Information Collection; Domestic Manifests and Passenger Locator Form; Correction, 62907 2016-21923 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62863 2016-22122 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Minnesota Advisory Committee, 62863 2016-21900 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Technical Information Service

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Receiverships for Uninsured National Banks, 62835-62845 2016-21846 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Real Estate Lending and Appraisal, 62973-62974 2016-21741 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board RULES Adjustment of Cable Statutory License Royalty Rates, 62812-62813 2016-20529 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Government-Industry Advisory Panel, 62878-62879 2016-21977 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 62864 2016-21891 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Gainful Employment Disclosure Template, 62880 2016-21940 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Pilot Test Recruitment, 62879-62880 2016-21925 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ETA Quick Turnaround Surveys, 62923-62924 2016-21916 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Cooler and Freezer Refrigeration Systems, 62980-63049 2016-21583 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62880-62881 2016-21961
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62881 2016-21962 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Puerto Rico; Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 and 2008 Ozone, 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Lead NAAQS, 62813-62817 2016-21326 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, 62849-62850 2016-21872 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Confidentiality Rules, 62883-62884 2016-21988 Meetings: Science Advisory Board Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel; Teleconferences, 62884-62885 2016-21989 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62885-62886 2016-21892 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Extension of Requirement for Helicopters to Use New York North Shore Helicopter Route: Technical Amendment, 62811-62812 2016-21963 Modification of Class D Airspace: Peru, IN, 62810-62811 2016-21709 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: M7 Aerospace LLC, 62845-62847 2016-21704 Establishment of Restricted Areas: R-2603, Fort Carson, CO, 62847-62848 2016-21938 NOTICES Meetings: Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, 62968 2016-21967 SC-222 AMS(R)S, 62968 2016-21943 Releases of Airport Properties: Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, Los Angeles County, CA, 62969 2016-21939 Long Island MacArthur Airport, NY, 62968-62969 2016-21968 Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County, AZ, 62967-62968 2016-21936 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 62818-62826 2016-21637 NOTICES Clearing Target of 114 Megahertz Set for Stage 2 of the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction: Stage 2 Bidding in Reverse Auction Will Start on September 13, 2016, 62886-62888 2016-22105 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62889 2016-22039 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 62881-62882 2016-21919 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 62882-62883 2016-21920 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions: I-35 Improvements from Rundberg Lane to US 290 East in Austin, Travis County, TX, 62969-62970 2016-21406 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62889-62904 2016-21983 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 62904 2016-21953 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: ON Semiconductor Corp.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 62904-62906 2016-21902 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid), 62826-62833 2016-21954 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Permit Applications, 62917-62918 2016-21929 Incidental Take Permit Applications: Morro Shoulderband Snail, Kellaway Habitat Conservation Plan, Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 62918-62919 2016-21930 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 62908-62909 2016-21964 Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products, 62910-62911 2016-21969 Foreign Claims Foreign Claims Settlement Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62923 2016-22112 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee, 62854 2016-21932 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: World War One Centennial Commission, 62906-62907 2016-21901 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

RULES Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 62817-62818 2016-21888
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Healthy Start Evaluation and Quality Improvement, 62911-62912 2016-21889 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Acquisition of Trust Land, 62919 2016-21917 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 62975-62976 2016-21945 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 62976 2016-21948 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 62975 2016-21946 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 62975 2016-21951 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 62974-62975 2016-21949 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 62976 2016-21944 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 62975 2016-21947 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from People's Republic of China, 62871-62874 2016-21999 Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from People's Republic of China, 62870-62871 2016-22001 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 62867-62870 2016-22008 Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Republic of Turkey, 62865-62867 2016-22003 Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Republic of Turkey, 62874-62875 2016-22000 Pasta from Italy, 62864-62865 2016-22007 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Athletic Footwear, 62920-62921 2016-21971 Certain Quartz Slabs and Portions Thereof, 62919-62920 2016-21903 Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to U.S.-Morocco FTA Rules of Origin, 62921-62922 2016-21974 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, 62922-62923 2016-21950 Justice Department Justice Department See

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Astrophysics Subcommittee, 62924-62925 2016-21981 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 62925 2016-21942 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: BMW of North America, LLC, 62970-62972 2016-21978 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Charter Renewals: Fogarty International Center Advisory Board, 62912 2016-21899 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 62913-62916 2016-21904 2016-21905 2016-21906 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 62915 2016-21893 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 62914-62915 2016-21894 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 62912-62913 2016-21895 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 62914 2016-21896 National Institute of Mental Health, 62914 2016-21897 National Library of Medicine, 62917 2016-21898 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Exchange of Flatfish in Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 62833-62834 2016-21941 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 62850-62853 2016-21824 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee to U.S. Section of International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 62876 2016-21992 New England Fishery Management Council, 62875-62876 2016-21907 Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council, 62877 2016-21933 Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee and Species Working Group Technical Advisor, 62876-62877 2016-21995 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Geosciences, 62925-62926 2016-21955 National Technical National Technical Information Service NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board, 62877-62878 2016-21976 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Draft Regulatory Guides: Service Level I, II, III, and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants, 62935-62937 2016-21956 Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 62926-62935 2016-21998 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Hazardous Materials: International Regulations for Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 62972-62973 2016-21960 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Applications: Delta Health Care Services Grant Program, 62854-62862 2016-21982 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. Advisory Board, 62973 2016-21915 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, 62937 2016-21796 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 62944 2016-22035 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Depository Trust Co., 62963-62965 2016-21910 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 62942-62944 2016-21913 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 62947-62963 2016-21909 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 62937-62939 2016-21914 NYSE Arca, Inc., 62944-62947 2016-21911 NYSE MKT, LLC, 62939-62942 2016-21912 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Private International Law, 62966 2016-21979 Advisory Committee on Private International Law; Extension of Cape Town Convention to Agricultural, Construction, and Mining Equipment, 62966-62967 2016-21980 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment and Discontinuance Exemptions: Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Kalamazoo, MI; Grand Elk Railroad, LLC, Kalamazoo, MI, 62967 2016-21986 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs, 62977 2016-21965 Advisory Committee on Readjustment of Veterans, 62976-62977 2016-21926 Reasonable Charges for Inpatient Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups and Skilled Nursing Facility Medical Services: Fiscal Year 2017 Update, 62977-62978 2016-21959 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 62980-63049 2016-21583 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.

81 177 Tuesday, September 13, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1150 [Document No. AMS-DA-15-0068] National Dairy Promotion and Research Program AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Announcement of finding.

SUMMARY:

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) hereby gives notice that no changes will be made to the current distribution of domestic National Dairy Promotion and Research Board (Dairy Board) members in 12 regions as outlined in Section 1150.131(b) of the Dairy Research and Promotion Order (Dairy Order). The Dairy Order provides that the Dairy Board shall review the geographic distribution of milk production throughout the United States (U.S.) and, if warranted, shall recommend to the Secretary a reapportionment of the regions and/or modification of the number of domestic members from the regions in order to better reflect the geographic distribution of milk production volumes in the U.S. The number of domestic Dairy Board members was last modified in 2011 based on 2010 U.S. milk production.

DATES:

Effective date: September 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jill Hoover, Deputy Director, Promotion, Research, and Planning Division, Dairy Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2958-S, Stop 0233, Washington, DC 20250-0233. Phone: (202) 720-6909. Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 authorizes a national program for dairy product promotion, research and nutrition education. Congress found that it is in the public interest to authorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing (through assessments on all milk produced in the U.S. for commercial use and on imported dairy products) and carrying out a coordinated program of promotion designed to strengthen the dairy industry's position in the marketplace and to maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for fluid milk and dairy products.

Section 1150.131 of the Dairy Order (7 CFR 1150.131) provides that the Dairy Board shall review the geographic distribution of milk production throughout the U.S. and, if warranted, shall recommend to the Secretary a reapportionment of the regions and/or modification of the number of members from the regions in order to better reflect the geographic distribution of milk production volume in the U.S. The Dairy Order is administered by a 37-member Dairy Board, 36 members representing 12 geographic regions within the U.S. and 1 representing importers. The number of domestic Dairy Board members was last modified in 2011 based on 2010 U.S. milk production.

Based on a review of the 2014 geographic distribution of milk production, the Dairy Board has concluded that the number of Dairy Board members and regions represented should be maintained. This finding was submitted by the Dairy Board, which administers the Dairy Order.

In 2014, total milk production was 206,586 million pounds and each of the Dairy Board members would represent 5,738.5 million pounds of milk. Table 1 summarizes by region, the volume of milk production distribution for 2014, the percentage of total milk production, and the regions and number of Dairy Board seats for each region.

Table 1—Regions and Number of Board Seats Regions and states Milk
  • production
  • (mil. lbs.)
  • Percentage
  • of total milk
  • production
  • Current
  • number of board seats
  • 1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington 9,142.5 4.4 2 2. California, Hawaii 42,366.9 20.5 7 3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming 11,594.5 5.6 2 4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 22,319 10.8 4 5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota 11,560 5.6 2 6. Wisconsin 27,795 13.5 5 7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska 9,074 4.4 2 8. Idaho 13,873 6.7 2 9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia 19,066 9.2 3 10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia 9,986.9 4.8 2 11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 11,893.7 5.8 2 12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont 17,914.1 8.7 3 Total 206,586 100 36 * Milk Production, Disposition, and Income, 2014 Summary, NASS, 2015. ** Puerto Rico—2012 Census of Agriculture, Puerto Rico, Island and Municipio Data, NASS, 2014.

    As described in this Federal Register document, the current distribution of domestic Dairy Board members in 12 regions, as outlined in Section 1150.131(b) of the Dairy Order, will be maintained.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Dana Coale, Associate Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21841 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6006; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-3] Modification of Class D Airspace; Peru, IN AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action modifies Class D airspace at Grissom Army Reserve Base (ARB), IN, to allow for a lower Circling Minimum Descent Altitude, where Instrument Flight Rules Category E circling procedures are being used. This action increases the area of the existing controlled airspace for Grissom ARB, IN. Additionally, this action will add Peru, Grissom ARB, IN to the subtitle of the airspace designation.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    History

    On June 6, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D Airspace to allow for a lower Circling Minimum Descent Altitude at Grissom Air Reserve Base (ARB), IN (81 FR 36214) FAA-2016-6006. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document modifies FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action modifies Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace at Grissom ARB, IN, to within a 5.8-mile radius of the airport. This increase will allow for a lower Circling Minimum Descent Altitude, where Instrument Flight Rules Category E circling procedures are being used. Also, this action adds Peru, Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN, to the subtitle of the airspace designation. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AGL IN D Grissom ARB, IN [Amended] Peru, Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN (Lat. 40°38′53″ N., long. 086°09′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 5.8 mile radius of Grissom ARB. This Class D airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 30, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21709 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. FAA-2010-0302; Amdt. No. 93-101] RIN 2120-AK84 Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters To Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FAA is correcting an error, whereby the applicability of a regulation was extended instead of its effectivity. Consequently, a section of the pertinent regulation was relocated in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations and all remaining provisions of the regulation inadvertently expired. However, the entire regulation was intended to be extended for four years in the final rule published on July 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 2016-17427, 81 FR 48323), which became effective on August 7, 2016.

    DATES:

    This action becomes effective on September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questi ons concerning this action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace and Rules Team, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3396; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

    Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the final rule.

    This document is correcting an error that is in 14 CFR part 93. This correction will not impose any additional restrictions on the persons affected by these regulations. Furthermore, any additional delay in making the regulations correct would be contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) public comment on these standards prior to promulgation is unnecessary, and (ii) good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days and upon its publication in the Federal Register.

    Background

    On July 25, 2016, the FAA published a final rule extending the requirement an additional four years for pilots operating civil helicopters under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route when operating along the north shore of Long Island, New York. The final rule extended the expiration date of the applicability, rather than the effectivity, to August 6, 2020. Consequently, that error in the final rule resulted in the inadvertent removal of Subpart H of part 93 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This final rule corrects that error and reinstates the provisions of Subpart H, extending those provisions to August 6, 2020.

    Technical Amendment

    This technical amendment will correct the current error of § 93.101 being moved to Subpart G, § 93.103 expiring, and Subpart H being reserved. Because this action results in no further substantive change to 14 CFR part 93, we find good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this technical amendment effective in less than 30 days and upon its publication in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airspace, Navigation (air).

    The Amendment

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

    PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.

    2. Add subpart H consisting of § 93.103 to read as follows: Subpart H—Mandatory Use of the New York North Shore Helicopter Route
    § 93.103 Helicopter operations.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized, each person piloting a helicopter along Long Island, New York's northern shoreline between the VPLYD waypoint and Orient Point, shall utilize the North Shore Helicopter route and altitude, as published.

    (b) Pilots may deviate from the route and altitude requirements of paragraph (a) of this section when necessary for safety, weather conditions or transitioning to or from a destination or point of landing.

    § 93.101 [Transferred to Subpart H]
    3. Transfer § 93.101 from subpart G to subpart H. Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703, in Washington, DC, on September 7, 2016. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21963 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 387 [Docket No. 15-CRB-0010-CA] Adjustment of Cable Statutory License Royalty Rates AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 26, 2016, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published for comment proposed regulations governing royalty rates and terms for the distant retransmission of over-the-air television and radio broadcast stations by cable television systems to their subscribers. The participants in the proceeding concluded their negotiations and asked for readoption of the cable rate regulations without change. The Judges accepted the negotiated settlement and did not propose any substantive changes to the participants' proposed rates and terms. However, the Judges' proposed regulations updated terms, moved the rules to the chapter of the CFR that includes other applicable rules of the Copyright Royalty Board, and proposed certain other non-substantive changes to make the rules easier to read. The Judges received comments from the Phase I parties on the proposed changes and finding the suggested revisions therein clarified the rule, accepted all of the proposed changes.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 13, 2016.

    Applicability date: January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final rule is also posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 26, 2016, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published for comment in the Federal Register proposed regulations governing royalty rates and terms for the distant retransmission of over-the-air television and radio broadcast stations by cable television systems to their subscribers for the period 2015-2019. See 81 FR 24523. The proposal was the result of a settlement between the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the American Cable Association, and a group referring to itself as the “Phase I Parties.” 1 The settlement proposed that the extant rates, terms, and gross receipts limitations remain unchanged through 2019. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B) and 37 CFR 256.2(c)-(d). The notice included a request for comments from interested parties as required by 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A).

    1 The “Phase I Parties” are the Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Public Television Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, Music Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, National Public Radio, and Devotional Claimants.

    The Judges received the following comments on the substance of the proposal from the Phase I Parties:

    Proposed § 387.1, second sentence. The proposed language “. . . a cable system entity may engage in the activities set forth in 17 U.S.C. 111” appears to be vague and overly broad as compared to the scope of the Section 111 statutory license that is limited to “secondary transmissions to the public by a cable system of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a broadcast station” under certain conditions that are set forth in 17 U.S.C. 111(c). Accordingly, the Phase I Parties suggest the above-quoted language of proposed § 387.1 be changed to “. . . a cable system shall be subject to a statutory license authorizing secondary transmissions of broadcast signals to the extent provided in 17 U.S.C. 111.”

    Proposed § 387.2(a). The proposed language, “the royalty fee rates for secondary transmission by cable systems are those established by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B)(i)-(iv), as amended,” is potentially ambiguous in light of the express limitation at the beginning of Section 111(d)(1)(B) that: “Except in the case of a cable system whose royalty fee is specified by subparagraph (E) or (F).” This limitation means that the royalty rates in subsections (i)-(iv) of Section 111(d)(1)(B) apply to only one class of cable systems—those with semi-annual gross receipts of $527,600 or more (commonly known as “Form 3 systems”)—not to all “cable systems” as the general reference in proposed § 387.2(a) now suggests. Accordingly, the Phase I Parties suggest that the above-quoted language of proposed § 387.2(a) be modified to incorporate the statutory limitation, perhaps by revising the language to state “. . . by cable systems not subject to § 387.2(b) of these regulations . . . ”

    Proposed § 387.2(b). The use of “alternate tiered rates” in the title and body of this section is potentially confusing because these rates are not “alternate” rates that might apply to any cable system, but a separate set of rates, established by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(E) and (F), that apply to cable systems with less than $527,600 in semi-annual gross receipts (commonly known as “Form 1/2 systems”). In addition, use of the phrase, “tiered rates,” could cause some confusion because monthly subscriber fees for cable service are almost universally based on “tiered” bundles of programming services and rates. Accordingly, the Phase I Parties suggest that the title of proposed § 387.2(b) be changed to “Rates for Certain Classes of Cable Systems,” and the words “alternate tiered” be deleted from the text of the regulation.

    Proposed § 387.2(e). The language, “Computation of royalty fess shall be governed by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(C),” is potentially confusing because it might be read to suggest that any and all aspects of the royalty fee computation can be determined by reference to Section 111(d)(1)(C). While that paragraph identifies the computation to be used in some specific situations that might apply to some Form 3 systems, it does not address how some other key components (e.g., gross receipts and distant signal equivalent values) of the royalty fee calculation are determined, or how the 3.75 percent rate and syndicated exclusivity surcharge are computer. Accordingly the Phase I Parties suggest that either § 387.2(e) be deleted in its entirety or it be rewritten to state: “Computation of royalty fees shall be governed by 17 U.S.C. 111(d) and 111(f), and 37 CFR 201.17.”

    Comments of the Phase I Parties on Proposed Rule at 1-3 (May 17, 2016).

    In addition to seeking comments on the proposed settlement, the Judges also solicited comments on the Judges' proposed relocation of the regulations to 37 CFR part 387, which includes other applicable rules of the Copyright Royalty Board. The Judges likewise solicited comments on certain non-substantive changes to the regulations to make them easier to read. The Judges received no comments on the editorial proposals.

    The Judges' authority to adopt proposed settlements as statutory rates and terms is codified in Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act. That provision of the Act authorizes the Judges to adopt as a basis for statutory terms and rates an agreement concerning such matters reached among “some or all of the participants” in a proceeding “at any time during the proceeding” except that the Judges must provide an opportunity to comment on the agreement to those that would be bound by the agreement. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). In light of the statutory requirements regarding adoption of settlements and the absence of any opposition to the proposed settlement, the Judges find that the proposed settlement (along with the revisions proposed by the settling parties in their comments), which leaves the current rates and terms unchanged and adjusts the regulatory language to improve clarity and precision, provides a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms and rates and, therefore, the Judges adopt the settlement as proposed as well as the improved language.

    Moreover, the Judges believe that the proposed change to the placement of the extant regulations (i.e., relocating them to 37 CFR part 387) and the non-substantive changes to the regulations are reasonable and appropriate measures to consolidate related CRB regulations and to make those regulations more comprehensible. Therefore, the Judges adopt the regulations as proposed.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 387

    Cable television, Copyright, Royalties.

    Final Regulations In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Royalty Judges amend 37 CFR chapter III by adding part 387 to read as follows: PART 387—ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY FEE FOR CABLE COMPULSORY LICENSE Sec. 387.1 General. 387.2 Royalty fee for compulsory license for secondary transmission by cable systems. Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2), 803(b)(6).

    § 387.1 General.

    This part establishes adjusted terms and rates for royalty payments in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 111 and 801(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D). Upon compliance with 17 U.S.C. 111 and the terms and rates of this part, a cable system shall be subject to a statutory license authorizing secondary transmissions of broadcast signals to the extent provided in 17 U.S.C. 111.

    § 387.2 Royalty fee for compulsory license for secondary transmission by cable systems.

    (a) Royalty fee rates. Commencing with the first semiannual accounting period of 2015 and for each semiannual accounting period thereafter, the royalty fee rates for secondary transmission by cable systems not subject to paragraph (b) of this section are those established by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B)(i)-(iv), as amended.

    (b) Rates for certain classes of cable systems. Commencing with the first semiannual accounting period of 2015 and for each semiannual accounting period thereafter, the alternate tiered royalty fee rates for cable systems with certain levels of gross receipts as described in 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(E) and (F), are those described therein.

    (c) 3.75 percent rate. Commencing with the first semiannual accounting period of 2015, and for each semiannual accounting period thereafter, and notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section, for each distant signal equivalent or fraction thereof not represented by the carriage of:

    (1) Any signal that was permitted (or, in the case of cable systems commencing operations after June 24, 1981, that would have been permitted) under the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on June 24, 1981 (former 47 CFR 76.1 through 76.617 (1980)); or

    (2) A signal of the same type (that is, independent, network, or non-commercial educational) substituted for such permitted signal; or

    (3) A signal that was carried pursuant to an individual waiver of (former 47 CFR 76.1 through 76.617 (1980)); in lieu of the royalty rates specified in paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section, the royalty rate shall be 3.75 percent of the gross receipts of the cable system for each distant signal equivalent. Any fraction of a distant signal equivalent shall be computed at its fractional value.

    (d) Syndicated exclusivity surcharge. Commencing with the first semiannual accounting period of 2015 and for each semiannual accounting period thereafter, in the case of a cable system located outside the 35-mile specified zone of a commercial VHF station that places a predicted Grade B contour, in whole or in part, over the cable system, and that is not significantly viewed or otherwise exempt from the FCC's syndicated exclusivity rules in effect on June 24, 1981 (former 47 CFR 76.151 through 76.617 (1980)), for each distant signal equivalent or fraction thereof represented by the carriage of such commercial VHF station, the royalty rate shall be, in addition to the amount specified in paragraph (a) of this section:

    (1) For cable systems located wholly or in part within a top 50 television market:

    (i) 0.599 percent of such gross receipts for the first distant signal equivalent;

    (ii) 0.377 percent of such gross receipts for each of the second, third, and fourth distant signal equivalents; and

    (iii) 0.178 percent of such gross receipts for the fifth distant signal equivalent and each additional distant signal equivalent thereafter;

    (2) For cable systems located wholly or in part within a second 50 television market:

    (i) 0.300 percent of such gross receipts for the first distant signal equivalent;

    (ii) 0.189 percent of such gross receipts for each of the second, third, and fourth distant signal equivalents; and

    (iii) 0.089 percent of such gross receipts for the fifth distant signal equivalent and each additional distant signal equivalent thereafter;

    (3) For purposes of this section “first 50 major television markets” and “second 50 major television markets” shall be defined as those terms are defined or interpreted in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission rule “Major television markets” in effect on June 24, 1981 (47 CFR 76.51 (1980)).

    (e) Computation of rates. Computation of royalty fees shall be governed by 17 U.S.C. 111(d) and 111(f) and 37 CFR 201.17.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.

    Approved:

    David S. Mao, Acting Librarian of Congress.
    [FR Doc. 2016-20529 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060; FRL-9945-84-Region 2] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone, 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Lead NAAQS AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most elements of the five State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittals from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP is required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited to: Regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure requirements. In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the infrastructure SIP submissions with the exception of some portions of the submittals addressing Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3716, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

    Table of Contents I. What is the background information? II. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal? III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is the background information?

    On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standards) for ozone (62 FR 38856) and a new NAAQS for fine particle matter (PM2.5) (62 FR 38652). The revised ozone NAAQS was based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The new PM2.5 NAAQS established a health-based annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), effective December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3. As required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, the 110(a)(2) submittals were due within three years after promulgation of the revised standard.

    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436) EPA strengthened its NAAQS for ground-level ozone, revising the 8-hour primary ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. EPA also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard.

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for lead. The Agency revised the level of the primary lead standard from 1.5 μg/m3 to 0.15 μg/m3. The EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m3 and made it identical to the revised primary standard.

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

    EPA is acting on five SIP revision submittals from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS. On November 29, 2006, PREQB submitted SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 22, 2013, PREQB submitted SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. On January 31, 2013, PREQB submitted SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. On April 16, 2015, PREQB supplemented the January 22, 2013 submittal for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 1, 2016, PREQB submitted additional provisions for inclusion into the SIP which address infrastructure SIP requirements for 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS. Each of the infrastructure SIP submittals addressed the following infrastructure elements for the applicable NAAQS which EPA is approving pursuant to section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), portions of (C), portions of (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), portions of (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS.

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

    In response to EPA's proposed approval of Puerto Rico's SIP revision, a comment was received from one interested party. The comment and EPA's response are as follows:

    Comment

    The comment asserts that the proposed rule is confusing and hard to follow. The comment states that PREQB made 5 revisions over the past 11 or so years and that the last public meetings were 5 years ago. The comment states that this piecemeal approach is not useful for the public to follow and that EPA's explanation about why it is justified in accepting this approach is hard to understand. Commentor notes that the examples of New Mexico and Tennessee cover much shorter timeframes. Commentor states that the purpose of the current SIP is to show PREQB can implement, enforce and maintain the NAAQS covered by the SIP and asks how have they proven this. The comment references a newspaper article and states that the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) is the main polluter on the island and that it is embroiled in scandal related to burning substandard fuel that calls into question the records submitted and the roles of PREQB and USEPA. Commentor asserts that it is not clear the PREQB is capable of enforcing the SIP and protecting our air and health of our citizens.

    Response

    EPA disagrees that PREQB is taking a piecemeal approach to revising the SIP. Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each primary and secondary NAAQS. Moreover, CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) require each state to make this new SIP submission within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. In addition, EPA is proposing action on these SIP revisions simultaneously, and not separately, since each SIP revision addresses the infrastructure requirements of the CAA. PREQB provided the necessary public notice and public hearings for each SIP revision as required by the CAA. Public hearings were held by PREQB for the lead infrastructure SIP on October 10, 2011. Public hearings were held by PREQB for the ozone and PM2.5 infrastructure SIPs on December 19, 2011. With respect to public hearings, EPA's proposed approval is not based on how many public meetings PREQB holds, or how long ago the last one was held. Rather EPA's proposed approval is based, in part, on PREQB's ability to hold a public hearing on each revision to the SIP.

    The proposed timeframes for other state SIP actions have no bearing on EPA's proposed approval of Puerto Rico's SIP submittal. Footnote 4 of the proposal cites New Mexico SIP actions as an example in support of EPA's statement, in the proposal, “If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.” 81 FR 8457. Similarly, footnote 5 of the proposal cites Tennessee SIP actions as an example in support of EPA's statement in the proposal that, “EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submittal.” 81 FR 8457.

    Commentor is referred to the technical support document (TSD) in the docket for this matter which describes in detail PREQB's procedures for implementing, enforcing and maintaining the NAAQS. EPA's proposed approval is based on PREQB having these procedures in place. Finally, EPA is not a party to and cannot comment on the ongoing litigation that the Commentor cites with respect to PREPA.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Puerto Rico's infrastructure submittals dated November 29, 2006, January 22, 2013 and January 31, 2013, and supplemented April 16, 2015 and February 1, 2016, for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5, 2008 ozone and 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including specifically section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)(with the exception of program requirements for PSD), (D)(i)(II) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (D)(ii) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M).

    EPA is incorporating by reference Act 416 (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's “Environmental Public Policy Act”), Title II, “On the Environmental Board,” Section 7, “Creating the Board; Members; Terms,” sections A. and D., approved September 22, 2004 and effective six months after its approval and Act 1 (“Puerto Rico Government Ethics Act of 2011”), Chapter V, “Financial Reports,” (approved January 3, 2012 and effective January 1, 2012, except for Sections 5.5(a) and 5.8(a), which became effective 180 days after the effective date), for inclusion into Puerto Rico's SIP. These provisions are intended to apply to any person subject to CAA section 128, and are included in the SIP to address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, and 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    EPA is disapproving the following infrastructure SIP requirements as they relate to the PSD program because Puerto Rico lacks a State adopted PSD rule to satisfy CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii) and (J) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 lead NAAQS. It should be noted that a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock will not be started because a PSD FIP is currently in place, and sanctions will not be triggered. Since Puerto Rico is not required to address the visibility portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in the context of an infrastructure SIP, and therefore did not make a submission, action on this sub-element is not applicable.

    A detailed analysis of EPA's review and rationale for approving and disapproving elements of the infrastructure SIP submittals as addressing these CAA requirements may be found in the February 19, 2016 proposed rulemaking action (81 FR 8455) and Technical Support Document (TSD) which are available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060.

    IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Statutes described in the proposed amemdments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.

    EPA is incorporating by reference Act 416 (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's “Environmental Public Policy Act”), Title II, “On the Environmental Board,” Section 7, “Creating the Board; Members; Terms,” sections A. and D., approved September 22, 2004, and Act 1 (“Puerto Rico Government Ethics Act of 2011”), Chapter V, “Financial Reports,” approved January 3, 2012, for inclusion into Puerto Rico's SIP to address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.

    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 2, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2. Editorial Note:

    This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on August 31, 2016.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart BBB—Puerto Rico 2. Section 52.2720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(39) to read as follows:
    § 52.2720 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    (39) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on November 29, 2006, and supplemented February 1, 2016 for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS; dated January 22, 2013, and supplemented April 16, 2015 and February 1, 2016 for the 2006 PM2.5 and supplemented February 1, 2016 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; and dated January 31, 2013 and supplemented February 1, 2016 for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

    (i) Incorporation by reference. These provisions are intended to apply to any person subject to CAA section 128, and are included in the SIP to address the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128.

    (A) Act 416 (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's “Environmental Public Policy Act”), Title II, “On the Environmental Board,” Section 7, “Creating the Board; Members; Terms,” sections A. and D., approved September 22, 2004;

    (B) Act 1 (“Puerto Rico Government Ethics Act of 2011”), Chapter V, “Financial Reports,” approved January 3, 2012.

    3. Amend § 52.2723 by revising the section heading and the title of the table and adding a heading and the entries “Act 1” and “Act 416” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2723 EPA-approved Puerto Rico regulations and laws. Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution and Puerto Rico Laws Puerto Rico regulation Commonwealth
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * PUERTO RICO LAWS Act 1 (“Puerto Rico Government Ethics Act of 2011”), Chapter V, “Financial Reports” January 3, 2012 September 13, 2016, [insert Federal Register citation] These provisions are intended to apply to any person subject to Clean Air Act section 128, and are included in the SIP for the limited purpose of satisfying the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. January 3, 2012 is the Commonwealth approval date. Act 416 (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's “Environmental Public Policy Act”), Title II, “On the Environmental Board,” Section 7, “Creating the Board; Members; Terms,” sections A. and D September 22, 2004 September 13, 2016, [insert Federal Register citation] These provisions are intended to apply to any person subject to Clean Air Act section 128, and are included in the SIP for the limited purpose of satisfying the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128. September 22, 2004 is the Commonwealth approval date.
    4. Add § 52.2730 to read as follows:
    § 52.2730 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

    (a) 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS—(1) Approval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated November 29, 2006 and supplemented February 1, 2016, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal satisfies the 1997 ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of program requirements for PSD), (D)(i)(II) and (ii) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M).

    (2) Disapproval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated November 29, 2006 and supplemented February 1, 2016, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are disapproved for the following sections: 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II), PSD program only), (D)(ii) (PSD program only) and (J) (PSD program only). These requirements are being addressed by § 52.2729 which has been delegated to Puerto Rico to implement.

    (b) 2008 ozone and the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS—(1) Approval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated January 22, 2013, supplemented February 1, 2016 to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and supplemented April 16, 2015 and February 1, 2016 to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This submittal satisfies the 2008 ozone and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of program requirements for PSD), (D)(i)(II) and (ii) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M).

    (2) Disapproval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated January 22, 2013 and supplemented April 16, 2015 and February 1, 2016, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are disapproved for the following sections: 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only), (D)(ii) (PSD program only) and (J) (PSD program only). These requirements are being addressed by § 52.2729 which has been delegated to Puerto Rico to implement.

    (c) 2008 lead NAAQS—(1) Approval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated January 31, 2013 and supplemented February 1, 2016, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This submittal satisfies the 2008 lead NAAQS requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of program requirements for PSD), (D)(i)(II) and (ii) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M).

    (2) Disapproval. Submittal from Puerto Rico dated January 31, 2013 and supplemented February 1, 2016, to address the CAA infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead NAAQS are disapproved for the following sections: 110(a)(2)(C) (PSD program only), (D)(i)(II) (PSD program only), (D)(ii) (PSD program only) and (J) (PSD program only). These requirements are being addressed by § 52.2729 which has been delegated to Puerto Rico to implement.

    [FR Doc. 2016-21326 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 102 RIN 0906-AA84 Removing Outmoded Regulations Regarding the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action removes the outmoded regulations for the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program and its implementing regulation have been rendered obsolete by the expiration of the Declaration Regarding Administration of Smallpox Countermeasures under the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003 and incorporation of the smallpox countermeasure injury coverage under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 and its authorization of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

    DATES:

    This action is effective November 14, 2016 without further action, unless adverse comment is received by October 13, 2016. If adverse comment is received, HHS will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or comments regarding the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program should be directed to Narayan Nair, M.D., Acting Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857, by phone at (301) 443-5287, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In response to Executive Order 13563, Sec. 6(a), which urges agencies to “repeal” existing regulations that are “outmoded” from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), HHS is removing 42 CFR part 102. Notice and comment are not required for this rule, because it affects agency organization, procedure, or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Furthermore, HHS believes that there is good cause hereby to bypass notice and comment and proceed to a direct final rule, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B). The action is non-controversial, as it merely removes a provision from the CFR that is obsolete. This rule poses no new substantive requirements on the public. Accordingly, HHS believes this direct final rule will not elicit any significant adverse comments, but if such comments are received HHS will publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register.

    I. Background

    The Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003 (SEPPA), (42 U.S.C. 239 et seq.) enacted on April 30, 2003, authorized the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), through the establishment of the Smallpox Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (SVICP), to provide benefits and/or compensation to certain persons who sustained covered injuries as a direct result of the administration of covered smallpox countermeasures (including the smallpox vaccine) or as a result of vaccinia contracted through accidental vaccinia contact. The SVICP's implementing regulation was codified at 42 CFR part 102.

    The SVICP provided compensation for unreimbursed medical expenses and/or lost employment income to eligible individuals for covered injuries sustained as a direct result of the smallpox vaccine or accidental vaccinia inoculation, and/or death benefits to certain survivors of these individuals. The Secretary did not extend SEPPA's Declaration Regarding Administration of Smallpox Countermeasures, which expired on January 23, 2008. Vaccine recipients and accidental vaccinia contacts had 1 and 2 years, respectively, to file a request for program benefits. The SVICP ended on January 23, 2010.

    Alternatively, based on a credible risk that the threat of exposure to variola virus, the causative agent of smallpox, constitutes a public health emergency, the Secretary issued a Declaration (73 FR 61869-61871) covering smallpox countermeasures under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act of 2005 (PREP Act), with an effective date of January 24, 2008. The PREP Act authorizes the establishment and administration of the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, whose implementing regulation, at 42 CFR part 110, is based on the SVICP's regulation and provides similar benefits. On December 9, 2015, the PREP Act Declaration was amended and republished (80 FR 76546-76553), extending the effective time period to December 31, 2022, and deleting obsolete language referring to SEPPA.

    Executive Order 12866

    This action does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action as set out under Executive Order 12866, and review by the Office of Management and Budget has accordingly not been required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not affect any information collections.

    List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 102

    Biologics, Immunization, Public health, Smallpox.

    PART 102—[REMOVED] For reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority at 5 U.S.C. 301, HHS amends 42 CFR chapter I by removing part 102. Dated: August 26, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. Approved: September 7, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21888 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [WCB: WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 16-102] Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission continues its reform of the inmate calling services (ICS) marketplace by responding to points raised in a petition filed by Michael S. Hamden, seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the Commission's 2015 ICS Order. Specifically, the Commission amends its rate caps to better allow ICS providers to recover costs incurred as a result of providing inmate calling services, including the costs of reimbursing facilities for any costs they may incur that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of service. The Order also clarifies the definition of “mandatory taxes and fees” and addresses other arguments raised by Mr. Hamden.

    DATES:

    The rules adopted in this document shall become effective December 12, 2016, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall become effective March 13, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gil Strobel, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-1540 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission Order on Reconsideration, released August 9, 2016. The full text of this document may be downloaded at the following internet address: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-102A1.docx This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

    I. Executive Summary

    1. In this order, we respond to the petition filed by Michael S. Hamden and amend our rate caps to improve the ability of providers to cover costs facilities may incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS.

    • The Commission is statutorily mandated to ensure ICS rates are just, fair, and reasonable and to promote access to ICS by inmates and their families and friends. In response to claims our prior decision not to include certain costs in our rate cap calculations threatens the further deployment of ICS, we are increasing the rate caps to reflect the costs facilities may incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS.

    • Acting upon the current record, including Hamden Petition and other input received after the 2015 ICS Order, the Commission concludes that facilities may incur costs directly related to the provision of ICS. Providers and facilities claim the 2015 rate caps prevent them from recovering all of their reasonable costs. We now revise our rate caps to expressly account for the possibility of reasonable facility costs related to ICS.

    • Our rate caps continue to reflect the difference in the per-minute costs between smaller facilities and their larger counterparts, thus ensuring providers are fairly compensated for their ICS costs.

    • After reviewing the record and the Hamden Petition, we amend the definition of “Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee.” The amended definition eliminates confusion and more clearly reflects the Commission's decision to prohibit providers from marking up mandatory taxes or fees that they pass through to consumers, unless the markup is specifically authorized by statute, rule, or regulation.

    • Having considered the Hamden Petition and the record as a whole, we deny all other aspects of the Petition. Specifically, we are not persuaded to reconsider our decision to refrain from regulating site commissions. Nor are we persuaded, based on the current record, of the need to further clarify the Single-Call Rule adopted in the 2015 ICS Order.

    II. Background

    2. This Order is the latest in a proceeding that began in 2012, when the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 78 FR 4369, January 22, 2013 in response to long-standing petitions seeking relief from certain ICS rates and practices. The Hamden Petition seeks partial reconsideration of the 2015 ICS Order, in which we adopted comprehensive reforms to the ICS market, including tiered rate caps for both interstate and intrastate ICS calls, and limits on ancillary service charges. In the 2015 ICS Order, we focused on our core authority over ICS rates, adopting rate caps in fulfillment of our obligation to ensure that compensation for ICS calls is fair, just, and reasonable. We capped ICS rates at levels that we found would be just and reasonable and would ensure that providers are fairly compensated, as required by the Act. In setting the rate caps, we declined to include the cost of site commissions, which are payments from facilities to providers, because we found that such payments are not a legitimate cost of providing ICS. We did not, however, prohibit providers from paying site commissions. Instead, we let providers and facilities negotiate over whether providers would make site commission payments and, if so, what payments are appropriate. Our approach offered ICS providers and facilities the freedom to negotiate compensation that is fair to each, while also ensuring that ICS consumers are charged rates that are fair, just, and reasonable.

    3. In addition to setting rate caps for interstate and intrastate ICS calls, we discussed what costs, if any, facilities incur that are reasonably attributable to ICS. Specifically, we considered whether we should expressly provide for recovery of such costs through an additive to the per-minute rate caps limiting the prices providers may charge inmates and their families. The record before us on this point was relatively limited. Moreover, the data we had was mixed regarding the costs, if any, facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. Some commenters argued that many of the activities that facilities claim as ICS-related costs are actually performed by ICS providers. Other commenters, however, asserted that correctional facilities incur a variety of costs related to ICS that providers do not. These costs included expenses related to “call monitoring, responding to ICS system alerts, responding to law enforcement requests for records/recordings, call recording analysis, enrolling inmates for voice biometrics, and other duties.” As we noted, “[e]ven commenters asserting that facilities incur costs that are properly attributable to the provision of ICS do not agree on the extent of those costs.” In the 2015 ICS Order, we declined to adopt a per-minute “additive,” because of our view that the costs facilities claimed to incur in allowing ICS were “already built into our rate cap calculations and should not be recovered through an `additive' to the ICS rates.”

    4. Following the release of the 2015 ICS Order, four ICS providers filed petitions for stay before the Commission, including Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL), Securus Technologies, Inc. (Securus), Telmate, LLC (Telmate), and CenturyLink. GTL and Telmate, in particular, argued that the Commission was required to include the costs of paying site commissions in the rate caps and that it set the rate caps below the documented costs of many ICS providers. The Wright Petitioners opposed the petitions, stressing the importance of the “overwhelmingly positive public interest benefits from the adoption of the [2013 ICS Order]” and expressing concern that a stay of the 2015 ICS Order would delay relief to consumers and harm the public interest.

    5. On January 22, 2016, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB or Bureau) issued an order denying the stay petitions of GTL, Securus, and Telmate. The Bureau found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if the 2015 ICS Order was not stayed. The Bureau also was not persuaded that the petitioners were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments or that a stay would be in the public interest. To the contrary, the Bureau noted that other parties—particularly ICS consumers—would likely be harmed if the relevant provisions of the 2015 ICS Order were stayed.

    6. After the Bureau issued its order denying the stay petitions, the providers appealed the 2015 ICS Order to the D.C. Circuit. On March 7, 2016, the court stayed two provisions of the Commission's ICS rules: 47 CFR 64.6010 (setting caps on ICS calling rates that vary based on the size and type of facility being served) and 47 CFR 64.6020(b)(2) (setting caps on charges and fees for single-call services). The D.C. Circuit's March 7 Order denied motions for stay of the Commission's ICS rules “in all other respects.” On March 23, 2016, the D.C. Circuit modified the stay imposed in the March 7 Order to provide that “47 CFR 64.6030 (imposing interim rate caps)” be stayed as applied to “intrastate calling services. Final briefs from the parties are due to the Court on October 5, 2016, and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

    7. On January 19, 2016, Michael S. Hamden, an attorney who has both represented prisoners and served as a corrections consultant filed a Petition for Partial Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of certain aspects of the 2015 ICS Order. Hamden asks the Commission to reconsider its decision not to prohibit providers from paying site commissions or, in the alternative, to mandate a “modest, per-minute facility cost recovery fee that would be added to the rate caps.” 1 In short, Hamden, like several of the ICS providers, asserts that at least some portion of site commissions serves to reimburse facilities for reasonable costs that facilities incur in providing ICS, and that excluding site commissions entirely from our rate cap calculations results in rates that are too low to allow providers to pay facilities for their reasonable ICS-related costs and still earn a profit. Hamden also asks the Commission to clarify “the meaning of the terms `mandatory fee,' `mandatory tax,' and `authorized fee' as they are used in the [2015 ICS Order].” Finally, Hamden seeks clarification that ICS providers “cannot circumvent the Second ICS Order's rule regarding charges for single-call services through the use of unregulated subsidiaries to serve as the companies that charge third-party transaction fees for such services.” On February 11, 2016, the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau (CGB) issued a Public Notice seeking comment on the Hamden Petition. Multiple parties submitted responses and oppositions to the Hamden Petition, including ICS providers, facilities, and the Wright Petitioners. Hamden also submitted a reply to the responses and oppositions on April 4, 2016. We now act on these filings.

    1 Although never clearly stated, the Petition appears to seek to limit any payments to facilities to the proposed “facility cost-recovery fee” that would be added to the per-minute rate caps.

    III. Discussion

    8. After reviewing the Hamden Petition, the arguments made in response to the Petition, and other relevant evidence in the record, we find that: (1) At least some facilities likely incur costs that are directly and reasonably related to the provision of ICS, (2) it is reasonable for those facilities to expect providers to compensate them for those costs, (3) such costs are a legitimate cost of ICS that should be accounted for in our rate cap calculations, and (4) our existing rate caps do not separately account for such costs. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, we increase our rate caps to better ensure that ICS providers are able to receive fair compensation for their services, including the costs they may incur in reimbursing facilities for expenses reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS. Specifically, we increase our rate caps for debit and prepaid ICS calls to $0.31 per minute for jails with an average daily population (ADP) below 350, $0.21 per minute for jails with an ADP between 350 and 999, $0.19 per minute for jails with an ADP of 1,000 or more, and $0.13 per minute for prisons. As discussed below, we also increase the rate caps for collect calls by a commensurate amount.

    9. We find that our revised rate caps will allow inmate calling providers to recover their costs of providing ICS even while reimbursing facilities for any costs they may incur that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS.2 We also find that these rate caps will adequately ensure that rates for ICS consumers will be fair, just, and reasonable. Thus, we grant the Hamden Petition to the extent that it seeks an increase in the ICS rate caps to expressly account for reasonable facility costs.3 We also grant the Hamden Petition to the extent that it seeks a clarification of the definitions of the terms “Mandatory Taxes” and “Mandatory Fees.” We deny the Hamden Petition in all other respects.

    2 As explained below, because we do not regulate site commissions in this order (and have not done so previously), any revenues derived under these rate caps may be passed through to facilities.

    3 As noted above, Hamden appears to favor an approach whereby the Commission would adopt an “additive” to our existing rate caps and prohibit providers from paying any site commissions beyond the additive. We maintain our view that prohibiting site commission payments is not necessary at this time. As we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, “this approach is consistent with the Commission's general preference to rely on market forces, rather than regulatory intervention, wherever reasonably possible.” Correctional authorities have every incentive to accept whatever commissions providers can pay within the rate caps given the benefits ICS confers on both facilities and inmates. In addition, we note that our approach obviates the need to address arguments challenging our authority to regulate site commission payments. Contrary to the suggestion in one dissent, although we have not elected to adopt the precise mechanism that Hamden appears to have advocated for “offset[ting]” the facilities' claimed costs of providing access to ICS, our approach to ensuring that our rate caps adequately account for facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs is, at a minimum, a logical outgrowth of the Hamden Petition.

    A. The Rate Caps Should Account for Costs Reasonably and Directly Related to the Provision of ICS

    10. The Commission has a statutory duty to set rates that are fair, just, and reasonable and to promote access to ICS by inmates and their families and friends. Accordingly, one of our goals is to ensure that inmates and their families have as much access as possible to this vital communications service. Some parties in the reconsideration proceeding have asserted that our prior decision not to include certain costs in our rate cap calculations could pose a risk to the continued deployment and development of ICS. Our reforms would not achieve their purpose if they resulted in less robust services for inmates and those who wish to communicate with them. As a result, out of an abundance of caution, we are increasing the rate caps to better reflect the costs that facilities claim to incur that are directly and reasonably related to the provision of ICS. This action better enables the Commission to achieve its twin statutory mandates of promoting deployment of ICS and ensuring that ICS rates are fair to both providers and consumers.

    11. As the Commission has repeatedly explained, providers should be able to recover costs that are “reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS” through the ICS rates. The Commission has also recognized that correctional facilities may incur costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. With both the Mandatory Data Collection and the 2014 ICS FNPRM, the Commission took steps to determine the costs involved in providing ICS. For example, in the Mandatory Data Collection, the Commission required ICS providers to submit their costs related to the provision of ICS, including costs related to telecommunications, equipment, and security. In addition, in the 2014 ICS FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the “actual costs” that facilities may incur in the provision of ICS and the appropriate vehicle for enabling facilities to recover such costs. The Commission also sought comment on whether any such costs should be recoverable though the per-minute rates ICS providers charge inmates and their families.

    12. After considering a “wide range of conflicting views” regarding facilities' costs, we acknowledged, in the 2015 ICS Order, the possibility that facilities incur some costs to provide ICS. We concluded, however, that the record at that time “indicate[d] that if facilities incurred any legitimate costs in connection with ICS, those costs would likely amount to no more than one or two cents per billable minute.” We further concluded that the rate caps we adopted were “sufficiently generous to cover any such costs.” Accordingly, we declined to adopt any of the proposals seeking an “additive” to our rate caps to cover facilities' costs.

    B. The Hamden Petition and Underlying Record Demonstrate That the Existing Rate Caps May Not Adequately Account for Facility Costs

    13. With the benefit of the record developed since the 2015 ICS Order, we now conclude that at least some facilities likely incur costs directly related to the provision of ICS and that those costs may in some instances amount to materially more than one or two cents a minute.4 Providers and facilities have claimed that the current rate caps prevent them from recovering all of their reasonable costs. Similarly, some parties have argued that our 2015 rate caps may not have been “generous” or conservative enough to cover all of the ICS-related costs that we expected providers to incur.

    4 We continue to hold that site commission payments should not be considered in determining fair or reasonable rates, except to the extent those payments reflect costs facilities incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS. As we explained in the 2015 ICS Order, “[p]assing the non-ICS-related costs that comprise site commission payments . . . onto inmates and their families as part of the costs used to set rate caps would result in rates that exceed the fair compensation required by section 276 and that are not just and reasonable, as required by section 201.”

    14. The Hamden Petition asks the Commission, among other things, to reconsider its decision not to “mandate a modest, per-minute facility cost-recovery fee that would be added to the rate caps.” Notwithstanding the debate regarding the nature and extent of the costs that correctional facilities incur, the Petition asserts that “it seems clear that facilities do incur some administrative and security costs that would not exist but for ICS.” Hamden notes that the idea of a cost recovery mechanism has gained support from a broad range of parties, including “ICS providers, law enforcement, a state regulator, and some in the inmate advocacy community.” Finally, Hamden concludes that “[t]he lack of perfectly accurate data . . . does not preclude a rational cost recovery mechanism and a legally sustainable Order.” As Hamden notes, “[e]ven in the absence of absolute certainty regarding . . . facility administrative costs, the Commission can make a rational decision” based on the record before us.

    15. In response to the Hamden Petition, we received comments from numerous parties agreeing that the existing rate caps do not adequately account for ICS costs that facilities may incur. While not all of the commenters agree with Hamden's preferred approach, many of the comments submitted assert that facilities incur costs greater than those we allowed for under our 2015 rate caps. For example, NSA states that “[i]n many cases, the duties performed by Sheriffs and jails are the same or similar in nature as the security features and duties found by the Commission as recoverable cost, including monitoring calls, determining numbers to be blocked and unblocked, enrolling inmates in voice biometrics service and maintenance and repair of ICS equipment.” NSA acknowledges that providers perform security and administrative tasks “in some cases,” but asserts that in many other cases, those tasks fall to Sheriffs and jails, not providers. This view is supported by Pay Tel, which has asserted that “jails, not ICS providers, perform the lion's share of administrative tasks associated with the provision of ICS and, more importantly . . . handle ALL of the monitoring of inmate calls.”

    16. NSA's arguments echo claims other parties have made in their filings before the D.C. Circuit. For example, representatives of state and local governments cite “evidence that jails and prisons incur real and substantial costs in allowing access to ICS.” More specifically, they contend that correctional facilities can spend “over $100,000 a month to provide ICS privileges to inmates, most of which goes into the labor hours required to facilitate and monitor inmates' use of ICS.” Similarly, Telmate has argued that our 2015 rate caps are not “sufficiently generous” to cover the “costs that facilities bear in providing ICS.”

    17. These arguments are consistent with earlier filings claiming that facilities may incur costs related to the provision of ICS that are “non-trivial.” Out of an abundance of caution, we now revise our rate caps to incorporate those costs more fully.

    C. We Increase Our Rate Caps To Better Reflect Evidence in the Record

    18. In view of the further evidence and arguments we have received, we now reconsider our earlier rate caps insofar as they did not separately account for ICS costs that facilities may incur.5 Accordingly, we increase our rate caps to better reflect the costs that facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. In addition, consistent with our findings in the 2015 ICS Order and with the evidence in the record, we recognize that the per-minute costs associated with ICS are higher in smaller facilities than in larger ones. Thus, we increase our rate caps more for smaller facilities than for larger ones.6 Specifically, we rely on the analyses submitted by NSA and by Baker/Wood to increase our rate caps by $0.02 per minute for prisons, by $0.05 per minute for larger jails, and by $0.09 per minute for the smallest jails.7 In adopting these revisions to our rate caps, we once again rely on our core ratemaking authority.8

    5 We do not, however, revisit the rate structure or overall methodology used in the 2015 ICS Order. Specifically, we reject Telmate's argument that our rate caps “are based on a flawed methodology, and thus cannot be saved by the proposed rate increase[s].” This argument addresses the fundamental structure of our rate caps and methodology and goes to the heart of our 2015 ICS Order. As such, the argument appears to be an untimely—and improperly presented—request for reconsideration of that order.

    6 Consistent with our conclusion in the 2015 ICS Order, we find that providers will need more time to transition all of the country's jails to the new rate caps than to transition prisons. Accordingly, we adopt a six-month transition period for jails, in order to “give providers and jails enough time to negotiate (or renegotiate) contracts to the extent necessary to comply” with our new rules.

    7 As explained below, Baker/Wood and NSA provided the most credible data regarding facilities' costs and we find that a hybrid of those two proposals yields the most reliable basis for determining how much we must increase our rate caps to ensure that providers can compensate facilities for the costs the facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. The rate increases we adopt today are also supported by the Pay Tel Proposal.

    8 Accordingly, and for the reasons described below, we do not prohibit or regulate site commission payments.

    19. As noted above, in the 2015 ICS Order, we agreed with parties that argued that facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs likely amounted to no more than one or two cents per minute and did not require an adjustment to our rate caps. Upon further consideration, and with the benefit of an expanded record, we now conclude that we should increase our rate caps in light of claims that that some facilities may incur more significant costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. After reviewing the Hamden Petition, and the record developed in response to the Petition, we find that facilities—particularly smaller facilities—may face costs that are considerably higher than one or two cents per minute. Out of an abundance of caution, we increase our rate caps to account for this possibility and to better ensure that providers are fairly compensated for their reasonable ICS costs—including costs they may incur in reimbursing facilities for expenditures that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS—and that providers and facilities have stronger incentives to promote increased deployment of, and access to, ICS.9

    9 Several parties have warned that access to ICS may be reduced if our rate caps fail to account for facilities' reasonable ICS-related costs.

    20. The rate caps we adopted in the 2015 ICS Order were based on 2012 and 2013 data that providers submitted in response to the Mandatory Data Collection. While we still find that the cost data from Mandatory Data Collection are an appropriate basis for constructing rate caps, we also recognize that due to our jurisdictional limitations, the Mandatory Data Collection only included cost information from providers, and not from facilities. Providers reported their own costs, but were not obligated to submit information about costs incurred by facilities. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that providers necessarily had access to the information needed to determine facility costs. As a result, the information on facilities' ICS-related costs before the Commission came from filings received in response to the 2014 ICS FNPRM.10 Unlike the responses to the Mandatory Data Collection, however, which required providers to quantify various costs incurred in providing ICS, facilities' responses to the questions in the 2014 ICS FNPRM about facility costs were purely voluntary and consisted mostly of more general, narrative descriptions. The paucity of quantitative data made facility costs more difficult to measure than providers' costs, a problem exacerbated by disputes in the record regarding which of the costs involved in providing ICS could reasonably be attributed to providers, and which could reasonably be attributed to facilities. This led us to discount claims that facilities faced costs that should be recovered through the ICS rates.

    10 Providers did submit information about total site commission payments made to facilities, but, as noted above, we did not take those payments into account in setting our rate caps. Indeed, we still find that the bulk of site commission payments should not be considered in calculating the rate caps because most of the money providers pay to facilities is not directly related to the provision of ICS. We also note that it is likely that the costs submitted by providers include other costs that are not reasonably related to the provision of ICS. In our decision today, however, we conclude that the costs that facilities incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS may be more than de minimis and we therefore increase our rate caps to better accommodate those costs.

    21. Given these limitations, we relied almost completely on submissions from providers and their representatives to arrive at an estimate of facilities ICS-related costs in the 2015 ICS Order. In contrast, the approach we adopt today relies largely on proposals submitted by parties representing a much more diverse range of interests. The Baker/Wood Proposal, for example, was submitted by Darrell Baker, the Director of the Utility Services Division of the Alabama Public Service Commission, and Don Wood, an economic consultant for Pay Tel Communications who also has done work for other ICS providers. And the NSA proposal is based on data the NSA collected from individual sheriffs regarding the costs they incur to provide security and perform administrative functions necessary to allow ICS in jails, including the salaries and the benefits for the officers and employees performing ICS-related duties. We find these two proposals provide a sounder basis for determining facilities' ICS-related costs than did the provider-generated proposals we relied on in 2015.11

    11 We have also taken account of arguments that correctional authorities and ICS providers have raised to the D.C. Circuit concerning our decision in the 2015 Order not to separately account for potential facility costs when calculating the rate caps.

    22. The rate caps we adopt today are based on a hybrid of the Baker/Wood and NSA Proposals. The Baker/Wood proposal is premised on Baker's view that “some form of facility cost recovery is critical,” and is supported by Baker's and Wood's independent reviews of cost support data. The NSA Proposal is based on the NSA's cost survey, which gathered information on the costs to sheriffs of providing security and administrative functions necessary to allow ICS in jails, including the salaries and the benefits for the officers and employees performing the ICS-related duties. Both of these proposals merit significant consideration, particularly given that they arrive at similar conclusions: Baker and Wood recommend adopting a cost recovery mechanism of $0.07 per minute for jails with ADP less than 349, $0.05 for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, $0.05 for jails with ADP between 1000 and 2500 ADP, and $0.03 for prisons; NSA, for its part, supports the adoption of a cost recovery mechanism in the range of $0.09 to $0.11 per minute for facilities with ADP less than 349, $0.05 to $0.08 for facilities with 350 to 2499 ADP, $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for jails with ADP greater than 2500, and $0.01 to $0.02 per minute for prisons. Not only are the two proposals fairly consistent with each other, they are notably closer to each other than they are to most other proposals in the record, including those that we relied on in the 2015 ICS Order.

    23. Even given the similarities between the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals, we acknowledge that the record on what the costs facilities actually incur in relation to ICS is still imperfect. Nonetheless, we find that the record is sufficient to warrant an increase in the rate caps. As state and local governments have explained in their court filings, even faced with “less-than-ideal data,” it is the Commission's obligation to “determine as best it can ICS-related facility costs.” Thus, based on the information in the record, including, in large part, the recommendations submitted by NSA and by Baker/Wood, we increase the rate caps by $0.02 for prisons, and $0.09, $0.05, and $0.05, respectively, for small, medium, and large jails. This translates into revised debit/prepaid rate caps of $0.13 per minute for prisons, $0.19 per minute for jails with an ADP greater than 1000, $0.21 for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, and $0.31 per minute for jails with ADP below 350. It also leads to revised collect rate caps of $0.16 per minute for prisons, $0.54 per minute for jails with ADP greater than 1000, $0.54 per minute for jails with ADP between 350 and 999, and $0.58 per minute for jails with ADP less than 350.12 To arrive at these numbers, we compared the Baker/Wood and NSA proposals and, in order to produce a conservative rate, took the higher additive rate of the two proposals.13 In the instance where even the low end of NSA's proposed rate range was greater than the rate proposed by Baker and Wood, we selected the lower end of the NSA rate range to better account for the suggestions of both proposals.14

    12 As we did in the 2015 ICS Order, we adopt a separate rate cap tier for collect calling, as well as a two-year step-down transitional period that will decrease the collect rates over time and, by 2018, will bring the collect rates down to the debit/prepaid rates we adopt today. This is consistent with the Commission's prior actions in adopting a separate collect calling rate tier based on data indicating that collect calls were more expensive than other types of ICS calls and on the Commission's decision to encourage correctional institutions to move away from collect calling.

    13 Our decision on reconsideration rests on a desire to take a cautious approach that minimizes any concerns that our rate caps fail to allow for fair, just, and reasonable compensation. Indeed, the very decision to reconsider our earlier order is prompted by our view that it is better to err on the side of caution than to risk undercompensating providers and facilities for their reasonable costs that are directly related to ICS. Consistent with this approach, when the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals differed, we opted for the choice that resulted in the higher rate cap. This decision is informed, in part, by the fact that NSA's proposal already reflects an effort to reduce rates below the levels that the raw data might support, absent any analysis or refinement. As explained above, however, our rate caps provide a ceiling, and we expect that in many instances providers will charge rates far below the maximums permitted under our rate caps.

    14 NSA proposed a rate increase of $0.09-$0.11 per minute for the smallest jails, while Baker/Wood proposed adding only $0.07 per minute for those facilities. Given that the low end of NSA's proposed rate range was higher than the rate proposed by Baker/Wood, we took the lowest number proposed by NSA (i.e., $0.09/minute).

    24. The approach we use to increase the rates to the levels we adopt today has the primary advantage of being supported by two separate and independent sets of data. It has the additional advantage of being supported by credible, independent participants in this proceeding, including Baker, an objective public service employee who has participated in this proceeding and has been working on inmate calling reform at the state level,15 and Wood, an outside economic consultant to Pay Tel whom seven ICS providers engaged to prepare a joint report that was filed with the Commission. Our approach is also based on data provided by the NSA, which, as an organization representing sheriffs, is well situated to understand and estimate the costs that facilities face to provide ICS.16

    15 In the Baker/Wood Proposal, Baker and Wood state that Baker's “experience with ICS in Alabama informs his view that some form of facility cost recovery is critical. He explained that the APSC regularly inspects ICS at jails and prisons in Alabama and is therefore very familiar with the activities and responsibilities that facility personnel undertake in administering ICS and in monitoring inmate calls. He concludes that facilities incur costs associated with ICS and should be provided an opportunity to recover their costs.”

    16 While agreeing with our assessment that NSA is well-equipped to gauge facilities' costs, one dissenting commissioner nonetheless faults us for relying (in part) on NSA's estimates of those costs. In claiming that “the rate increases set forth in this Order are insufficient to cover the facility-administration costs” that jails incur in providing access to ICS, this commissioner relies on raw data from the NSA survey that NSA itself reasonably elected to discount when estimating jails' actual costs. NSA treated its survey data as “inputs” that, once “compared to and tested by” information elsewhere in the record, could be refined to generate more reliable estimated ranges of facilities' reasonable costs of providing access to ICS. Those ranges are the cost data we find credible—particularly given that, as noted above, the NSA and Baker/Wood Proposals arrive at similar conclusions. Thus, contrary to the dissent's contention that our rate caps, as revised in this Order, are “confiscatory,” we are confident that they fall well within the zone of reasonableness.

    25. Given that we find NSA's cost data to be credible we disagree with commenters who suggest the contrary. Andrew Lipman, in particular, denigrated NSA's cost survey for including only three months of data from only about five percent of NSA's members.17 NSA convincingly defends its cost survey in its Opposition to the Hamden Petition, however, arguing that “[t]he Commission fails to explain . . . why these criticisms doom the NSA cost survey data even though they all equally apply to the cost recovery data and analysis performed by GTL's cost consultant, which the Commission apparently accepts.” NSA also argues that the Commission “fails to explain why it entirely ignores the data provided by other parties that show a much higher facility compensation fee than one or two cents per minute.” We agree with NSA's arguments and find that NSA's cost survey is a credible (though imperfect) source of data regarding the costs facilities incur in relation to ICS. We are particularly persuaded by NSA's point that the criticisms of the NSA cost survey made by Andrew Lipman, and recited in the 2015 ICS Order, apply with equal force to other proposals, including the analysis performed by GTL's cost consultant that supported the one to two cent estimate that informed our decision in the 2015 ICS Order. Moreover, we note that Pay Tel, which has no affiliation with NSA, has rebutted many of the arguments raised by Lipman and concluded that NSA's survey results constitute a “robust and significant data set.”

    17 We note as well that Lipman did not identify his client, except as “certain clients with an interest in the regulation of inmate calling services,” when filing prior to the 2015 ICS Order. Lipman has subsequently acted as counsel to Securus.

    26. We are confident that the new rate caps we adopt today will ensure that inmates and their families have access to ICS at rates that are fair to consumers, providers, and facilities.18 By adjusting the rate caps to better account for the reasonable costs that facilities may incur in connection with ICS, we ensure that providers will be able to charge rates that cover all of their costs that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS.19 Based on our analysis of the data providers submitted to the Mandatory Data Collection, the new rates should allow virtually all providers to recover their overall costs of providing ICS.20 To come to this conclusion, we calculated each provider's cost per minute, by tier, based on their reported numbers. We then compared each provider's cost per minute to our new rates for each tier. The difference between these two amounts allowed us to calculate the net impact that each provider will face as a result of our new rate caps. Our analysis indicates that the new rate caps will allow all but one provider to recover its costs, on average.21 Although we conclude that virtually all providers will be able to recover their legitimate ICS costs (including a reasonable return on capital) under the new rate caps, we reiterate that our waiver process remains available to any providers that find that the rate caps do not result in fair compensation for their services.22

    18 In sum, we agree with Hamden that reconsideration of our rates will “pave the way for the comprehensive reform that the Commission has promised, that ICS consumers deserve, and that the ICS industry needs, while also ensuring that facilities will continue to facilitate ICS and that providers will earn a reasonable return on their investments.”

    19 Indeed, although recognizing that the revised rate caps will “ensure that ICS consumers avoid paying unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates,” the Wright Petitioners assert that our revised rate caps are so conservative as to be “well above” providers' costs.

    20 Based on Commission analysis, this is true for nearly 100 percent of the ICS market, and all of the largest ICS providers. As noted above, there is only one small provider that might not be able to cover all of its ICS-related costs under the new rate caps.

    21 Our analysis of the data indicates that some providers may lose money on collect calls, but more than make up for any lost revenue with profits from debit and prepaid calls. In the 2015 ICS Order, we recognized that collect calling represents a small and declining percentage of inmate calls. The record further suggests that collect calls will continue to decline to a negligible share of ICS calls. In light of that, we are not concerned about losses that are recovered and that we predict will continue to decrease in the future. Providers will be able to recover their costs as a whole under our rate caps. Moreover, as noted above, we continue to be concerned that allowing the rate caps for collect calls to remain higher than the caps for other ICS calls on an ongoing basis would create incentives for providers to drive consumers to make collect calls. Such a result would drive up the costs of ICS for the average consumer and, therefore, would not be in the public interest.

    22 We also reiterate that “[i]f any provider believes it is being denied fair compensation . . . due, for example, to the interaction of our rate caps with the terms of the provider's existing service contracts—it may . . . seek preemption of the requirement to pay a site commission, to the extent that it believes that such a requirement is a state requirement and is inconsistent with the Commission's regulations.”

    D. We Amend the Definition of “Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee”

    27. In the 2015 ICS Order, we defined a Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee as “a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from Consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments.” In his Petition, Hamden asks us to clarify these definitions. After considering the Hamden Petition, the record developed in response to that petition, and the text of the 2015 ICS Order, we now amend the definition of Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee to read: “A fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation.” The amended definition more clearly captures the Commission's decision to allow carriers to collect applicable pass-through taxes, but to prohibit markups, other than those specifically authorized by law.23

    23 This rule allows providers to collect Universal Service fees, and similar government taxes and fees, from consumers and remit the funds to the relevant government entity, in keeping with existing federal and state requirements. As the 2015 ICS Order makes clear, we distinguish between such taxes and fees and site commission payments.

    28. In his petition, Hamden claims that there has been “confusion” regarding the Commission's definitions of the terms “authorized fee,” “mandatory tax,” and mandatory fee” in the 2015 ICS Order, and regarding “what fees and taxes the Commission intended to include as permissible under those terms.” Although some commenters assert that the terms “Mandatory Tax” and “Mandatory Fee” were adequately defined by the 2015 ICS Order, other parties are open to further clarification from the Commission. The Wright Petitioners, for example, assert that “Mr. Hamden's comments regarding the clarification of the rules associated with the definition of `Authorized Fee,' `Mandatory Tax,' and `Mandatory Fee' do merit further consideration.”

    29. After further review, we agree with Hamden that we should clarify the definition of Mandatory Tax and Mandatory Fee. While the definitions of these terms were clear from the text of 2015 ICS Order, we take this opportunity to amend our rules to more clearly track the language and intent of the 2015 ICS Order. The prohibition against markups that we adopted in the 2015 ICS Order is an important part of our efforts to ensure that the rates and fees end users pay for ICS are fair, just, and reasonable. Thus, we now amend 47 CFR 64.6000 to read: “Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee means a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from Consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation.”

    E. We Deny All Other Aspects of the Hamden Petition

    30. As previously noted, the Hamden Petition asks the Commission to reconsider or clarify two additional aspects of the 2015 ICS Order. First, Hamden urges the Commission to reconsider its treatment of site commissions.24 Second, Hamden asks that the Commission clarify that ICS providers cannot use unregulated subsidiaries to circumvent the rule regarding charges for single call services. After considering Hamden's arguments, as well as the rest of the record, we deny both requests.

    24 As noted above, Hamden asks that the Commission consider adopting an additive to the ICS rate caps as an alternative to banning all payments to facilities. We address that alternative at length in the discussion above and increase our 2015 rate caps to better accommodate facilities' ICS-related costs. We find no other changes to our rate caps are warranted. Nor do we find any need to regulate site commissions at this time.

    1. There Is No Need To Regulate Site Commissions at This Time

    31. In the 2015 ICS Order, we affirmed the Commission's previous finding that “site commissions do not constitute a legitimate cost to the providers of providing ICS” and, accordingly, did not include site commission payments in the cost data we used in setting our rate caps. Furthermore, although we encouraged states and correctional facilities to curtail or prohibit such payments, we concluded that “we do not need to prohibit site commissions in order to ensure that interstate rates for ICS are fair, just, and reasonable and that intrastate rates are fair.”

    32. Hamden now seeks reconsideration of this conclusion, arguing that the Commission should “prohibit payments to facilities in all forms.” In the absence of such a ban, Hamden argues, “facilities will continue to demand, and ICS providers will continue to pay site commissions . . . .” Hamden also expresses concern that if providers are unwilling or unable to pay site commissions, ICS services “may be curtailed, especially in smaller, less profitable facilities.”

    33. Several commenters oppose Hamden's request. ICSolutions, for example, asserts that we lack the legal authority to regulate site commissions.25 NCIC contends that prohibiting or capping site commissions will result in facilities being unable to recover their ICS-related costs, which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in inmate access. Finally, the Wright Petitioners argue that, even if the Commission were to ban site commissions, it is likely that providers and correctional facilities would simply “seek new and innovative ways to funnel additional funds in connection with entering into their exclusive contracts.”

    25 As was the case in the 2015 ICS Order, we need not reach these arguments, given our decision to let facilities and providers negotiate a reasonable approach to facility costs, subject only to providers' obligations to adhere to our rate caps. In addition, as discussed above, we have raised the rate caps to a level that should ensure that providers are able to earn a reasonable profit even after compensating facilities for any costs they incur that are reasonably related to the provision of ICS. This should help ensure that facilities recover the costs they incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS.

    34. After reviewing the Hamden Petition and the subsequent record, we are not persuaded to reconsider our decision to refrain from regulating site commissions. We are not convinced, based on the current record, that regulation of site commissions is necessary or in the public interest. As we noted in the 2015 ICS Order, the “decision to establish fair and reasonable rate caps for ICS and leave providers to decide whether to pay site commissions—and if so, how much to pay—is supported by a broad cross-section of commenters . . . underscor[ing] the reasonableness of our approach.” Based on the record on reconsideration, as well as the record in the underlying proceeding, we find that the prudent course remains to “focus on our core ratemaking authority in reforming ICS and not prohibit or specifically regulate site commission payments.” 26

    26 Our commitment to maintain our approach to site commission payments is further bolstered by our decision today to increase the rate caps to ensure that providers are able to compensate facilities for the reasonable costs they incur that are directly related to the provision of ICS. Our decision to increase our rate caps to better account for facilities' costs does not require us to cap or limit site commission payments. In other words, nothing in our rules, as revised by this Order, restricts a provider's ability to distribute as it chooses whatever revenue it collects under the adopted rate caps.

    2. There Is No Need To Further Clarify the Single-Call Rule Adopted in the 2015 ICS Order

    35. In the 2015 ICS Order, we held that “for fees for single-call and related services and third-party financial transaction fees, we allow providers to pass through only the charges they incur without any additional markup.” Hamden asserts that the Commission should clarify that the rule adopted in the 2015 ICS Order that single-call service costs must be passed through to end users with no additional markup may not be circumvented by providers using unregulated subsidiaries imposing “excessive financial transaction fees.”

    36. Most commenters disagree with Hamden's requested clarifications. Several commenters assert that the rule regarding charges for single call services is adequately defined in the 2015 ICS Order, and as a result, no clarification is needed.

    37. Having reviewed the arguments on both sides of the matter, we agree with the majority of commenters that there is no need to clarify the rule regarding single-call service costs. We are not persuaded, based on the current record, that the clarifications Hamden seeks are either necessary or in the public interest. Additionally, we reiterate our finding from the 2015 ICS Order that “a major problem with single-call and related services is that customers are often unaware that other payment options are available, such as setting up an account . . . . We encourage providers to make clear to consumers that they have other payment options available to them.” We find that no further action is necessary at this time, particularly given that we already have sought further comment on third-party financial transactions and potential fee-sharing.

    IV. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    38. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burdens for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    B. Congressional Review Act

    39. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules, as proposed, addressed in this order. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C of the Order.

    V. Ordering Clauses

    41. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 215, 218, 220, 276, 303(r), and 403, 405 and sections 1.1, 1.3. 1.427, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.3, 1.427, and 1.429, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Michael S. Hamden on January 19, 2016, IS GRANTED IN PART, and is otherwise DENIED, as described above.

    42. It is further ordered that part 64 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 64, is AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A of the Order. These rules shall become effective December 12, 2016, except for the amendments to 47 CFR 64.6010(a) and (c), which shall become effective March 13, 2017.

    43. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Order on Reconsideration to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

    PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 276, 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

    Subpart FF—Inmate Calling Services 2. Revise § 64.6000 paragraph (n) to read as follows:
    § 64.6000 Definitions.

    (n) Mandatory Tax or Mandatory Fee means a fee that a Provider is required to collect directly from consumers, and remit to federal, state, or local governments. A Mandatory Tax or Fee that is passed through to a Consumer may not include a markup, unless the markup is specifically authorized by a federal, state, or local statute, rule, or regulation;

    3. Effective December 12, 2016, amend § 64.6010 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) through (f) to read as follows:
    § 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate caps.

    (b) No Provider shall charge, in any Prison it serves, a per-minute rate for Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of:

    (1) $0.13;

    (2) [Reserved]

    (d) No Provider shall charge, in the Prisons it serves, a per-minute rate for Collect Calling in excess of:

    (1) $0.16 after the December 12, 2016;

    (2) $0.15 after July 1, 2017; and

    (3) $0.13 after July 1, 2018, and going forward.

    (e) For purposes of this section, the initial ADP shall be calculated, for all of the Correctional Facilities covered by an Inmate Calling Services contract, by summing the total number of inmates from January 1, 2015, through the effective date of the Order, divided by the number of days in that time period;

    (f) In subsequent years, for all of the correctional facilities covered by an Inmate Calling Services contract, the ADP will be the sum of the total number of inmates from January 1st through December 31st divided by the number of days in the year and will become effective on January 31st of the following year.

    4. Effective March 13, 2017, revise § 64.6010(a) and (c) to read as follows:

    § 64.6010 Inmate Calling Services rate caps.

    (a) No Provider shall charge, in the Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of:

    (1) $0.31 in Jails with an ADP of 0-349;

    (2) $0.21 in Jails with an ADP of 350-999; or

    (3) $0.19 in Jails with an ADP of 1,000 or greater.

    (c) No Provider shall charge, in the Jails it serves, a per-minute rate for Collect Calling in excess of:

    Size and type of facility Collect rate cap per MOU as of effective date Collect rate cap per MOU as of July 1, 2017 Collect rate cap per MOU as of July 1, 2018 0-349 Jail ADP $0.58 $0.45 $0.31 350-999 Jail ADP 0.54 0.38 0.21 1,000+ Jail ADP 0.54 0.37 0.19
    [FR Doc. 2016-21637 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2015-0129; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BA93 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Platanthera integrilabia (White Fringeless Orchid) AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, for Platanthera integrilabia (white fringeless orchid), a plant species from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee. This rule adds this species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/cookeville. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, TN 38501; telephone: 931-528-6481; facsimile: 931-528-7075.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Jennings, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the white fringeless orchid (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

    Background

    Below, we update and summarize information from the proposed listing rule for the white fringeless orchid (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) on the historical and current distribution of white fringeless orchid. Please refer to the proposed listing rule for a summary of other species information, including habitat, biology, and genetics.

    Distribution

    In this final rule, we are updating information on the species' distribution from the September 15, 2015, proposed rule to include two minor changes, which were brought to our attention following publication of the proposed listing rule. First, we are changing the 2014 status of the Forsyth County, Georgia, population from extant to uncertain (Table 1), because flowering plants have not been documented at this site since 1990 (Richards 2015, pers. comm.). In addition, we have added Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) to the list of local, State, or Federal government entities that own or manage lands where white fringeless orchid is present (Table 2). A revised summary of the species' distribution follows.

    Table 1—County-Level Distribution of Extant and Uncertain Status White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences, Circa 1991 (Shea 1992) and 2014 (ANHP 2014, GDNR 2014, KSNPC 2014, MDWFP 2014, NCDENR 2014, SCDNR 2012, Schotz 2015, and TDEC 2014) State County 1991 Extant Uncertain 2014 Extant Uncertain Alabama Calhoun 2 Clay 1 1 Cleburne 1 DeKalb 1 Jackson 1 Marion 1 1 2 Tuscaloosa 1 1 Winston 1 1 Georgia Bartow 1 Carroll 2 2 Chattooga 1 Cobb 1 Coweta 1 1 Forsyth 1 1 Pickens 1 Rabun 1 1 Stephens 1 1 Kentucky Laurel 2 2 McCreary 4 2 1 Pulaski 1 1 2 Whitley 1 Mississippi Alcorn 1 Itawamba 2 1 Tishomingo 1 1 South Carolina Greenville 1 1 Tennessee Bledsoe 2 2 1 Cumberland 1 Fentress 2 Franklin 3 2 5 5 Grundy 5 5 4 4 Marion 2 8 McMinn 1 1 Polk 1 Scott 1 Sequatchie 2 1 1 1 Van Buren 2 5 1 Total 30 13 57 23 Table 2—Status and Number of White Fringeless Orchid Occurrences on Publicly Owned or Managed Lands [Note: One site is on privately owned lands that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) leases for use as a wildlife management area] Ownership Extant Uncertain Extirpated Historical National Park Service 3 U.S. Forest Service 9 3 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 1 Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2 Georgia Department of Transportation 1 Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 1 1 Mississippi Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 1 North Carolina Plant Conservation Program 1 South Carolina State Parks 1 Tennessee Department of Transportation 1 Tennessee Division of Forestry 7 Tennessee State Parks 5 1 1 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency 1 1 Forsyth County, Georgia 1 Total 33 7 5 2

    All other information from the “Distribution” discussion in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) remains unchanged.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 15, 2015 (80 FR 55304), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 16, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. On April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22041), we reopened the comment period for an additional 60 days, ending June 13, 2016. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Asheville Citizen Times, Birmingham News, Chattanooga Times Free Press, Greenville News, Huntsville News, Knoxville News, Lexington Herald-Leader, and Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

    Peer Reviewer Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with white fringeless orchid and its habitat, biological needs, and threats or general conservation biology of orchids. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of white fringeless orchid. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our evaluation and the conclusion we reached regarding the proposal to list the white fringeless orchid as a threatened species. One peer reviewer commented on the information on the species' habitat, biology, and threats, and provided minor updates regarding the status and distribution of white fringeless orchid in the State of Georgia. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

    (1) Comment: One reviewer commented on subtle differences in descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat that have been recorded over time, suggesting that descriptions from the 1970s (Luer 1975, p. 186; Shea 1992, p. 19) or later might represent altered conditions, as compared to the earliest published habitat description (Correll 1941, pp. 156-157). This reviewer noted that Correll (1941, pp. 156-157) used the term “grassy,” citing an herbarium specimen label, in describing the habitat, possibly implying the presence of more open conditions in which a grassy herbaceous community would have been present. This reviewer speculated that the shaded, forested conditions, discussed in more contemporary descriptions of white fringeless orchid habitat, might have resulted from land use and regulatory changes (i.e., regulation of impacts to wetlands) that have favored the development of more densely stocked, heavily shaded contemporary forest conditions in habitats where the white fringeless orchid occurs. This reviewer opined that current habitat conditions where the white fringeless orchid occurs do not, in many cases, represent the optimal range of habitat variation for the species. This reviewer also cited short-term positive responses of white fringeless orchid populations to timber removal in adjacent uplands, a phenomenon that we discussed in the proposed listing rule, as evidence of the positive influences of increased light and water availability, but which diminish with regrowth of even-aged hardwood stands in the absence of ecological disturbance, such as fire. One commenter also suggested that fire could be a beneficial management tool in conservation efforts for the white fringeless orchid.

    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer's observations about the potential beneficial effects of ecological disturbance, such as fire, in creating environmental conditions that stimulate population growth and increased flower production in the white fringeless orchid. The proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) discusses short-term positive responses to timber harvesting that have been observed in some white fringeless orchid populations and notes that Schotz (2015, p. 4) suggested that fire could play a role in regulating woody vegetation growth in uplands surrounding white fringeless orchid habitats. The proposed rule also reports on Hoy's (2012, p. 26) suggestion that high stem densities, which resulted from succession following canopy removal, shortened the hydroperiod of wetlands at a white fringeless orchid site in Kentucky. Evaluating the potential role of fire or other ecological disturbance in managing habitat for the white fringeless orchid will be considered during preparation of a recovery plan (see discussion about recovery plans under the heading Available Conservation Measures, below) for the species after it is listed.

    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the use of herbicides on industrial and small-scale timber operations appears to be increasing significantly in the State of Georgia and that we should include it as a threat of significant concern not only to the white fringeless orchid but also to the herbaceous plant community of which it is part, as well as pollinators. The reviewer did not provide specific data in support of this comment.

    Our Response: We agree that increased use of herbicides in timber operations in or near habitats where the white fringeless orchid occurs could be detrimental to the species, as well as other herbaceous plants and pollinators, but we are not aware of specific instances where adverse effects to the white fringeless orchid have occurred due to herbicide use in silvicultural operations, nor do we have data regarding the rates at which herbicides are used in silvicultural operations presently or in the past. Therefore, we have not added a discussion of herbicide use in silvicultural operations in the analysis of factors affecting the white fringeless orchid.

    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that Atlanta Botanical Garden (ABG) has developed asymbiotic (in the absence of symbiotic fungi), aseptic (free from contamination caused by harmful bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms) in vitro propagation protocols that achieve much higher germination rates than the rate (less than 3 percent) observed by other researchers in separate studies of in vitro and in situ seedling development (Zettler and McInnis 1992, pp. 157-160; Zettler 1994, p. 65).

    Our Response: The Service is aware of the success that ABG has achieved in propagating the white fringeless orchid; however, we are not aware of specific rates of seedling germination that we can include in this rule. Effective propagation protocols could be a valuable tool, combined with science-based habitat management practices, for augmenting currently small populations or restoring populations in sites where the species is no longer extant but suitable habitat conditions remain. We will consider this information during development of a recovery plan for the species.

    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the discussion in the proposed listing rule about rates of fruit set in relation to population size, which cited Zettler et al. (1996, p. 22) and Zettler and McInnis (1992, p. 160) in suggesting that inbreeding depression could be a cause for the lower fruit set observed in smaller populations. The peer reviewer commented that low census numbers of flowering individuals and highly fragmented or degraded pollinator networks also could influence the low rates observed in smaller populations.

    Our Response: We agree with the peer reviewer that other factors besides inbreeding depression, caused by increased rates of self-pollination, could contribute to low rates of fruit set in small populations of the white fringeless orchid. However, we are not aware of specific data that indicate what those other factors might be.

    Federal Agency Comments

    (5) Comment: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) commented that nearly 20 percent of extant white fringeless orchid occurrences are located in transportation or utility rights-of-way, illustrating that the species occurs in these settings at a disproportionately high rate when compared to their overall prevalence on the landscape. The TVA also commented that the proposed rule highlights the beneficial role that vegetation maintenance, if properly conducted, can play in maintaining suitable habitat for the white fringeless orchid and that herbicide resistance in the species could, in part, explain the positive response seen in one population following herbicide application in a TVA right-of-way.

    Our Response: We acknowledge that current distribution data indicate that the white fringeless orchid occurs in transportation or utility rights-of-way at a disproportionately high rate compared to the overall prevalence of these features on the landscape. One possible cause for the disproportionally high numbers of populations known from rights-of-way is that these areas are surveyed by TVA and other utility or transportation departments more frequently or intensively than the forested habitats where most populations are located. It might also be true that white fringeless orchid populations respond positively to the well-lit conditions found in rights-of-way, assuming that other threats related to maintenance or unauthorized use of rights-of-way (e.g., off-road vehicle use) do not adversely affect the plants or their habitat. We commend TVA on its efforts to prevent adverse effects to rare species while conducting vegetation management or infrastructure maintenance in rights-of-way.

    Regarding the comment that herbicide resistance could explain the species' positive response to selective herbicide application, we are not aware of any data to support the assertion that the species is resistant to any registered herbicide products. It is possible that the selective nature of herbicide application to woody species by TVA or its contractors, rather than herbicide resistance generally, is responsible for the positive response seen following one known instance of potential exposure in a TVA right-of-way. This warrants further research.

    Comments From States

    (6) Comment: The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) commented that an occurrence located in a transportation right-of-way in Chattooga County, Georgia, is on lands owned by GDOT. GDOT also commented on its collaborative efforts with Georgia Power and ABG to manage the habitat and white fringeless orchid population at this site.

    Our Response: We include this information in this rule by adding GDOT to Table 2, above, which reports the number of occurrences on publicly owned or managed lands, and by discussing conservation efforts to restore this population under the heading Summary of Biological Status and Threats, below.

    Public Comments

    (7) Comment: We received one comment recommending against listing the white fringeless orchid as threatened or endangered. The commenter stated that this opinion was based on the following: (1) The funds and human hours that would be spent on the white fringeless orchid could be spent elsewhere, such as on priority species; and (2) the species has already declined in great numbers since it became a candidate for listing in 1999, and it seems like more information is needed to allow for preparation of a recovery plan for the species.

    Our Response: The Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the Service to identify species of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific and commercial data. As discussed in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) and as summarized here, we have determined the threats to the white fringeless orchid warrant its listing as threatened under the Act.

    Regarding the commenter's assertion that the species has already declined in great numbers since 1999, the Service acknowledges that some populations have been lost or have declined since the species became a candidate for listing, but notes that several new populations have been discovered since that time. The Service's determination to list the species as threatened, rather than endangered, reflects our conclusion that the species is not at imminent risk of extinction. Further, contrary to the commenter's assertion that more information is needed to prepare a recovery plan, there are considerable biological data available, as summarized in the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), upon which a recovery plan can be based, as well as ongoing conservation efforts that the Service and its partners can build upon and learn from as we develop a recovery plan for the white fringeless orchid.

    (8) Comment: We received comments from four individuals or organizations recommending that we designate critical habitat for white fringeless orchid. Two of the commenters provided no information or data to support their recommendations. One commenter suggested that critical habitat would benefit conservation efforts for the white fringeless orchid for the following reasons: Most of the threats described in the proposed listing rule are related to habitat disturbance or loss; many populations are small and, in the commenter's opinion, would likely no longer exist absent critical habitat designation; and the threat of unauthorized collection is, in the commenter's opinion, neither imminent nor present. This commenter also suggested that a threatened species would experience protective benefits from critical habitat designation because of the requirement for Federal agencies to consult with the Service about projects that could potentially adversely affect critical habitat. Another commenter who recommended designating critical habitat cited the habitat specificity of the species and threats from human activity, such as logging and construction, as the reasons for this recommendation.

    Our Response: In the proposed rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), we weighed the expected increase in threats associated with a critical habitat designation against the benefits that might be gained by a critical habitat designation. We acknowledge that, as two commenters observed, most of the threats described in the proposed rule are related to disturbance or destruction of habitat. However, many of the threats to habitat would not be alleviated by designation of critical habitat, as they are not caused by actions or undertakings of Federal agencies. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of that species' critical habitat. Critical habitat only provides protections where there is a Federal nexus, that is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act. Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not have a Federal nexus, including logging and construction on privately owned lands. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of its proposed action on any designated critical habitat. Similar to the Act's requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the responsibility not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat designation alone, however, does not require that a Federal action agency implement specific steps toward species recovery.

    Some of the populations on Federal lands are the largest known, and any future activity involving a Federal action that would destroy or adversely modify critical habitat at these sites would also likely jeopardize the species' continued existence. Consultation with respect to critical habitat would provide additional protection to a species only if the agency action would result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat but would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In the absence of a critical habitat designation, areas that support white fringeless orchid will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as appropriate.

    We disagree with one commenter's assertion that because most populations are small they likely would no longer exist absent a critical habitat designation. On the contrary, the fact that most of the populations are small, combined with the fact that they are located in remote sites that are infrequently monitored by conservation organizations or law enforcement, led the Service to conclude that publishing locations of those populations in maps that would be required for a critical habitat designation would heighten the threat of collection. In small populations, the collection of even a few individuals would diminish reproductive output and likely reduce genetic diversity, reducing the resilience of those populations to recover from other threats to habitat or individual plants.

    Despite one commenter's assertion that the threat of collection is neither imminent nor present, the proposed rule documented that this threat is both present and imminent, as observed by Service and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) biologists during 2014. Identification of critical habitat would increase the magnitude and severity of this threat by spatially depicting exactly where the species may be found and widely publicizing this information, exposing these fragile populations and their habitat to greater risks. We have reviewed management plans and other documents produced by Federal and State conservation agencies and scientific literature, and detailed information on the specific locations of white fringeless orchid sites is not currently available.

    (9) Comment: We received comments from Georgia Power informing us of conservation efforts directed towards a roadside population in Chattooga County, Georgia, which also lies within a power transmission right-of-way. Georgia Power also commented on its collaborative efforts with GDNR to monitor, protect, and manage the occurrence located on GDNR lands in Rabun County, Georgia.

    Our Response: We have included this information under the heading Summary of Biological Status and Threats.

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on these comments, in this final rule, we include two minor changes from the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015). Those changes are discussed above under the heading Distribution. Additionally, under the heading Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we include a discussion of conservation efforts based on comments we received from GDOT and Georgia Power.

    Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

    In the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), we carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the white fringeless orchid and provided a detailed account of those threats and the biological status of white fringeless orchid.

    We have determined that the threats to white fringeless orchid consist primarily of destruction and modification of habitat (Factor A) resulting in excessive shading, soil disturbance, altered hydrology, and proliferation of invasive plant species; collecting for recreational or commercial purposes (Factor B); herbivory (Factor C); and small population sizes and dependence on specific pollinators and fungi to complete its life cycle (Factor E). Existing regulatory mechanisms have not led to a reduction or removal of threats posed to the species from these factors (Factor D). We summarize each of those threats here. Please refer to the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015) for the full discussion.

    Habitat destruction and modification (Factor A) from development, silvicultural practices, excessive shading, and altered hydrology (i.e., pond construction, beaver dam removal) have resulted in extirpation of the species from 10 sites (Shea 1992, pp. 15, 25; TDEC 2014). These threats, in addition to invasive plant species (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2008, p. 53; Richards 2013, pers. comm.; KSNPC 2014; TDEC 2014), feral hogs (Zettler 1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54; Richards 2013, pers. comm.; Richards 2014, pers. comm.; Tackett 2015, pers. comm.), and right-of-way maintenance (Taylor 2014, pers. comm.), are associated with habitat modifications affecting dozens of other occurrences that are extant or of uncertain status. The best available information indicates that habitat for many existing populations is adversely affected by factors that either directly harm individual white fringeless orchids or alter the plant communities, soils, and water flow in the sites where they occur. These factors include residential development, utility and road right-of-way maintenance, timber harvesting, invasive species encroachment, and vegetation succession in the absence of disturbance. Impacts to habitat from activities such as development and silvicultural practices include direct impacts such as habitat conversion and ground disturbance, and indirect impacts such as altered hydrology, increased shading, and introduction of invasive, nonnative plants. The threats to the white fringeless orchid from habitat destruction and modification are occurring throughout much of the species' range and these population-level impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

    During the comment period, GDOT and Georgia Power provided information on conservation efforts that have been directed to a roadside occurrence in Chattooga County, Georgia, which is located in a power transmission right-of-way. As noted in the proposed listing rule (80 FR 55304; September 15, 2015), this site was adversely affected by unauthorized collection in 2004, and remains vulnerable to this threat due to its location alongside a State highway. Georgia Power and GDOT have designated this site an “Environmentally Sensitive Area,” restricting mowing and herbicide use. They are also working with ABG to augment the population at this occurrence with plants propagated from seed collected at this site. Georgia Power is also collaborating with GDNR to protect, monitor, and manage another occurrence, located in Rabun County, Georgia, and reported that a prescribed burn was recently conducted in the area where this occurrence is located. ABG staff have collected seeds from this population to produce propagated plants that will be used to augment the population at this occurrence.

    Collecting for scientific, recreational, or commercial purposes (Factor B) has been determined to be the cause for extirpation of the white fringeless orchid at its type locality (Ettman and McAdoo 1979 cited in Zettler and Fairey 1990, p. 212), and recent evidence demonstrates that collection remains a threat to this species. Fungal pathogens have been identified as a threat to white fringeless orchid, but a threat with potentially greater impact associated with Factor C is inflorescence herbivory, presumably by deer (Zettler and Fairey 1990, p. 212-214). Flower herbivory has been reported at over one-third of extant occurrences and likely is a factor threatening most white fringeless orchid occurrences (Shea 1992, pp. 27, 61, 71-77, 95-97; TDEC 2012, p. 3; KSNPC 2014; TDEC 2014), especially where low numbers of plants are present. Tuber herbivory or soil disturbance by feral hogs has been reported at multiple occurrences, including the site harboring the largest known white fringeless orchid population (Zettler 1994, p. 687; USFS 2008, p. 54).

    The effects of all of the above-described threats are intensified by the small population sizes that characterize a majority of occurrences throughout the species' geographic range (Factor E), due to their diminished capacity to recover from loss of individuals or low reproductive output resulting from other threats (Zettler et al. 1996, p. 22). Further, the species' dependence on a limited number of Lepidoptera (Zettler et al. 1996, p. 16) and a single species of fungi (Currah et al. 1997, p. 30) to complete its life cycle make it vulnerable to disturbances that diminish habitat suitability for these taxa as well (Factor E). Climate has changed in recent decades in the southeastern United States, and the rate of change likely will continue to increase into the future (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 111-112) (Factor E). Although we do not have data to determine specifically how the habitats where the white fringeless orchid occurs will be affected by, or how the species will respond to, these changes, the potential for adverse effects to the white fringeless orchid, either through changes in habitat suitability or effects on populations of pollinators or mycorrhizal fungi, is likely to increase as climate continues to change at an accelerating rate.

    Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that white fringeless orchid is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future based on the low to moderate threats currently impacting the species. The species is known to be extant at 57 locations (see Table 1, above), but low numbers of individuals have been observed at more than half of these (see Figure 1 in the proposed listing rule: 80 FR 55304, September 15, 2015, p. 55309), distributed across the species' range, and their persistence into the future is uncertain. Furthermore, the threats of habitat destruction or modification and herbivory are present throughout the species' geographic range. Left unmanaged, these threats will likely lead to further reductions in the species' geographic range and abundance at individual sites, increasing the risk of extinction to the point of endangerment. The combination of small population sizes combined with the white fringeless orchid's dependence on specific pollinators and fungi to complete its life cycle diminishes the resilience of populations to recover from adverse effects of threats due to habitat destruction or modification and herbivory.

    Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the white fringeless orchid as threatened in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. The species does not currently meet the definition of endangered species, because a sufficient number of robust populations are present on publicly owned or managed lands, which despite numerous threats, are actively managed such that the risk of extinction is not imminent. Furthermore, conservation efforts have been initiated that could be effective in reducing threats by increasing population sizes and improving habitat conditions across much of the species' geographic range.

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the white fringeless orchid is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

    Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

    Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Kentucky will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the white fringeless orchid. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the white fringeless orchid. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.

    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require consultation, as described in the preceding paragraph, include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Park Service (NPS); issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; powerline right-of-way construction and maintenance by the TVA; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.

    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered and threatened plants. With regard to threatened plants, 50 CFR 17.71 provides that all of the prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.61 applicable to endangered plants apply to threatened plants, with one exception. Thus, the regulations at 50 CFR 17.71(a) make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import or export, transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction any threatened plant. There is an exception for the seeds of cultivated specimens, provided that a statement that the seeds are of “cultivated origin” accompanies the seeds or their container. The Act itself, at 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(2)(B), prohibits malicious damage or destruction of any such species on any area under Federal jurisdiction, and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.

    Under 50 CFR 17.72, we may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened plants under certain circumstances. A permit issued under this section must be for one of the following: Scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.

    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a final listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. Based on the best available information, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 the Act; this list is not comprehensive:

    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of white fringeless orchid, including interstate transportation across State lines and import or export across international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of this species at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;

    (2) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white fringeless orchid plants from populations located on Federal land (USFS, NPS, and Service lands); and

    (3) Unauthorized removal, damage, or destruction of white fringeless orchid plants on private land in violation of any State regulation, including criminal trespass.

    At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that would not be considered to result in a violation of section 9 of the Act because the white fringeless orchid occurs in a variety of habitat conditions across its range and it is likely that site-specific conservation measures may be needed for activities that may directly or indirectly affect the species. Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the Tennessee Ecological Services Field Office.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.12(h) by adding an entry for “Platanthera integrilabia” to the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants in alphabetical order under FLOWERING PLANTS to read as follows:
    § 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

    (h) * * *

    Scientific name Common name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules Flowering Plants *         *         *         *         *         *         * Platanthera integrilabia White fringeless orchid Wherever found T 81 FR [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins]; September 13, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: August 23, 2016. James W. Kurth, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21954 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XE867 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Exchange of Flatfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; reallocation.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is exchanging unused rock sole Community Development Quota (CDQ) for yellowfin sole CDQ acceptable biological catch (ABC) reserves in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area. This action is necessary to allow the 2016 total allowable catch of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area to be harvested.

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The 2016 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves specified in the BSAI are 6,160 metric tons (mt), and 15,773 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) and following revision (81 FR 48722, July 26, 2016). The 2016 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 11,078 mt and 6,879 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016) and following revision (81 FR 48722, July 26, 2016).

    The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 700 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 700 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 700 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 700 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016), and following revision (81 FR 48722, July 26, 2016), are revised as follows:

    Table 11—Final 2016 Community Development Quota (CDQ) Reserves, Incidental Catch Amounts (ICAS), and Amendment 80 Allocations of the Aleutian Islands Pacific Ocean Perch, and BSAI Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole TACS [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector Pacific ocean perch Eastern
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Central
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Western
  • Aleutian
  • District
  • Flathead sole BSAI Rock sole BSAI Yellowfin sole BSAI
    TAC 7,900 7,000 9,000 20,585 56,450 145,065 CDQ 845 749 963 1,832 5,460 16,473 ICA 200 75 10 5,000 6,000 3,500 BSAI trawl limited access 685 618 161 0 0 14,979 Amendment 80 6,169 5,558 7,866 13,753 44,990 110,113 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative 3,271 2,947 4,171 1,411 11,129 43,748 Alaska Seafood Cooperative 2,898 2,611 3,695 12,342 33,861 66,365 Note: Sector apportionments may not total precisely due to rounding.
    Table 13—Final 2016 and 2017 ABC Surplus, Community Development Quota (CDQ) ABC Reserves, and Amendment 80 ABC Reserves in the BSAI for Flathead Sole, Rock Sole, and Yellowfin Sole [Amounts are in metric tons] Sector 2016 Flathead sole 2016 Rock sole 2016 Yellowfin sole 2017 Flathead sole 2017 Rock sole 2017 Yellowfin sole ABC 66,250 161,100 211,700 64,580 145,000 203,500 TAC 20,585 56,450 145,065 21,000 57,100 144,000 ABC surplus 45,665 104,650 66,635 43,580 87,900 59,500 ABC reserve 45,665 104,650 66,635 43,580 87,900 59,500 CDQ ABC reserve 5,257 11,778 6,179 4,663 9,405 6,367 Amendment 80 ABC reserve 40,408 92,872 60,456 38,917 78,495 53,134 Alaska Groundfish Cooperative for 2016 1 4,145 22,974 24,019 n/a n/a n/a Alaska Seafood Cooperative for 2016 1 36,263 69,898 36,437 n/a n/a n/a 1 The 2017 allocations for Amendment 80 species between Amendment 80 cooperatives and the Amendment 80 limited access sector will not be known until eligible participants apply for participation in the program by November 1, 2016. Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association in the BSAI. Since these fisheries are currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the revised allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery, to allow the industry to plan for the fishing season, and to avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 1, 2016.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21941 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 177 Tuesday, September 13, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 51 [Docket ID OCC-2016-0017] RIN 1557-AE07 Receiverships for Uninsured National Banks AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing a rule addressing the conduct of receiverships for national banks that are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (uninsured banks) and for which the FDIC would not be appointed as receiver. The proposed rule would implement the provisions of the National Bank Act (NBA) that provide the legal framework for receiverships of such institutions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov”: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0017” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on “Comment Now” to submit public comments.

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

    Email: [email protected].

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

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

    Fax: (571) 465-4326.

    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2016-0017” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

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

    Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0017” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the right side of the screen and then “Comments.” Comments can be filtered by clicking on “View All” and then using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mitchell Plave, Special Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or Richard Cleva, Senior Counsel, Bank Activities and Structure Division, (202) 649-5500, or for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The proposed rule addresses how the OCC would conduct the receivership of an uninsured national bank.1 The proposed rule would implement the provisions of the NBA that provide the legal framework for receiverships for such institutions, 12 U.S.C. 191-200.2

    1 Unlike national trust banks, all Federal savings associations (FSAs), including FSA trust banks, are required to be insured. For this reason, this proposed rule would not apply to FSAs, given that receiverships for FSAs would be conducted by the FDIC.

    2 The proposed rule establishes the basic receivership framework, which may be supplemented over time with more detailed guidance, for example, concerning the details of the receiver's administration of the receivership estate.

    There are only a small number of uninsured national banks in operation today. The OCC, however, retains the authority to grant new charters to entities whose business plan does not call for them to obtain deposit insurance if the OCC determines that the entities have a reasonable chance of succeeding and can operate in a safe and sound manner, among other considerations. Although the OCC has not placed an uninsured national bank into receivership since the Great Depression, there are several reasons to consider articulating a framework for such receiverships now. First, since the financial crisis of 2007-2008, regulators have undertaken, on both a domestic and coordinated global basis, to evaluate, discuss, and maintain preparedness for effective governmental responses to critical financial distress. This focus highlights the need to consider an appropriate resolution framework for entities, such as uninsured national banks, that currently lack such a framework. Second, the establishment of a framework for receivership for these uninsured institutions would provide clarity to market participants about how they will be treated in receivership. The proposed rule would set forth a framework the OCC can use should an uninsured institution weaken and fail, be it an uninsured trust bank or another uninsured special purpose bank.

    II. Background Statutory Authority for Receiverships

    From the beginning of the national banking system in 1863 until the creation of the FDIC in 1933, receiverships of national banks were conducted by the Comptroller and by a receiver who was appointed by, and worked under the direction of, the Comptroller.3 The Comptroller and receiver had the powers and responsibilities set out in the receivership provisions of the NBA and exercised the powers available at common law for receivers.4 During this time, a substantial body of case law developed applying the statutory provisions and common law principles to national bank receiverships.

    3See Earle v. Penn, 178 U.S. 449 (1900); Cook County Nat'l Bank v. United States, 107 U.S. 445 (1883).

    4See 12 U.S.C. 191-200.

    In 1933, the FDIC was established and, among its other responsibilities, was designated as the receiver for national banks.5 As receiver, the FDIC has both the powers available to national bank receivers under the NBA and additional powers provided to the FDIC in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA). When the FDIC serves as receiver, it does not operate under the direction of the Comptroller, unlike the pre-1933 non-FDIC receivers.6 From 1933 through 1989, the FDIC was designated to be appointed receiver for national banks generally, both insured and uninsured.7

    5See Banking Act of 1933, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., ch. 89, section 12B(1), 48 Stat. 172 (1933).

    6See 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(2)(C).

    7 For example, before its amendment in 1989, section 11(c) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1821(c) stated that, whenever the Comptroller appointed a receiver for any insured or uninsured national bank or Federal branch, the Comptroller “shall appoint” the FDIC receiver for such closed bank. 12 U.S.C. 1821(c) (1988). Federal branches were added to section 1821(c) in 1978 when Federal branches were created in the International Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.

    The receivership regime for national banks was significantly changed again when Congress adopted the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). Among many other consequences, the amendments to the FDIA in FIRREA resulted in the FDIC being specified as the mandatory receiver only for insured depository institutions. Thus, today the FDIC is the required receiver only for an insured national (or state) bank.8 Congress also subsequently amended the receivership appointment provisions of the NBA, 12 U.S.C. 191, to provide that the Comptroller may appoint a receiver for any national bank and that, if the bank is an insured bank, the receiver must be the FDIC.9 Post-FIRREA and post-FDICIA, the FDIA no longer expressly addresses receiverships of uninsured national banks, and there are no statutory limits on the Comptroller's discretion with respect to whom to appoint as receiver of an uninsured bank.

    8 Section 11(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FDIA provides that the FDIC “shall” be appointed receiver, and “shall” accept such appointment, whenever a receiver is appointed for the purpose of liquidation or winding up the affairs of an insured Federal depository institution by the appropriate Federal banking agency, notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law. 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(2)(A)(ii). The term “Federal depository institution” includes national banks. 12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(4).

    9 In 1991, in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), Congress amended 12 U.S.C. 191 to provide that the Comptroller may appoint the FDIC “as receiver for any national banking association.” Public Law 102-242, section 133, 105 Stat. 2236, 2271. FDICIA also amended section 191 to set out the current grounds for receivership. Prior to the amendment, section 191 provided that the Comptroller may appoint a receiver for one of three grounds previously set out in the statute. In October 1992, before the amendment went into effect, Congress revised the language to provide that the receiver shall be the FDIC “if the national bank is an insured bank.” Act of October 28, 1992, Public Law 102-550, Title XVI, Subtitle A, section 1609, 106 Stat. 4090 (1992).

    Based on this statutory history, it appears that today, unlike in the period between 1933 and 1989, the FDIA would not apply to a receivership of an uninsured bank conducted by the OCC, and that such a receivership would be governed exclusively by the NBA provisions, the common law of receivers, and cases applying the statutes and common law to national bank receiverships.10 FIRREA and FDICIA greatly expanded the FDIC's powers in resolving failed insured depository institutions. The OCC believes that those additional powers are not available to the OCC as receiver of uninsured banks under the NBA.

    10 While the receivership operations will be governed by the NBA provisions, the common law of receivers, and cases applying the statutes and common law to national bank receiverships, the grounds for appointment of a receiver in the NBA for a national bank, including an uninsured bank, incorporate by reference the grounds for appointment in the FDIA. See 12 U.S.C. 191(a)(1) (referring to 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(5)).

    Uninsured Banks Supervised by the OCC

    As of May 2016, the OCC supervises 52 uninsured banks. Currently, all of these institutions are trust banks. The OCC may charter national banks whose operations are limited to those of a trust company and related activities (national trust bank).11 The activities of national trust banks are similar to those of trust departments of full-service banks. But unlike a trust department, they are not part of a larger bank that also engages in commercial banking. All but a handful of the national trust banks do not engage in the business of receiving deposits and instead hold trust funds, which are off-balance sheet assets that are not considered to be deposits and are not insured by the FDIC.

    11See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 27(a); 12 CFR 5.20(l). The OCC also charters Federal savings associations. Unlike national trust banks, all Federal savings associations are required to be insured.

    National trust banks typically have few assets on the balance sheet, usually composed of cash on deposit with an insured depository institution, investment securities, premises and equipment, and intangible assets. These banks exercise fiduciary and custody powers, do not make loans, do not rely on deposit funding, and consequently have simple liquidity management programs. In view of these differences, the OCC typically requires these banks to hold capital in a specific minimum amount; as a result they hold capital in amounts that substantially exceed the “well capitalized” standard that pertains when national banks calculate their capital pursuant to the OCC's rules in 12 CFR part 3.

    The business model of national trust banks is to generate income in the form of fees by offering fiduciary and custodial services that generally fall into one or more of a few broad categories. Some of these national trust banks focus on institutional asset management, providing trust and custodial services for investment portfolios of pension plans, foundations and endowments, and other entities, often with an investment management component. These firms often also offer private wealth management and individual retirement savings services. These services provided by national trust banks are similar to those provided by other non-bank investment management firms.

    A few other national trust banks serve primarily as a fiduciary and custodian to facilitate the establishment of Individual Retirement Accounts by customers of an affiliated mutual fund complex or broker-dealer firm. While it is not common, a few national trust banks have been established for a special purpose within a larger financial company to accomplish a transition or other specific purpose over a limited time period, such as facilitating a consolidation.

    Some national trust banks provide custodial services. One example of this type of service is corporate trust accounts, under which the bank performs services for others in connection with their issuance, transfer, and registration of debt or equity securities. Other custody accounts may be a holding facility for customer securities, where the bank assists institutional customers with global settlement and safekeeping of the customer's securities.

    Many of the uninsured national trust banks are subsidiaries or affiliates of a full-service insured national bank. Another group are affiliates of an insured state bank. In these cases where the national trust bank is part of a bank holding company, the bank and the company have decided for a variety of business reasons to offer some fiduciary services to their customers in a separate national trust bank charter. National trust banks affiliated with other banks can vary greatly in complexity, in the type of fiduciary or custody businesses they engage in, and in the amount of assets under management or administration. Typically they maintain a few thousand accounts for individuals or family trusts containing assets totaling in the range of $10 billion, or in other cases maintaining as many as 10,000 corporate custody accounts totaling in the range of $20 billion.

    Other uninsured national trust banks are not affiliated with an insured depository institution, but are affiliated with an investment management firm or other financial services firm. These national trust banks provide fiduciary and custody services for customers of the firm. National trust banks affiliated with an investment management firm or other financial services firm also can vary greatly in complexity, in the type of fiduciary or custody businesses they engage in, and in the amount of assets under management or administration. While these national trust banks may, in exceptional cases, hold as much as $1 trillion in fiduciary and custodial assets, they more commonly hold assets in the $5-$50 billion range across a few thousand accounts.

    Still other national trust banks have no affiliation with a larger parent company. These independent firms typically manage a few billion dollars in fiduciary and custodial assets across a few thousand accounts, while others might be described as boutique trust firms, not affiliated with a larger parent company, with a few employees, fewer than 500 customers, and $1 billion or less in fiduciary assets.

    The OCC has not appointed a receiver for an uninsured bank since shortly after the Congress established the FDIC in response to the banking panics of 1930-1933. Because of the fundamentally different business model of national trust banks, compared to commercial and consumer banks and savings associations noted above, national trust banks face very different types of risks. National trust banks primarily face operational, compliance, strategic, and reputational risks without the credit and liquidity risks that additionally impact the solvency of commercial and consumer banks. While any of these risks can result in the precipitous failure of a bank or savings association, from a historical perspective, trust banks have been more likely to decline into a weakened condition, allowing the OCC and the institution the time needed to find other solutions for rehabilitating the institution or to successfully resolve the institution without the need to appoint a receiver.12

    12 In some instances, uninsured trust banks enter into safeguard agreements with the OCC to facilitate early resolution through a sale, merger or liquidation, thereby avoiding the need for a receivership. These safeguard agreements are entered into as part of the licensing process and concern operations, capital, and liquidity.

    The OCC believes it would nevertheless be beneficial to financial market participants and the broader community of regulators for the OCC to clarify the receivership framework for uninsured banks. Although the OCC conducted 2,762 receiverships pursuant to this framework in the years prior to the creation of the FDIC,13 and the associated legal issues are the subject of a robust body of published judicial precedents, the details have not been widely articulated in recent jurisprudence or legal commentary. This proposal may also facilitate synergies with the ongoing efforts of U.S. and international financial regulators since the financial crisis to enhance our readiness to respond effectively to the different critical financial distresses that could manifest themselves unexpectedly in the diverse types of financial firms presently operating in the market.

    13Annual Report of the Comptroller of the Currency for the Year Ended October 31, 1934 at 33 (discussing the status of active and closed receiverships under the jurisdiction of the Comptroller between 1865 and 1934).

    Other Types of Uninsured National Banks

    The OCC has the authority to charter and supervise special purpose banks with operations limited solely to providing fiduciary services.14 In addition to national trust banks, the OCC also may charter other special purpose banks with business models that are within the business of banking. The OCC's rules provide that a special purpose bank must conduct at least one of the three core banking functions, namely receiving deposits, paying checks, or lending money.15 As part of the agency's initiative on responsible innovation in the Federal banking system, the OCC is considering how best to implement a regulatory framework that is receptive to responsible innovation, such as advances in financial technology.16 In conjunction with this effort, the OCC is considering whether a special purpose charter could be an appropriate entity for the delivery of banking services in new ways. For this reason, the OCC requests comment on the utility of the receivership structure in the proposed rule for receivership of such a special purpose bank.

    14 12 U.S.C. 27(a); 12 CFR 5.20(e)(1), 5.20(l).

    15 12 CFR 5.20(e)(1).

    16See OCC, Supporting Responsible Innovation in the Federal Banking System: An OCC Perspective at 2 (March 2016) available at http://www.occ.treas.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/pub-responsible-innovation-banking-system-occ-perspective.pdf.

    Question 1. Would application of the NBA's legal framework for receiverships of uninsured banks to such innovative special purpose banks raise any unique considerations?

    Uninsured Federal Branches and Agencies

    In addition to conducting receiverships for uninsured national banks, the OCC has statutory authority to appoint and oversee a receiver for uninsured Federal branches and agencies (uninsured Federal branches).17 While there are some powers and functions that overlap in conducting receiverships for uninsured banks and Federal branches, there are differences that make receiverships for Federal branches more complex.

    17 12 U.S.C. 3102(j).

    The International Banking Act of 1978 18 (IBA) sets forth the legal framework for the establishment and operation of federally licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks. Under the IBA, a receiver appointed by the Comptroller for an uninsured Federal branch would exercise the same rights, privileges, powers, and authority in conducting the receivership as it would in conducting a receivership for an uninsured bank.19 As such, with some exceptions, the provisions in the NBA for receiverships would generally apply to receiverships for Federal branches.20 However, the nature of an uninsured Federal branch's more typical commercial banking type of business model, the overlay of other Federal laws including provisions on receiverships in the IBA, and concerns being deliberated currently on a global basis among financial regulators about the resolution of global systemically important banks make the subject of uninsured Federal branch resolutions a more complicated topic.

    18 12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.

    19 12 U.S.C. 3102(j).

    20 This approach is consistent with the “national treatment” requirement in the IBA, 12 U.S.C. 3102(b).

    For this reason, the scope of this proposed rule does not extend to receiverships for uninsured Federal branches. The OCC will continue reviewing the regulatory and legal issues relating to receiverships for Federal branches and will confer with other regulators on these issues. The OCC may seek public input on this subject as part of our deliberations on the topic in the future.

    Cost Implications of OCC Receivership Function

    The OCC's establishment of a receivership framework may also raise cost implications for the OCC. In addition to the OCC's costs incidental to the selection and supervision of a receiver, and approval of claims against the receivership for a share of the receiver's liquidating dividends, the receiver for an uninsured national bank will, as a matter of necessity, incur administrative costs in performing liquidation functions. As discussed below, the NBA provides that the receiver's administrative expenses are to be paid first out of the assets of the receivership, but there may be circumstances where the receiver's administrative expenses exceed those resources.

    The OCC is considering how it might cover these types of costs. One approach would be to build resources to defray these costs into our structure for collection of assessments from the uninsured institutions we supervise, in accordance with 12 CFR part 8. Any change to the OCC's assessments would be set forth in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Question 2. The OCC requests comment on alternatives that might be implemented to take account of these cost considerations.

    III. Proposed Rule and Request for Comment Overview

    The proposed rule, as described below, incorporates the framework set forth in the NBA for the Comptroller to appoint a receiver for an uninsured bank, generally under the same grounds for appointment of the FDIC as receiver for insured national banks. The uninsured bank may challenge the appointment in court, and the NBA affords jurisdiction to the appropriate United States district court for this purpose. The OCC will provide the public with notice of the appointment, as well as instructions for submitting claims against the uninsured bank in receivership. The OCC may appoint any person as receiver, including the OCC or another government agency.

    The receiver carries out its duties under the direction of the Comptroller. Under the NBA, the OCC functions in two capacities. Its primary capacity is that of a regulatory agency, in which the OCC oversees national banks, Federal savings associations, and Federal branches and Federal agencies, supervising them under the charge of assuring the safety and soundness of, and compliance with laws and regulations, fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers by, the institutions and other persons subject to its jurisdiction.21 The OCC is also directed by the NBA to act in a receivership capacity, under which the OCC appoints and oversees receivers for uninsured banks, thereby facilitating the winding down of bank operations, assets, and accounts while minimizing disruptions to customers and creditors of the institution. These capacities are separate in a way that parallels the separate capacities of the FDIC which, in its corporate capacity, serves as the insurer of depository institutions and oversees state non-member banks, and, in its receivership capacity, oversees the winding down of failed insured depository institutions. These two capacities are distinct both functionally and legally and reflect different public policy roles. A separate legal status attaches to each capacity.22 A receiver acting under either the NBA in the case of the OCC or the FDIA in the case of the FDIC “step[s] into the shoes of” the failed institution.23

    21 12 U.S.C. 1.

    22See O'Melveny & Meyers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. 79, 85 (1994) (finding that FDIC-Receiver “steps into the shoes” of the failed institution and is “not the United States”). The O'Melveny & Meyers case concerns a choice of law question in a professional malpractice suit brought against the former counsel for the savings and loan. The Court concluded that the FDIC as receiver asserts the rights of the failed bank in receivership, not of “FDIC-Corporate,” and therefore state law, not Federal common law, applies. See also Bullion Services v. Valley State Bank, 50 F.3d 705, 708-709 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that, under Federal law, the FDIC is empowered to operate to act in two entirely separate and distinct capacities) (citations omitted); FDIC v. Fonesca, 795 F.2d 1102, 1109 (1st Cir. 1986) (stating that “ `Corporate' FDIC and `Receiver' FDIC are separate and distinct legal entities”); Jones v. FDIC, 748 F.2d 1400, 1402 (10th Cir. 1984) (same).

    23See supra, note 22.

    Under the “separate capacities” doctrine, which has long been recognized in litigation involving the FDIC, it is well established that the agency, when acting in one capacity, is not liable for claims against the agency acting in its other capacity.24 As a corollary to this doctrine, the assets the agency oversees in the receivership are limited to the funds making up the failed bank's estate. For these reasons, payment of claims or judgments concerning the receivership are made from the receivership estate, not from the agency's operating budget and funds.

    24See Dababneh v. FDIC, 971 F.2d 428, 432 (10th Cir. 1992) (“[b]ecause they are discrete legal entities, Corporate FDIC is not liable” for obligations and liabilities of the FDIC as receiver) (citations omitted); accord FDIC v. Nichols, 885 F. 2d 633, 636 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing the corporate-receiver distinction in a case involving the purchase of receivership assets by FDIC in its corporate capacity); FDIC v. Fonseca, 795 F.2d 1102, 1109 (1st Cir. 1986) (refusing to address claims asserted against FDIC in its corporate capacity that were based on actions taken by the FDIC as receiver); Mill Creek Group, Inc. v. FDIC, 136 F. Supp. 2d 36, 48 (D. Conn. 2001) (finding that FDIC in its corporate capacity could not be held liable for breach of a contract entered into by FDIC in its receiver capacity).

    The same reasoning has been applied to cases involving the former Resolution Trust Corporation. See, e.g., U.S. v. Schroeder, 86 F.3d 114, 117 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that it is “well established that the RTC, when acting in one capacity, is not liable for claims against the RTC acting in one of its other capacities”); see also Howerton v. Designer Homes by Georges, Inc., 950 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1992) (“The RTC, in its corporate capacity, is not liable for claims against the RTC in its capacity as conservator or receiver.”)

    The proposed rule reflects this well-established understanding of the functional and legal distinctions between the corporate and receiver capacities. The proposed rule follows the statutory framework under the NBA, under which persons with claims against an uninsured bank in receivership would file their claims with the receiver for the failed uninsured bank, for review by the OCC. In the event the OCC denies the claim, the only remedy available to the claimant is to bring a judicial action against the uninsured bank's receivership estate and assert the claim de novo. A person is also free to initiate its claim by bringing an action against the receivership estate in court for adjudication, and then submit the judgment to the OCC to participate in ratable dividends of liquidation proceeds along with other approved and adjudicated claims.25

    25See First Nat'l Bank of Bethel v. Nat'l Pahquioque Bank, 81 U.S. 383, 401 (1871).

    Approved or adjudicated claims are paid solely out of the assets of the uninsured bank in receivership. As described in the proposed rule, the receiver liquidates the assets of the uninsured bank, with court approval, and pays the proceeds into an account as directed by the OCC. The categories of claims and the priority thereof for payment are set out in the proposed rule. The proposed rule also clarifies certain powers held by the receiver, and describes the receiver's duties in winding up the affairs of the uninsured bank.

    Section-by-Section Analysis

    Proposed § 51.1 identifies the purpose and scope of the proposed rule and clarifies that the proposal would apply to receiverships conducted by the OCC under the NBA for national banks that are not insured by the FDIC. The proposed rule does not extend to receiverships for uninsured Federal branches, although elements of the framework may be similar for uninsured Federal branch receiverships, which would also be resolved under provisions of the NBA. Proposed § 51.2 is based on 12 U.S.C. 191 and 192 and concerns appointment of a receiver. The proposed rule sets out the Comptroller's authority to appoint any person, including the OCC or another government agency, as receiver for an uninsured bank and provides that the receiver performs its duties subject to the approval and direction of the Comptroller.26 If the Comptroller were to appoint the OCC as receiver, the OCC would act in a receivership capacity with respect to the uninsured bank in receivership, rather than in the OCC's supervisory capacity. As discussed above, this dual capacity (OCC as supervisor versus OCC as receivership sponsor for an uninsured bank) recognizes that, while the NBA makes the receivership oversight and claims review functions of the Comptroller part of the OCC's responsibilities, the receivership oversight role is unique and distinct from the OCC's role as a Federal regulatory agency and supervisor of national banks and Federal savings associations. This is comparable to the dual capacity of the FDIC's receivership function for insured depository institutions pursuant to the FDIA.

    26But see 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(6) (Comptroller may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver and the FDIC has discretion to accept such appointment); id. at § 1821(c)(2)(C) (FDIC “not subject to any other agency” when acting as conservator or receiver”). Read together, these provisions likely mean that the provision in § 51.2 concerning oversight of the receiver by the Comptroller would not apply to the FDIC acting as conservator or receiver for an uninsured institution, should the Comptroller appoint the FDIC and the FDIC accept such an appointment.

    Proposed § 51.2 also provides that the Comptroller may require the receiver to post a bond or other security and the receiver may hire staff and professional advisors, with the approval of the Comptroller, if needed to carry out the receivership. This section also identifies the grounds for appointment of a receiver for an uninsured bank and notes that uninsured banks may seek judicial review of the appointment, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 191.

    Proposed § 51.3 provides that the OCC would provide notice to the public of the appointment of a receiver for the uninsured bank. The proposed rule specifies that one component of this notice will include publication in a newspaper of general circulation selected by the OCC for three consecutive months, as required by 12 U.S.C. 193. As a component of the OCC's notice to the public about the receivership, the OCC would also provide instructions for creditors and other claimants seeking to submit claims with the receiver for the uninsured bank.

    The OCC believes that the purpose of section 193 may be better served by publication through means other than publication in a newspaper. For example, the OCC could provide direct notice to customers and creditors of the uninsured bank, to the extent the uninsured bank's records included current contact information. The OCC could also arrange to provide notice through electronic channels that customers would typically use to contact the uninsured bank, such as the uninsured bank's Web site. The OCC believes that an effective set of notice protocols would best be established on a case-by-case basis, in light of a specific uninsured bank's fiduciary and custodial activities, the types of customers served by the bank, coordination with other notice protocols under way for any related entity that is also undergoing resolution activity, and similar factors.

    Question 3. The OCC invites comment on the appropriate types of, and channels for, notices of receiverships, as well as how frequently to provide these notices. Commenters are also invited to address whether customized notice should be provided in addition to the requirement for newspaper publication, which would apply in every case.

    Proposed § 51.4 addresses the submission of claims to the receiver for an uninsured bank. Under proposed § 51.4(a), a person with a claim against the receivership may submit a claim to the OCC, which would consider the claim and make a determination concerning its validity and approved amount. This process reflects the provisions in 12 U.S.C. 193 and 194 regarding presentation of claims and payment of dividends on claims that are proved to the satisfaction of the Comptroller. Proposed § 51.4 also provides that the Comptroller would establish a deadline for filing claims with the receiver, which could not be earlier than 30 days after the three-month publication of notice required by proposed § 51.3. This provision reflects NBA case law that permitted the Comptroller to establish a date for filing claims against the receiver for a failed bank, before this responsibility shifted to the FDIC.27

    27See Queenan v. Mays, 90 F.2d 525, 531 (10th Cir. 1937).

    Proposed § 51.4(b) clarifies that persons with claims against an uninsured bank in receivership may present their claims to a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication, in addition to, or as an alternative to, filing a claim with the OCC. If successful in court, such persons would be required to submit a copy of the final judgment to the OCC to participate in ratable dividends of liquidation proceeds along with claims against the bank in receivership submitted to, and approved by, the OCC. The proposed rule requires submission of a copy of the court's final judgment to the OCC. This provision is based on 12 U.S.C. 193 and 194.

    In this regard, the receivership regime established by the NBA differs somewhat from the approach set out in other resolution regimes, such as the bankruptcy provisions of the United States Code and the receivership provisions of the FDIA. Under those resolution regimes, creditors and claimants must generally submit their claims to the receivership estate for centralized administration and disposition, and claims that are not submitted by the claims deadline are barred from any participation in liquidation payments. The NBA provisions are different in that claimants are provided the opportunity to submit claims to the OCC for evaluation, but are not foreclosed from pursuing judicial resolution by filing litigation (or continuing a pre-existing lawsuit) in a court of competent jurisdiction against the uninsured bank in receivership.

    The claims filing deadline established by the Comptroller pursuant to proposed § 51.4(a) is the date by which claimants seeking review under the OCC's claims process must make their submission. Nevertheless, a claimant that has not made a submission to the OCC by the deadline is not barred from initiating judicial claims against the uninsured bank in receivership solely by virtue of missing the claims deadline.28

    28See First Nat'l Bank of Bethel v. Nat'l Pahquioque Bank, 81 U.S. 383, 401 (1871); Queenan, 90 F.2d at 531. As noted above, it is incumbent on a claimant that pursues the judicial route and ultimately obtains judicial relief to submit the final judicial determination and award to the OCC, in order to participate in the OCC's periodic ratable dividends of liquidation proceeds of the receivership estate. Except with respect to a valid and enforceable security interest in specific property of the uninsured bank established as part of a final judicial determination, there are no assets or funds available to a successful judicial claimant other than the ratable dividend process set out in 12 U.S.C. 194 and described in proposed § 51.8.

    The NBA's receivership provisions are like the receivership regime established by the FDIC under the FDIA, however, in that the avenue available to a party whose claim has been denied by the FDIC or OCC performing the agencies' receivership claims functions is to file (or continue) a de novo judicial action asserting the facts and legal theory of the claim against the receivership of the bank. The NBA does not contemplate or support anything in the nature of further action by the claimant in an administrative or judicial forum against the OCC seeking review of the claim determination.

    The OCC believes that the proposed claims process offers many claimants advantages over other methods of claims resolution. In particular, for customers of the institution, and for holders of receivables and other contractual credit claims against the uninsured bank, the extent and validity of the claim will frequently be clear from the books and records of the bank, account statements provided to customers, and similar documents. The claims process provides an efficient way for identification, in a timely way, of the largest group of claimants who will be eligible to participate in ratable distributions of liquidation dividends, as described in proposed § 51.8. The OCC's public notices of the receivership will provide claimants with information on how to obtain more detailed instructions for submitting claims to the OCC and on disposition of claims.

    If a claimant asserts that a claim incorporates a valid and enforceable security interest in assets of the uninsured bank, the OCC believes that it may be in that claimant's interest to apprise the OCC of that claim through the claims process. While the NBA does not restrict the holder of a valid security interest in uninsured bank assets from enforcing that interest through applicable state law, making the OCC aware of the claim and presenting an opportunity for it to be evaluated creates an opportunity to explore whether the receivership estate might negotiate an arrangement that would provide the claimant the value of the security interest in a more efficient way. Also, if it turns out that a portion of the claim remains unsecured, the claimant will have presented their claim to the OCC, and would participate in ratable dividends if the OCC approved the claim. For these reasons, the OCC has included language in proposed § 51.4(a) referring equally to secured and unsecured claims.

    Proposed § 51.4(c) provides that if a person with a claim against an uninsured bank in receivership also has an obligation owed to the bank, the claim and obligation will be set off against each other and only the net balance remaining after set-off will be considered as a claim. To this end, proposed § 51.4(a) also includes language referring to claims for set-off. The right of set-off where parties have mutual obligations has long been recognized as an equitable principle.29 Well-settled case law has held that a receivership creditor's or other claimant's equitable right to a set-off is not precluded by the ratable distribution requirement of the NBA, provided such set-off is otherwise legally valid.30 If, after set-off, an amount is owed to the creditor, the creditor may file a claim for the net amount remaining as any other unsecured creditor. Conversely, if, after set-off, an amount is owed to the bank, the creditor does not have a claim and the net amount remaining is an asset of the uninsured bank, which the receiver may obtain in connection with marshalling the assets (as further described in proposed § 51.7(a)).

    29Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U.S. 362 (1876); Blount v. Windley, 95 U.S. 173 (1877), 177; Carr v. Hamilton, 129 U.S. 252 (1889).

    30See Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 510 (1892); InterFirst Bank of Abilene, N.A. v. FDIC, 777 F.2d 1092, 1095-1096 (5th Cir. 1985); FDIC v. Mademoiselle of California, 379 F.2d 660, 663 (9th Cir. 1967).

    Question 4. The OCC requests comment on whether there are additional characteristics of set-offs or other situations in which set-off may arise that should be included in the rule.

    Proposed § 51.5 sets out the order of priorities for payment of administrative expenses of the receiver and claims against the uninsured bank in receivership. Under this section, the OCC would pay these expenses and claims in the following order: (1) Administrative expenses of the receiver; (2) unsecured creditors, including secured creditors to the extent their claim exceeds their valid and enforceable security interest; (3) creditors of the uninsured bank, if any, whose claims are subordinated to general creditor claims; and (4) shareholders of the uninsured bank. The order is based on case law and, in the case of the first priority for administrative expenses, on 12 U.S.C. 196.31

    31See Ticonic Nat'l Bank v. Sprague, 303 U.S. 406, 410-411 (1938); Merrill v. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U.S. 131, 146 (1899); Scott v. Armstrong, 146 U.S. 499, 510 (1892); Bell v. Hanover Nat'l Bank, 57 F. 821, 822 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1893).

    A creditor or other claimant with a security interest that was valid and enforceable as to its terms prior to the appointment of the receiver is entitled to exercise that security interest, outside the priority of distributions set out in the proposed rule.32 If the collateral value exceeds the amount of the claim as it was immediately prior to the receiver's appointment, the surplus remains an asset of the uninsured bank, and the receiver may obtain it in connection with marshalling the assets (as further described in proposed § 51.7(a)).33

    32Ticonic Nat'l Bank v. Sprague, 303 U.S. 406, 410-411 (1938); Bell v. Hanover Nat'l Bank, 57 F. 821, 822 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1893).

    33Bell v. Hanover Nat'l Bank, 57 F. 821, 822 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1893).

    Liens arising from judicial determinations after the initiation of the receivership, as well as contractual liens that are triggered due to the appointment of a receiver or other post-appointment events, are not enforceable. This is because recognition of these liens would afford these claimants a priority that is not recognized under the established legal priorities described in proposed § 51.5. Similarly, a secured creditor is not entitled to a priority distribution of any portion of the claim that is not covered by the value of the collateral, because the creditor is in the position of an unsecured creditor for that portion of the claim, and must participate in ratable liquidation distributions on par with other unsecured creditors.34

    34Merrill v. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 173 U.S. 131, 146 (1899).

    Assets held by the uninsured bank in a fiduciary or custodial capacity, as identified on the bank's books and records, are not general assets of the bank. Section 51.8(b) of the proposed rule states this, for the absence of doubt. In the same vein, the claim of the customer to fiduciary or custodial assets is separate from, and not subject to, the priority set out in proposed § 51.5. Fiduciary and custodial customers of the bank have direct claims on those assets pursuant to their fiduciary or custodial account contracts. However, the priority of a fiduciary or custodial customer's other claims against the bank, if any, would remain subject to the priority described in proposed § 51.5. For example, a fiduciary customer's claim for a refund of prepaid investment management fees that were attributable to periods after the receiver returned the fiduciary assets to the customer, generally would be an unsecured claim covered by proposed § 51.5(b). The claims process described in § 51.4(b) of the proposed rule is available to a fiduciary customer, for both a direct claim on fiduciary assets, as well as a receivership claim for an obligation of the bank.

    Question 5. The OCC requests comment on whether there are other Federal statutes regarding specific types of claims that may be applicable to a receivership of an uninsured bank under the NBA and that would give certain claims a different priority, such as claims owed to the Federal government.

    Proposed § 51.6 provides that all administrative expenses of the receiver for an uninsured bank will be paid out of the assets of the receivership before payment of claims against the receivership. This reflects the requirements in 12 U.S.C. 196. The proposed rule also states that receivership expenses would include pre-receivership and post-receivership obligations that the receiver determines are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the orderly liquidation or other resolution of the uninsured bank in receivership. To further illustrate the kinds of expenses that section 196 affords a first priority claim on the uninsured bank's receivership assets, proposed § 51.6 enumerates examples of such administrative expenses, such as wages and salaries of employees, expenses for professional services, contractual rent pursuant to an existing lease or rental agreement, and payments to third-party or affiliated service providers, when the receiver determines these expenses are of benefit to the receivership.

    Proposed § 51.7 contains provisions describing the powers and duties of the receiver and the disposition of fiduciary and custodial accounts. As described in proposed § 51.7, the receiver would take over the assets and operation of the uninsured bank, take action to realize on debts owed to the uninsured bank, sell the property of the bank, and liquidate the assets of the uninsured bank for payment of claims against the receivership. Proposed § 51.7(a)(1)-(5) lists some of the major powers and duties for the receiver set out in 12 U.S.C. 192 and clarified by the courts, including taking possession of the books and records of the bank, collecting on debts and claims owed to the bank, selling or compromising bad or doubtful debts (with court approval), and selling the bank's real and personal property (also with court approval).

    Proposed § 51.7(b) provides for the receiver to close the uninsured bank's fiduciary and custodial appointments, or transfer such accounts to a successor fiduciary or custodian under 12 CFR 9.16 or other applicable Federal law. The uninsured banks currently in existence focus on fiduciary and custodial services, so this function of the receiver would be of primary importance. This provision recognizes that the receiver's power to wind up the affairs of the uninsured bank in receivership, acting with court approval to make disposition of bank assets, should properly encompass the power to transfer fiduciary or custodial appointments and any associated assets in appropriate circumstances.

    Transfer of fiduciary appointments may occur under the terms of the instrument creating the relationship, if it provides for transfer, or under a fiduciary transfer statute, if one is applicable. The OCC believes there are strong public policy interests in endeavoring to replace fiduciaries and custodians expeditiously, without an interruption in service to their customers, if transfer can be arranged to a qualified successor, maintaining the same duties and standards of care with respect to the customers that previously pertained to their accounts at the uninsured bank in receivership. The alternative, given that the uninsured bank must be wound down and cannot provide services in the future, is to stop managing and reinvesting the customer's assets, stop responding to directions to transfer or receive assets in custody, close the accounts, and seek instructions from the account holders or the courts regarding return of associated assets. For institutional customers, this is likely to cause significant interruption of the intricate machinery of their financial operations. For individuals, it can potentially result in loss of asset value in adverse markets, or loss of income due to foregone reinvestments.

    Across the United States, there are disparate and often conflicting legal rules restricting or conditioning transfers of an appointment of a fiduciary for a beneficiary residing within the state. Depending on the geographic area across which the uninsured bank has established fiduciary relationships with its customers, and the standardization of its fiduciary account agreements or appointing instruments, it may be practicable for the receiver to transition an uninsured bank's fiduciary and custody accounts to a qualified successor through the mechanisms provided by applicable local law. On the other hand, if faced with dispersed customers, diverse account agreements or appointments of different vintage, or even the absence of an applicable law of transfer for customers in certain states, reliance on these methods may be so cumbersome as to effectively prevent accomplishment of the transfers in a timely way.

    In order to address these potential problems, the OCC, relying on the support of existing case law, is including language in the proposed rule to make it clear that the uninsured bank receiver's power under 12 U.S.C. 192 to sell, with court approval, the real and personal property of the bank includes the power to transfer the bank's fiduciary accounts and related assets, subject to the approval of the court exercising jurisdiction over the receiver's efforts to transfer the bank's assets. The proposed rule is consistent with case law recognizing that a receiver for a national bank may properly arrange asset purchase and liability assumption transactions to move the business of a failed bank to a successor on an integrated basis, as part of the power to transfer assets, as well as analogous case law concerning the transfer of fiduciary and custodial assets by the FDIC, acting as receiver of failed insured depository institutions.35

    35See NCNB Texas National Bank v. Cowden, 895 F.2d 1488 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that the FDIC, as receiver of insolvent bank, had authority to transfer fiduciary appointments to bridge bank prior to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989).

    Proposed § 51.7(c) incorporates, in general terms, the powers, duties, and responsibilities of receivers for national banks under the NBA and under judicial precedents determining the authorities and responsibilities of receivers for national banks. Examples of these powers include: (1) The authority to repudiate certain contracts, including: (a) Purely executory contracts, upon determining that the contracts would be unduly burdensome or unprofitable for the receivership estate,36 (b) contracts that involve fraud or misrepresentation,37 and (c) in limited cases, non-executory contracts that are contrary to public policy; 38 (2) the authority to recover fraudulent transfers; 39 and (3) the authority to enforce collection of notes from debtors and collateral, regardless of the existence of side arrangements that would otherwise defeat the collectability of such notes.40

    36Bank One Texas v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., 878 F. Supp. 943, 964-66 (N.D. Tex. 1995).

    37 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 228 at 320 (1952) (addressing contracts voidable for fraud, duress, or mistake).

    38Cf. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Md. v. Conner, 973 F.2d 1236, 1241 (5th Cir. 1992).

    39See Peters v. Bain, 133 U.S. 670 (1890) (applying state substantive law to determine whether to void a transfer); Rogers v. Marchant, 91 F.2d 660, 663 (4th Cir. 1937).

    40D'Oench, Duhme & Co., Inc. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 458 (1942). A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, § 228 at 320 (1952) (addressing contracts voidable for fraud duress or mistake).

    Proposed § 51.7(d) requires the receiver to make periodic reports to the OCC concerning the status and proceedings of the receivership.

    Proposed § 51.8 contains provisions regarding the payment of dividends on claims against the uninsured bank and the distribution of any remaining proceeds to shareholders. This section provides that, after administrative expenses of the receivership have been paid, the OCC would make ratable dividends from available receivership funds based on the priority of claims in proposed § 51.5, for claims that have been proved to the OCC's satisfaction or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction, as provided in 12 U.S.C. 194. The OCC would make payment of dividends, if any, periodically, at the discretion of the OCC, as the receiver liquidates the assets of the uninsured bank.

    The proposed rule's inclusion of the “ratable dividend” requirement is designed to incorporate the associated standards about the proper application of this statutory directive, which the judiciary has articulated over the years. The ratable dividend requirement directs the OCC to make distributions on OCC-approved claims and judicial awards on an equal footing, determining the amount of each creditor's claim as it stands at the point of insolvency. As one example, a court's award of interest on an unpaid debt to the date of a judgment rendered in the plaintiff's favor after the receiver was appointed does not increase the amount of the plaintiff's claim for purposes of making ratable dividends. As another example, the ratable dividend requirement generally restricts claims against the bank receivership for debts that were not due and owing at the appointment of the receiver, and arose for the first time as a consequence of the appointment or a post-appointment event.

    The OCC requests comment on alternatives to the proposed rule's approach to distributing dividends, under which the OCC would exercise its discretion under section 194 to determine the timing of the distributions on established claims. One alternative would be to refrain from paying any dividends until all claims have been submitted and validated, with final allowed claim amounts established. This approach presents the possibility that proven claims may be delayed for a significant amount of time pending more protracted resolution of other claims. For example, if there is ongoing litigation against the bank regarding a claim, this waiting period rule would mean no dividends would be made to any claimants, even those with well-established claims, until after the litigation is finally resolved.

    Another option would be to allow ongoing dividends on proven claims, subject to the receiver's retaining a percentage of the funds on hand at the time of the distribution as a pool of dividends for catch-up distributions to a successful plaintiff later. The OCC believes it would be appropriate, under such an approach, for the rule to incorporate a mechanism to balance the interests of established claimants in current payment against the interests in future relief to others asserting more protracted claims. The OCC also has an interest in being able to seek termination of a receivership after an appropriate period, in light of the assets that are realistically available, the prospects of success by plaintiffs asserting additional claims, and similar factors. Accordingly, the rule might commit the OCC to reserve a minimum of 12 percent of funds on hand at the time of distribution during the first year a distribution is made, and reduce this required minimum reserve to 8 percent 12 months later, 4 percent after the next 12 months, and eliminate the reserve requirement beyond that.

    Question 6. The OCC invites comment on these alternatives for making ratable distributions in accordance with section 194.

    Proposed § 51.8(a)(2) recognizes the basic legal premise under the NBA receivership provisions and judicial interpretations thereof that any dividend payments to creditors and other claimants of an uninsured bank will be made solely from receivership funds, if any, paid to the OCC by the receiver after payment of the expenses of the receiver. This provision is also consistent with the established dichotomy of the OCC's supervisory and receivership capacities in the NBA, as discussed earlier.

    Proposed § 51.8(b) similarly recognizes that assets held by an uninsured bank in a fiduciary or custodial capacity, as designated on the bank's books and records, are not part of the bank's general assets and liabilities held in connection with its other business, and will not be considered a source for payment for unrelated claims of creditors and other claimants. This provision is intended to make clear that the receiver will segregate identified fiduciary and custodial assets and either transfer those assets to other fiduciaries or custodians as described in connection with proposed § 51.7(b), or close the accounts and endeavor to make the associated assets available to the accountholders or their representatives through other means.

    Proposed § 51.8(d) provides that, after all administrative expenses and claims have been paid in full, any remaining proceeds would be paid to shareholders in proportion to their stock ownership, also as provided in 12 U.S.C. 194.

    Proposed § 51.9 contains provisions for termination of receiverships in which there are assets remaining after all administrative expenses and all claims had been paid. This is the scenario addressed by 12 U.S.C. 197. In such a case, section 197 requires the Comptroller to call a meeting of the shareholders of the bank at which the shareholders would decide whether to continue oversight by the Comptroller, or whether to end the receivership and appoint a liquidating agent to continue the liquidation of the remaining assets, under the direction of the board of directors and shareholders, as in a liquidation that had commenced under 12 U.S.C. 181.

    There may be other circumstances under which termination would take place, such as when there are no receivership assets remaining after completion of receivership activities. Under this scenario, the receiver for an uninsured bank has liquidated all of the bank's assets, closed or transferred all fiduciary accounts to a successor fiduciary, paid all administrative expenses, and either paid creditor claims in full and distributed the remaining proceeds to shareholders, as provided in § 51.8(c), or made ratable dividends of all remaining proceeds to creditors as provided in § 51.8(a), but no additional assets remain in the estate. Under these circumstances, the provisions in 12 U.S.C. 197 for termination would not apply.

    Question 7. The OCC requests comment on whether the rule should provide termination procedures for receiverships that are outside the circumstances addressed in 12 U.S.C. 197.

    V. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the PRA.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires that, in connection with a rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under the RFA is not required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to include commercial banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, with assets of $550 million or less and $38.5 million or less, respectively) and publishes its certification and a brief explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule.

    The OCC currently supervises approximately 1,032 small entities. The scope of the proposed rule extends to uninsured banks. The maximum number of OCC-supervised small uninsured banks that could be subject to the receivership framework described in the proposal is approximately 18.41 Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    41 Consistent with the General Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), the OCC counts the assets of affiliated financial institutions when determining if we should classify an institution we supervise as a small entity. We used December 31, 2015, to determine size because a financial institution's assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year. See footnote 8 of the U.S. SBA's Table of Size Standards.

    OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

    The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). As detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the OCC currently supervises 52 uninsured banks, all of which are uninsured trust banks, and has not appointed a receiver for an uninsured bank since 1933. Unlike commercial and consumer banks and savings associations, which generally face credit and liquidity risks, national trust banks primarily face operational, reputational, and strategic risks. While any of these risks could result in the precipitous failure of a bank or savings association, from a historical perspective, trust banks have been more likely to decline into a weakened condition, allowing the OCC and the institution the time needed to find other solutions for rehabilitating the institution or to successfully resolve the institution without the need to appoint a receiver. Given that we believe the OCC is unlikely to place an uninsured trust bank into receivership, the OCC concludes that the proposed rule will not result in an expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, in any one year.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, National banks, Procedural rules, Receiverships, Authority, and Issuance.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 16, 93a, 191-200, 481, 482, 1831c, and 1867 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to add a new part 51 to chapter I of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 51—RECEIVERSHIPS FOR UNINSURED NATIONAL BANKS Sec. 51.1 Purpose and scope. 51.2 Appointment of receiver. 51.3 Notice of appointment of receiver. 51.4 Claims. 51.5 Order of priorities. 51.6 Administrative expenses of receiver. 51.7 Powers and duties of receiver; disposition of fiduciary and custodial assets. 51.8 Payment of claims and dividends to shareholders. 51.9 Termination of receivership. Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 16, 93a, 191-200, 481, 482, 1831c, and 1867.

    § 51.1 Purpose and scope.

    (a) Purpose. This part sets out procedures for receiverships of national banks conducted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under the receivership provisions of the National Bank Act (NBA). These receivership provisions apply to national banks that are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    (b) Scope. This part applies to the appointment of a receiver for uninsured national banks (uninsured banks) and the operation of a receivership after appointment of a receiver for an uninsured bank under 12 U.S.C. 191.1

    1 This part does not apply to receiverships for uninsured Federal branches or uninsured Federal agencies.

    § 51.2 Appointment of receiver.

    (a) In general. The Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller) may appoint any person, including the OCC or another government agency, as receiver for an uninsured bank. The receiver performs its duties under the direction of the Comptroller and serves at the will of the Comptroller. The Comptroller may require the receiver to post a bond or other security. The receiver, with the approval of the Comptroller, may employ such staff and enter into contracts for professional services as are necessary to carry out the receivership.

    (b) Grounds for appointment. The Comptroller may appoint a receiver for an uninsured bank based on any of the grounds specified in 12 U.S.C. 191(a).

    (c) Judicial review. If the Comptroller appoints a receiver for an uninsured bank, the bank may seek judicial review of the appointment as provided in 12 U.S.C. 191(b).

    § 51.3 Notice of appointment of receiver.

    Upon appointment of a receiver for an uninsured bank, the OCC will provide notice to the public of the receivership, including by publication in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive months. The notice of the receivership will provide instructions for creditors and other claimants seeking to submit claims with the receiver for the uninsured bank.

    § 51.4 Claims.

    (a) Submission of claims for consideration by the OCC. (1) Persons who have claims against the receivership for an uninsured bank may present such claims, along with supporting documentation, for consideration by the OCC. The OCC will determine the validity and approve the amounts of such claims.

    (2) The OCC will establish a date by which any person seeking to present a claim against the uninsured bank for consideration by the OCC must present their claim for determination. The deadline for filing such claims will not be less than 30 days after the end of the three-month notice period in § 51.3.

    (3) The OCC will allow any claim against the uninsured bank received on or before the deadline for presenting claims if such claim is established to the OCC's satisfaction by the information on the uninsured bank's books and records or otherwise submitted. The OCC may disallow any portion of any claim by a creditor or claim of a security, preference, set-off, or priority which is not established to the satisfaction of the OCC.

    (b) Submission of claims to a court. Persons with claims against an uninsured bank in receivership may present their claims to a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication. Such persons must submit a copy of any final judgment received from the court to the OCC, to participate in ratable dividends along with other proved claims.

    (c) Right of set-off. If a person with a claim against an uninsured bank in receivership also has an obligation owed to the bank, the claim and obligation will be set off against each other and only the net balance remaining after set-off shall be considered as a claim, provided such set-off is otherwise legally valid.

    § 51.5 Order of priorities.

    The OCC will pay receivership expenses and proved claims against the uninsured bank in receivership in the following order of priority:

    (a) Administrative expenses of the receiver;

    (b) Unsecured creditors of the uninsured bank, including secured creditors to the extent their claim exceeds their valid and enforceable security interest;

    (c) Creditors of the uninsured bank, if any, whose claims are subordinated to general creditor claims; and

    (d) Shareholders of the uninsured bank.

    § 51.6 Administrative expenses of receiver.

    (a) Priority of administrative expenses. All administrative expenses of the receiver for an uninsured bank shall be paid out of the assets of the bank in receivership before payment of claims against the receivership.

    (b) Scope of administrative expenses. Administrative expenses of the receiver for an uninsured bank include those expenses incurred by the receiver in maintaining banking operations during the receivership, to preserve assets of the uninsured bank, while liquidating or otherwise resolving the affairs of the uninsured bank. Such expenses include pre-receivership and post-receivership obligations that the receiver determines are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the orderly liquidation or other resolution of the uninsured bank in receivership.

    (c) Types of administrative expenses. Administrative expenses for the receiver of an uninsured bank include:

    (1) Salaries, costs, and other expenses of the receiver and its staff, and costs of contracts entered into by the receiver for professional services relating to performing receivership duties; and

    (2) Expenses necessary for the operation of the uninsured bank, including wages and salaries of employees, expenses for professional services, contractual rent pursuant to an existing lease or rental agreement, and payments to third-party or affiliated service providers, that in the opinion of the receiver are of benefit to the receivership, until the date the receiver repudiates, terminates, cancels, or otherwise discontinues the applicable contract.

    § 51.7 Powers and duties of receiver; disposition of fiduciary and custodial accounts.

    (a) Marshalling of assets. In resolving the affairs of an uninsured bank in receivership, the receiver:

    (1) Takes possession of the books, records and other property and assets of the uninsured bank, including the value of collateral pledged by the uninsured bank to the extent it exceeds valid and enforceable security interests of a claimant;

    (2) Collects all debts, dues and claims belonging to the uninsured bank, including claims remaining after set-off;

    (3) Sells or compromises all bad or doubtful debts, subject to approval by a court of competent jurisdiction;

    (4) Sells the real and personal property of the uninsured bank, subject to approval by a court of competent jurisdiction, on such terms as the court shall direct; and

    (5) Deposits all receivership funds collected from the liquidation of the uninsured bank in an account designated by the OCC.

    (b) Disposition of fiduciary and custodial accounts. The receiver for an uninsured bank closes the bank's fiduciary and custodial appointments and accounts or transfers some or all of such accounts to successor fiduciaries and custodians, in accordance with 12 CFR 9.16, and other applicable Federal law.

    (c) Other powers. The receiver for an uninsured bank may exercise other rights, privileges, and powers authorized for receivers of national banks under the NBA and the common law of receiverships as applied by the courts to receiverships of national banks conducted under the NBA.

    (d) Reports to OCC. The receiver for an uninsured bank shall make periodic reports to the OCC on the status and proceedings of the receivership.

    (e) Receiver subject to removal; modification of fees. (1) The Comptroller may remove and replace the receiver for an uninsured bank if, in the Comptroller's discretion, the receiver is not conducting the receivership in accordance with applicable Federal laws or regulations or fails to comply with decisions of the Comptroller with respect to the conduct of the receivership or claims against the receivership.

    (2) The Comptroller may reduce the fees of the receiver for an uninsured bank if, in the Comptroller's discretion, the Comptroller finds the performance of the receiver to be deficient, or the fees of the receiver to be excessive, unreasonable, or beyond the scope of the work assigned to the receiver.

    § 51.8 Payment of claims and dividends to shareholders.

    (a) Claims. (1) After the administrative expenses of the receivership have been paid, the OCC shall make ratable dividends from time to time of available receivership funds according to the priority described in § 51.5, based on the claims that have been proved to the OCC's satisfaction or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction.

    (2) Dividend payments to creditors and other claimants of an uninsured bank will be made solely from receivership funds, if any, paid to the OCC by the receiver after payment of the expenses of the receiver.

    (b) Fiduciary and custodial assets. Assets held by an uninsured bank in a fiduciary or custodial capacity, as designated on the bank's books and records, will not be considered as part of the bank's general assets and liabilities held in connection with its other business, and will not be considered a source for payment of unrelated claims of creditors and other claimants.

    (c) Timing of dividends. The payment of dividends, if any, under paragraph (a) of this section, on proved or adjudicated claims will be made periodically, at the discretion of the OCC, as the receiver liquidates the assets of the uninsured bank.

    (d) Distribution to shareholders. After all administrative expenses of the receiver and proved claims of creditors of the uninsured bank have been paid in full, to the extent there are receivership assets to make such payments, any remaining proceeds shall be paid to the shareholders, or their legal representatives, in proportion to their stock ownership.

    § 51.9 Termination of receivership.

    If there are assets remaining after full payment of the expenses of the receiver and all claims of creditors for an uninsured bank and all fiduciary accounts of the bank have been closed or transferred to a successor fiduciary and fiduciary powers surrendered, the Comptroller shall call a meeting of the shareholders of the uninsured bank, as provided in 12 U.S.C. 197, for the shareholders to decide the manner in which the liquidation will continue. The liquidation may continue by:

    (a) Continuing the receivership of the uninsured bank under the direction of the Comptroller; or

    (b) Ending the receivership and oversight by the Comptroller and replacing the receiver with a liquidating agent to proceed to liquidate the remaining assets of the uninsured bank for the benefit of the shareholders, as set out in 12 U.S.C. 197.

    Dated: September 2, 2016. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21846 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9120; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-024-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by corrosion and stress corrosion cracking of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings of the horizontal stabilizer front spar. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings for corrosion and/or cracking in the bolt holes and the web/flange radius with replacement of fittings as necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent jamming and/or loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer, which could result in partial or complete loss of airplane pitch control.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9120; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9120; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-024-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We received reports of multiple SA226 and SA227 airplanes with corrosion and/or stress corrosion cracks in the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings of the horizontal stabilizer front spar. This condition, if not corrected, could result in jamming and/or loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer with consequent partial or complete loss of airplane pitch control.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 226-27-081 R1, M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-061 R1, and M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-033 R1, all Issued: April 13, 2016 and Revised: June 27, 2016. The service information describes procedures for detailed visual, liquid penetrant, ultrasound and high frequency eddy current inspections of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings for corrosion and cracking in the bolt holes and the web/flange radius, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 300 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspect pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 Not Applicable $1,360 $408,000

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Replace 2 fittings 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 $4,900 $5,580
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): M7 Aerospace LLC: Docket No. FAA-2016-9120; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-024-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 28, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 5510, Horizontal Stabilizer Structure.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by corrosion and stress corrosion cracking of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings of the horizontal stabilizer front spar. We are issuing this AD to prevent jamming and/or loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer, which could result in partial or complete loss of airplane pitch control.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD using the following service bulletins and within the compliance times specified, unless already done:

    (1) For Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), and SA226-TC: M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 226-27-081 R1, Issued: April 13, 2016 and Revised: June 27, 2016; or

    (2) For Models SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), and SA227-TT: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-061 R1, Issued: April 13, 2016 and Revised: June 27, 2016; or

    (3) For Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B): M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-033 R1, Issued: April 13, 2016 and Revised: June 27, 2016.

    (g) Actions

    (1) Within the next 600 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 5,000 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first, perform the inspection of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings following section 2.A. and return to service following section 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (2) If any corrosion or cracks are found as a result of any inspection in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the fitting following section 2.B. and return to service following section 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD, as applicable.

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

    This proposed AD allows credit for inspection or replacement of the pitch trim actuator upper attach fittings required in paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of the AD, if done before the effective date of this AD, following the procedures in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD:

    (1) For Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), and SA226-TC: M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 226-27-081, Issued: April 13, 2016; or

    (2) For Models SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), and SA227-TT: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-061, Issued: April 13, 2016; or

    (3) For Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B): M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-033, Issued: April 13, 2016.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 1, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21704 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8927; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-24] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2603; Fort Carson, CO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish restricted area R-2603 within the existing Fort Carson, CO, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO. The U.S. Army requires additional restricted airspace because the restricted area ranges at Fort Carson are not large enough to meet all training requirements. The proposed R-2603 would provide increased ground-to-air, air-to-ground, and air-to-air battle space to increase training capacity and relieve training congestion at Fort Carson.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8927 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-24, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed to: Fort Carson NEPA Program Manager, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, 1626 Evans Street, Building 12191, Fort Carson, CO 80913-4362. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Docket Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish a restricted area at Fort Carson, CO, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential Army training requirements.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8927 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-24) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Office at the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8927 and Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-24.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person at the Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Background

    To conduct realistic and coordinated large-scale training that integrate ground and air resources, the U.S. Army must maintain large maneuver and training areas of varying characteristics and complex terrain. As the overseas deployment cycle slows, soldiers must now train more often at home station in order to sustain their combat skills. As a result, competition among units for training time and space at Fort Carson, CO, will sharply increase. Fort Carson provides training for up to ten Army Brigades per year. In addition, Fort Carson conducts training with Reserve, National Guard, joint services, foreign military services, special operations forces and other Federal agencies. The current training areas and ranges at Fort Carson do not have the capacity to accommodate all current and evolving large-scale, integrated training requirements. To address this training shortfall, the Army must take advantage of the larger space and greater training capacity available at the existing Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS), near Trinidad, CO. The PCMS is a military training site for Fort Carson, CO. The proposed designation of restricted area R-2603, within the PCMS, would provide the increased space needed to conduct various activities including force-on-force maneuver training, lasers and hazardous ground-to-air, air-to-ground and air-to-air operations.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish a new restricted area, designated R-2603, extending from the surface to but not including 10,000 feet MSL, within the existing Fort Carson PCMS. The proposed restricted area would contain various hazardous activities including, but not limited to: Electronic jamming; pyrotechnic activities; airborne and ground-based lasers; hazardous air-to-ground, ground-to-air and air-to-air activities involving fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft; and night-time lights-out flight maneuvers. Additionally, only “non-dud” producing munitions (40 millimeter and below) would be fired in the proposed restricted area.

    R-2603 would be activated for specific times as announced by issuance of a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). It is estimated that the area would be required to support approximately five training cycles per year with the longest duration of each cycle being approximately four to five weeks. The area would be activated only when needed to support operations that pose a hazard to aviation.

    The U.S. Army requested this action to provide additional restricted airspace to resolve a training capacity shortfall at Fort Carson, CO.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, restricted areas.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    §  73.26 Colorado (Amended)
    2. § 73.26 is amended as follows: R-2603 Fort Carson, CO [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37°22′30″ N., long. 104°04′47″ W.; to lat. 37°21′15″ N., long. 104°02′35″ W.; to lat. 37°21′10″ N., long. 103°54′41″ W.; to lat. 37°32′46″ N., long. 103°42′46″ W.; to lat. 37°38′33″ N., long. 103°35′11″ W.; to lat. 37°38′32″ N., long. 103°48′43″ W.; to lat. 37°38′10″ N., long. 103°48′47″ W.; to lat. 37°35′57″ N., long. 103°54′40″ W.; to lat. 37°35′59″ N., long. 103°57′50″ W.; to lat. 37°33′21″ N., long. 103°57′55″ W.; to lat. 37°32′27″ N., long. 104°02′15″ W.; to lat. 37°32′27″ N., long. 104°06′32″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.

    Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 10,000 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. By NOTAM.

    Controlling agency. FAA, Denver ARTCC.

    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commander, Fort Carson, CO.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 6, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21938 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0393; FRL-9952-08-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of particulate matter (PM) at Owens Lake, CA. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate this emission source under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0393 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4125, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

    Table 1—Submitted Rule Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted GBUAPCD 433 Control of Particulate Emissions at Owens Lake 04/13/16 06/09/16

    On July 6, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for GBUAPCD Rule 433 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 433 in the SIP.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    PM, including PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM emissions, including PM10 emissions. GBUAPCD Rule 433 establishes PM10 emission control requirements at the dry Owens Lake bed in the Owens Valley Planning Area (OVPA). The rule defines Best Available Control Measures (BACM) and establishes the temporal and geographic requirements of these controls at Owens Lake, with the goal of reducing PM10 emissions from the dry lake bed to attain the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in 2017. For example, Rule 433 requires the application of controls such as gravel blankets, managed vegetation, or shallow flooding to areas of the dry Owens Lake bed that have contributed to violations of the NAAQS. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

    II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).

    Generally, SIP rules must implement BACM, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), in areas classified as serious nonattainment (see CAA section 189(b)(1)(B)) for PM10. The GBUAPCD regulates the OVPA, which is a PM10 nonattainment area classified as serious. A BACM and BACT evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan.1

    1 CARB submitted the GBUAPCD's 2016 OVPA PM10 SIP on June 9, 2016. We intend to evaluate and propose action on the 2016 OVPA PM10 SIP, including BACM, in a separate action in the near future.

    The dry Owens Lake bed is the predominant source of PM10 emissions in the OVPA.2 Rule 433 requires the City of Los Angeles to implement a number of PM10 control measures, including shallow flooding, managed vegetation, installation of gravel blankets, application of brine, or surface roughening (tillage) over a large portion of the dry Owens Lake bed. The control measures required by Rule 433 will result in a substantial reduction of PM10 emissions in the OVPA from the Owens Lake bed.3

    2 OVPA 2016 SIP BACM Assessment at p. 1.

    3 OVPA 2016 SIP at p. 87 and Figure 10-1.

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

    2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).

    3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

    4. “State Implementation Plans for Serious PM10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

    5. “PM10 Guideline Document,” EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

    6. “Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,” EPA 450/2-92-004, September 1992.

    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    The PM10 emission controls and other requirements in Rule 433 are clear and adequately enforceable. The requirements clearly strengthen the SIP and are consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and 193. We intend to address BACM for this area in the near future when we act on the OVPA 2016 SIP. Therefore, we find that Rule 433 is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and does not result in a SIP relaxation. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 13, 2016. If we take final action to approve the submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the GBUAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 24, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21872 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 RIN 0648-BG15 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of fishery management plan amendment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council submitted Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) to NMFS for review. If approved, Amendment 47 would exempt eastern Chionoecetes bairdi Tanner (EBT) and western C. bairdi Tanner (WBT) crab that is custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the processing facility owners from being applied against the individual processing quota (IPQ) use cap of the processing facility owners. Amendment 47 would modify the Crab FMP to allow all of the EBT and WBT Class A individual fishing quota crab to be processed at the facilities currently processing EBT and WBT crab and would have significant, positive economic effects on the fishermen, processors, and communities that participate in the EBT and WBT fisheries. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0081, by any one of the following methods.

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0081, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) (collectively referred to as the “Analysis”) and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for Amendment 47 may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    The Environmental Impact Statement, RIR, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Social Impact Assessment prepared for the Crab Rationalization Program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 47 to the Crab FMP is available for public review and comment.

    NMFS manages the king and Tanner crab fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) under the Crab FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.

    The Crab Rationalization Program (Program) was implemented on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174). The Program established a limited access privilege program for nine crab fisheries in the BSAI, including the EBT and WBT crab fisheries, and assigned quota share (QS) to persons based on their historic participation in one or more of those nine BSAI crab fisheries during a specific period. Under the Program, NMFS issued four types of QS: Catcher vessel owner (CVO) QS was assigned to holders of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses who delivered their catch to shoreside crab processors or to stationary floating crab processors; catcher/processor vessel owner QS was assigned to LLP license holders who harvested and processed their catch at sea; captains and crew on board catcher/processor vessels were issued catcher/processor crew QS; and captains and crew on board catcher vessels were issued catcher vessel crew QS. Each year, a person who holds QS may receive an exclusive harvest privilege for a portion of the annual total allowable catch, called individual fishing quota (IFQ).

    NMFS also issued processor quota share (PQS) under the Program. Each year PQS yields an exclusive privilege to process a portion of the IFQ in each of the nine BSAI crab fisheries. This annual exclusive processing privilege is called individual processor quota (IPQ). Only a portion of the QS issued yields IFQ that is required to be delivered to a processor with IPQ. QS derived from deliveries made by catcher vessel owners (i.e., CVO QS) is subject to designation as either Class A IFQ or Class B IFQ. Ninety percent of the IFQ derived from CVO QS is designated as Class A IFQ, and the remaining 10 percent is designated as Class B IFQ. Class A IFQ must be matched and delivered to a processor with IPQ. Class B IFQ is not required to be delivered to a specific processor with IPQ. Each year there is a one-to-one match of the total pounds of Class A IFQ with the total pounds of IPQ issued in each crab fishery.

    When the Council recommended the Program, it expressed concern about the potential for excessive consolidation of QS and PQS, in which too few persons control all of the QS or PQS and the resulting annual IFQ and IPQ. The Council determined that excessive consolidation could have adverse effects on crab markets, price setting negotiations between harvesters and processors, employment opportunities for harvesting and processing crew, tax revenue to communities in which crab are landed, and other factors considered and described in the Program EIS. To address these concerns, the Program limits the amount of QS that a person can hold (i.e., own), the amount of IFQ that a person can use, and the amount of IFQ that can be used on board a vessel. Similarly, the Program limits the amount of PQS that a person can hold, the amount of IPQ that a person can use, and the amount of IPQ that can be processed at a given facility. These limits are commonly referred to as use caps.

    In most of the nine BSAI crab fisheries under the Program, including the Tanner crab fisheries, a person is limited to holding no more than 30 percent of the PQS initially issued in the fishery, and to using no more than the amount of IPQ resulting from 30 percent of the initially issued PQS in a given fishery, with a limited exemption for persons receiving more than 30 percent of the initially issued PQS. No person in the EBT or WBT crab fisheries received in excess of 30 percent of the initially issued PQS (see Section 2.5.2 of the Analysis). Therefore, no person may use an amount of EBT or WBT IPQ greater than an amount resulting from 30 percent of the initially issued EBT or WBT PQS. The rationale for the IPQ use caps is described in the Program EIS and the final rule implementing the Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).

    Under § 680.7(a)(7), any IPQ crab that is “custom processed” at a facility an IPQ holder owns will be applied against the IPQ use cap of the facility owner, unless specifically exempted by § 680.42(b)(7). A custom processing arrangement exists when an IPQ holder has a contract with the owners of a processing facility to have his or her crab processed at that facility, and the IPQ holder does not have an ownership interest in that processing facility or is not otherwise affiliated with the owners of that processing facility. In custom processing arrangements, the IPQ holder contracts with a facility operator to have the IPQ crab processed according to that IPQ holder's specifications.

    Shortly after implementation of the Program, the Council submitted and NMFS approved Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009). Amendment 27 was designed to improve operational efficiencies in crab fisheries with historically low total allowable catches or that occur in more remote regions by exempting certain IPQ crab processed under a custom processing arrangement from applying against the IPQ use cap of the owner of the facility at which IPQ crab are custom processed.

    Table 2-5 in Section 2.6.1 of the Analysis shows that during the 2006/2007 crab fishing year, there were six processing facilities owned by five unaffiliated processors receiving EBT Class A IFQ crab and there were five processing facilities owned by four unaffiliated processors receiving WBT Class A IFQ crab. Since then, there has been consolidation in the BSAI crab processing sector, thus reducing the number of processing facilities that are unaffiliated with one another. This consolidation has occurred through the merger of two companies and the recent exit of a company from the fishery. Additionally, PQS has been purchased by entities that do not own or operate processing facilities. As Section 2.6 of the Analysis describes (see ADDRESSES), for the first year since the start of the Program, there were only three unique unaffiliated persons (processors) who received EBT and WBT IPQ crab at their facilities during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. These three processors are the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, which includes Alyeska Seafoods, Peter Pan Seafoods, and Westward Seafoods; Trident Seafoods; and Unisea Seafoods. Information in section 2.6 of the Analysis explains that these three processors also own and operate all of the facilities that processed EBT and WBT IPQ crab during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year.

    The Council recognized that consolidation within the Tanner crab processing sector has constrained the ability of the processing sector to process all of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab without exceeding the IPQ use caps. The Council recognized that without additional unique and unaffiliated processing facilities entering the Tanner crab processing sector for the 2016/2017 crab fishing year or beyond, there is a significant risk that the portion of the Tanner crab allocation in excess of the caps would not be processed. Without the ability to have all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ processed, that portion of the Tanner crab allocation in excess of the caps would likely go unharvested because sufficient processing facilities do not exist in the Bering Sea region.

    In June 2016, the Council recommended Amendment 47 to the FMP. This proposed action would add EBT and WBT IPQ crab to the list of BSAI crab fisheries receiving a custom processing arrangement exemption under Chapter 11 of the FMP in the Clarifications and Expressions of Council Intent section. If approved, Amendment 47 would exempt EBT and WBT IPQ crab that is custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the facility owners from being applied against the IPQ use cap of the facility owners. This action would allow all EBT and WBT IPQ crab received under custom processing arrangements at the facilities owned by the three existing EBT and WBT processors (Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods) to not be counted against the IPQ use cap of the facility or the facility owners. The custom processing arrangement exemption would allow these processors to custom process crab for unaffiliated IPQ holders who have custom processing arrangements with the processors, thereby allowing harvesters to fully harvest and deliver their EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab to IPQ holders with a custom processing arrangement at facilities operating in these fisheries.

    The anticipated effects of this proposed action include allowing the full processing of all EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab and the associated economic and social benefits of that processing activity for harvesters, the existing Tanner crab processors, and the communities where processing facilities are located. These communities include Akutan, Dutch Harbor/Unalaska, King Cove, and Saint Paul. The proposed rule would allow all of the Tanner crab Class A IFQ to be harvested and processed by existing processors and thus avoid the adverse economic and social impacts created by the lack of adequate processing capacity that would otherwise result if the EBT and WBT crab fisheries could not be fully processed. Ten percent of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab represents approximately $3.4 million in ex-vessel value and $ 4.95 million in first wholesale value based on estimated ex-vessel and first wholesale values of EBT and WBT crab in the 2015/2016 crab fishing year (see Section 2.9 of the Analysis for additional detail).

    The Council and NMFS considered whether Amendment 47 could result in further consolidation of Tanner crab processing to fewer facilities than currently operating. Under Amendment 47, there would be no regulatory barriers for processing companies to further consolidate processing facilities for Tanner crab. Since EBT and WBT crab are not subject to regionalization or right of first refusal provisions, there would be no regulatory limitations preventing all of the EBT and WBT IPQ crab from being processed by one company at one facility. However, further consolidation is not anticipated as a result of this action because the existing processing companies also have substantial holdings of PQS in the EBT and WBT fisheries, and it would be more economical for them to process the PQS they hold to help maintain a consistent amount of crab available for processing at the facility rather than create custom processing arrangements with other companies.

    Public comments are solicited on proposed Amendment 47 to the Crab FMP through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 47, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 47 to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on Amendment 47. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 47, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule will be considered in the amendment approval/disapproval decision. Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment. To be considered, comments must be received, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21824 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 177 Tuesday, September 13, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Socorro, New Mexico. 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/gila/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held September 27, 2016, at 8:30 a.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 Socorro County Annex Building, 198 Neel Avenue, Socorro, New Mexico.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Gila National Forest Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Faith Rivera, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 575-388-8212 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 funding of 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 19, 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 Julia Faith Rivera, RAC Coordinator, 3005 E. Camino del Bosque, Silver City, New Mexico 88061; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 575-388-8204.

    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: September 7, 2016. Tracy Weber, Acting Forest Supervisor, Gila National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21932 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Inviting Applications for the Delta Health Care Services Grant Program AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (Agency) is accepting fiscal year (FY) 2016 applications for the Delta Health Care Services Grant (DHCS) Program as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. Approximately $4,385,600.00 is available to be competitively awarded. The purpose of this program is to provide financial assistance to address the continued unmet health needs in the Delta Region through cooperation among health care professionals, institutions of higher education, research institutions and economic development entities in the Delta Region. The Agency is encouraging applications that direct grants to projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's (RD) mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and its commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.

    DATES:

    You must submit completed applications for grants according to the following deadlines:

    • Paper copies must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight no later than November 14, 2016

    • Electronic copies must be received by November 7, 2016. Late applications are not eligible for funding under this Notice and will not be evaluated.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should contact your USDA Rural Development State Office (State Office) if you have questions about eligibility or submission requirements. You are encouraged to contact your State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss your project and to ask any questions regarding the application process. A list of State Office contacts can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    A supplementary application guide has also been created for your assistance. You may obtain the application guide and materials for this Notice in the following ways:

    • Through the Internet at the RBS Cooperative Programs Web site: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants.

    • By requesting the application guide and materials from your local State Office. A list of State Office contacts can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    Alabama

    USDA Rural Development State Office, Sterling Centre, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Suite 601, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683, (334) 279-3400/TDD (334) 279-3495.

    Arkansas

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225, (501) 301-3200/TDD (501) 301-3279.

    Illinois

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821, (217) 403-6200/TDD (217) 403-6240.

    Kentucky

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503, (859) 224-7435/TDD (859) 224-7422.

    Louisiana

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302, (318) 473-7960/TDD (318) 473-7655.

    Mississippi

    USDA Rural Development State Office, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269, (601) 965-5457/TDD (601) 965-5850.

    Missouri

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203, (573) 876-9321/TDD (573) 876-9480.

    Tennessee

    USDA Rural Development State Office, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203-1084, (615) 783-1321.

    You must submit either:

    • A complete paper application to the State Office located in the State where the project will primarily take place, http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices (see list above), or

    • A complete electronic grant application at http://www.grants.gov/ (Grants.gov). Please review the Grants.gov Web site at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp, for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the application deadline.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Grants Division, Cooperative Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Programs, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 3253, Washington, DC 20250-3253; or call (202) 690-1374.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Federal Agency: USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

    Funding Opportunity Title: Delta Health Care Services Grant Program.

    Announcement Type: Initial funding announcement.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10.874.

    Dates: You must submit your complete application by November 14, 2016 or it will not be considered for funding. Electronic copies must be received by www.grants.gov no later than midnight Eastern time November 7, 2016 or it will not be considered for funding.

    Executive Order (EO) 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This Executive Order imposes requirements on RD in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RD has determined that this Notice does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes. Thus, this Notice is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. Tribal Consultation inquiries and comments should be directed to RD's Native American Coordinator at [email protected] or (720) 544-2911.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act requires Federal agencies to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Agency conducted an analysis to determine the number of applications the Agency estimates that it will receive under the Delta Health Care Services Grant Program. It was determined that the estimated number of applications was fewer than nine and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320, thus no OMB approval is necessary at this time.

    A. Program Description

    This Notice announces the availability of funds for the DHCS grant program, which is authorized under Section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008u). The primary objective of the program is to provide financial assistance to address the continued unmet health needs in the Delta Region through cooperation among health care professionals, institutions of higher education, research institutions, and other individuals and entities in the Delta Region. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $1,000,000.

    Definitions

    The terms and conditions provided in this Notice are applicable to this Notice only. In addition, the term “you” referenced throughout this Notice should be understood to mean the applicant and the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” should be understood to mean Rural Business-Cooperative Services, Rural Development, USDA.

    Academic Health and Research Institute means one of the following:

    • A combination of a medical school, one or more other health profession schools or educational training programs (such as allied health, dentistry, graduate studies, nursing, pharmacy, public health), and one or more owned or affiliated teaching hospitals or health systems; or

    • A health care nonprofit organization or health system, including nonprofit medical and surgical hospitals, that conduct health related research exclusively for scientific or educational purposes.

    Conflict of Interest means a situation in which a person or entity has competing personal, professional, or financial interests that make it difficult for the person or business to act impartially. Regarding use of both grant and matching funds, Federal procurement standards prohibit transactions that involve a real or apparent conflict of interest for owners, employees, officers, agents, or their immediate family members having a financial or other interest in the outcome of the project; or that restrict open and free competition for unrestrained trade. Specifically, project funds may not be used for services or goods going to, or coming from, a person or entity with a real or apparent conflict of interest, including, but not limited to, owner(s) and their immediate family members. An example of conflict of interest occurs when the consortium member's employees, board of directors, or the immediate family of either, have the appearance of a professional or personal financial interest in the recipients receiving the benefits or services of the grant.

    Consortium means a group of three or more entities that are regional Institutions of Higher Education, Academic Health and Research Institutes, and/or Economic Development Entities located in the Delta Region that have at least one year of prior experience in addressing the health care issues in the region. At least one of the consortium members must be legally organized as an incorporated organization or other legal entity and have legal authority to contract with the Federal government.

    Delta Region means the 252 counties and parishes within the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee that are served by the Delta Regional Authority. (The Delta Region may be adjusted by future Federal statute.) To view the areas identified within the Delta Region visit http://dra.gov/about-dra/dra-states.

    Economic Development Entity means any public or non-profit organization whose primary mission is to stimulate local and regional economies within the Delta Region by increasing employment opportunities and duration of employment, expanding or retaining existing employers, increasing labor rates or wage levels, reducing outmigration, and/or creating gains in other economic development-related variables such as land values. These activities shall primarily benefit low- and moderate-income individuals in the Delta Region.

    Health System means the complete network of agencies, facilities, and all providers of health care to meet the health needs of a specific geographical area or target populations.

    Institution of Higher Education means either a postsecondary (post-high school) educational institution that awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or a postsecondary vocational institution that provides a program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.

    Nonprofit Organization means any organization or institution, including an accredited institution of higher education, no part of the net earnings of which may inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

    Project means all activities to be funded by the Delta Health Care Service Grant.

    Project Funds means grant funds requested plus any other contributions to the proposed project.

    Rural and rural area means any area of a State:

    • Not in a city or town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants, according to the latest decennial census of the United States; and

    • The contiguous and adjacent urbanized area,

    • Urbanized areas that are rural in character as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1991 (a) (13), as amended by Section 6018 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246 (June 18, 2008).

    • For the purposes of this definition, cities and towns are incorporated population centers with definite boundaries, local self-government, and legal powers set forth in a charter granted by the State.

    State means each of the 50 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, as may be determined by the Secretary to be feasible, appropriate and lawful, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Grant.

    Total Funding for DHCS: $4,385,600.00.

    Maximum DHCS Award: $1,000,000.

    Minimum DHCS Award: $50,000.

    Project Period: Up to 24 months.

    Anticipated Award Date: September 30, 2016.

    C. Eligibility Information

    Applicants must meet all of the following eligibility requirements. Your application will not be considered for funding if it does not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or is missing required elements. Applicants that fail to submit the required elements by the application deadline will be deemed ineligible and will not be evaluated further. Information submitted after the application deadline will not be accepted.

    1. Eligible Applicants

    Grants funded through DHCS may be made to a Consortium as defined in Paragraph A of this Notice. Consortiums are eligible to receive funding through this Notice. One member of the Consortium must be designated as the lead entity by the other members of the Consortium and have legal authority to contract with the Federal government.

    The lead entity is the recipient (see 2 CFR 200.86) of the DHCS grant funds and accountable for monitoring and reporting on the project performance and financial management of the grant. In addition, the lead entity (recipient) is responsible for subrecipient monitoring and management in accordance with 2 CFR 200.330 and 200.331, respectively. The remaining consortium members are subrecipients (see 2 CFR 200.93). They may receive subawards (see 2 CFR 200.94) from the recipient and are responsible for monitoring and reporting the project performance and financial management of their subaward to the recipient.

    (a) An applicant is ineligible if they do not submit “Evidence of Eligibility” and “Consortium Agreements” as described in Section D.2. of this Notice.

    (b) An applicant is ineligible if they have been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the System for Award Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended. In addition, an applicant will be considered ineligible for a grant due to an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. The applicant must certify as part of the application that they do not have an outstanding judgment against them. The Agency will check the Credit Alert Interactive Voice Response System (CAIVRS) to verify this.

    (c) Sections 743, 744, 745, and 746 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) apply. Any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. In addition, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be available for a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an entity that requires employees or contractors of such entity seeking to report fraud, waste, or abuse to sign internal confidentiality agreements or statements prohibiting or otherwise restricting such employees or contractors from lawfully reporting such waste, fraud, or abuse to a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information. Additionally, no funds appropriated in this or any other Act may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: “These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection.

    (d) Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application includes any funding restrictions identified under Section D.6.

    (e) Applications will be deemed ineligible if the application is not complete in accordance with the requirements stated in Section C.3.g.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    Matching funds are not required. However, if you are adding any other contributions to the proposed Project, you must provide documentation indicating who will be providing the matching funds, the amount of funds, when those funds will be provided, and how the funds will be used in the project budget. Examples of acceptable documentation include: A signed letter from the source of funds stating the amount of funds, when the funds will be provided, and what the funds can be used for or a signed resolution from your governing board authorizing the use of a specified amount of funds for specific components of the project. The matching funds you identify must be for eligible purposes and included in your work plan and budget. Additionally, expected program income may not be used as matching funds at the time you submit your application. However, if you have a contract to provide services in place at the time you submit your application, you can verify the amount of the contract as matching funds. If you choose, you may use a template to summarize the matching funds. The template is available either from your Rural Development State Office or the program Web site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants.

    3. Other Eligibility Requirements

    The following additional eligibility requirements apply to this program:

    (a) Use of Funds. An application must propose to use Project funds, including grant and other contributions committed under the evaluation criteria for eligible purposes. Eligible Project purposes include the development of:

    • Health care services;

    • health education programs;

    • health care job training programs; and

    • the development and expansion of public health-related facilities in the Delta Region.

    (b) Project Area. The proposed Project must take place in a Rural Area within the Delta Region as defined in this Notice. However, the applicant need not propose to serve the entire Delta Region.

    (c) Project Input. Your proposed Project must be developed based on input from local governments, public health care providers, and other entities in the Delta Region.

    (d) Grant Period. All awards are limited to up to a 24-month grant period based upon the complexity of the project. Your proposed grant period should begin no earlier than October 1, 2016, and should end no later than 24 months following that date. If you receive an award, your grant period will be revised to begin on the actual date of award—the date the grant agreement is executed by the Agency—and your grant period end date will be adjusted accordingly. Your Project activities must begin within 90 days of the date of award. If you request funds for a time period beginning before October 1, 2016, and/or ending later than 24 months from that date, your application will be ineligible. The length of your grant period should be based on your Project's complexity, as indicated in your application work plan.

    (e) Multiple Grant Requests. The Consortium, including its members, is limited to submitting one application for funding under this Notice. We will not accept applications from Consortiums that include members who are also members of other Consortiums that have submitted applications for funding under this Notice. If we discover that a Consortium member is a member of multiple Consortiums with applications submitted for funding under this Notice, all applications will be considered ineligible for funding.

    (f) Performance on Existing DHCS Awards. If the lead entity, or any of its Consortium members, has an existing DHCS award, they must be performing satisfactorily to be considered eligible for a funding under this Notice. Satisfactory performance includes, but is not limited to, being up-to-date on all financial and performance reports and being current on all tasks as approved in the work plan. The Agency will use its discretion to make this determination.

    (g) Completeness. Your application must provide all of the information requested in Section D.2. of this Notice. Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be deemed ineligible and will not be considered for scoring.

    (h) Indirect Costs. Your negotiated indirect cost rate approval does not need to be included in your application, but you will be required to provide it if a grant is awarded. Approval for indirect costs that are requested in an application without an approved indirect cost rate agreement is at the discretion of the Agency.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    Please see instructions below on how to access and submit a complete application for this funding opportunity.

    1. Address to Request Application Package.

    The application guide and copies of necessary forms for the DHCS Grant Program are available from these sources:

    • The Internet at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants, http://www.grants.gov, or

    • For paper copies of these materials, please call (202) 690-1374.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission.

    You may submit your application in paper form or electronically through Grants.gov. Your application must contain all required information.

    To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. Please note that we cannot accept emailed or faxed applications.

    You can locate the Grants.gov downloadable application package for this program by using a keyword, the program name, or the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program.

    When you enter the Grants.gov Web site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    To use Grants.gov, you must already have a DUNS number and you must also be registered and maintain registration in SAM. We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov.

    You must submit all of your application documents electronically through Grants.gov. Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded.

    After electronically submitting an application through Grants.gov, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number.

    If you want to submit a paper application, send it to the State Office located in the State where you are headquartered. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to utilize the DHCS Application Guide found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants. The guide provides specific guidance on each of the required items listed and also provides all necessary forms and sample worksheets.

    The organization submitting the application will be considered the lead entity. The Contact/Program Manager must be associated with the lead entity submitting the application.

    A completed application must include the following:

    (a) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.”—The application for federal assistance must be completed by the lead entity as described in Section C.1. of this Notice. Your application must include your DUNS number and SAM (CAGE) code and expiration date. Because there are no specific fields for a CAGE code and expiration date, you may identify them anywhere you want to on the form. If you do not include the CAGE code and expiration date and DUNS number in your application, it will not be considered for funding. The form must be signed by an authorized representative.

    (b) Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package for non-construction projects.

    (c) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package for non-construction projects.

    (d) Form SF-424C, “Budget Information—Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package for construction projects.

    (e) Form SF-424D, “Assurances—Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package for construction projects.

    (f) A project abstract. You must provide a brief summary of the proposed Project, not to exceed 250 words, suitable for dissemination to the public and to Congress.

    (g) Executive summary. You must provide a more detailed description of your project containing the following information: (1) Legal name of lead applicant; (2) consortium members; (3) applicant type (including consortium members); (4) application type (development of health care services, health education programs, health care job care training programs, or the development and/or expansion of health related facilities); (5) a summary of your project; (6) project goals; and (7) how you intend to use the grant funds. Limit two pages.

    (h) Evidence of eligibility. You must provide evidence of the Consortium's eligibility to apply under this Notice. This section must include a detailed summary demonstrating how each Consortium member meets the definition of an eligible entity as defined under Definitions of this Notice.

    (i) Consortium agreements. The application must include a formal written agreement with each Consortium member that addresses the negotiated arrangements for administering the Project to meet Project goals, the Consortium member's responsibilities to comply with administrative, financial, and reporting requirements of the grant, including those necessary to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal regulations and policies, and facilitate a smooth functioning collaborative venture. Under the agreement, each Consortium member must perform a substantive role in the Project and not merely serve as a conduit of funds to another party or parties. This agreement must be signed by an authorized representative of the lead entity and an authorized representative of each partnering consortium entity.

    (j) Scoring documentation. You must address and provide documentation for each scoring criterion, specifically (1) the rurality of the project area and communities served, (2) the community needs and benefits derived from the project, and (3) project management and organization capability. See Section E.1.

    (k) Work Plan and Budget. You must provide a work plan and budget that includes the following: (1) The specific activities, such as programs, services, trainings, and/or construction-related activities for a facility to be performed under the Project; (2) the estimated line item costs associated with each activity, including grant funds and other necessary sources of funds; (3) the key personnel who will carry out each activity (including each Consortium member's role); and (4) the specific time frames for completion of each activity.

    An eligible start and end date for the project and for individual project tasks must be clearly shown and may not exceed Agency specified timeframes for the grant period. You must show the source and use of both grant and other contributions for all tasks. Other contributions must be spent at a rate equal to, or in advance of, grant funds.

    (l) Performance Measures. The Agency has also established annual performance measures to evaluate the DHCS program. You must provide estimates on the following performance measures as part of your application:

    • Number of businesses assisted;

    • Number of jobs created;

    • Number of jobs saved;

    • Number of individuals assisted/trained.

    It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When you calculate jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by your organization as a result of the DHCS funding or actual jobs to be created by businesses as a result of assistance from your organization. When you calculate jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if your organization did not receive DHCS funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from your organization.

    You can also suggest additional performance elements for example where job creation or jobs saved may not be a relevant indicator. These additional elements should be specific, measurable performance elements that could be included in an award document.

    (m) Financial information and sustainability. You must provide current financial statements and a narrative description demonstrating sustainability of the project, all of which show sufficient resources and expertise to undertake and complete the project and how the project will be sustained following completion. Applicants must provide 3 years of pro-forma financial statements for the project.

    (n) Evidence of legal authority and existence. The lead entity must provide evidence of its legal existence and authority to enter into a grant agreement with the Agency and perform the activities proposed under the grant application.

    (o) Evidence of input solicited from local stakeholders. The application must include documentation detailing support solicited from local government, public health care providers and other entities in the Delta Region. Evidence of support can include; but is not limited to surveys conducted amongst rural residents and stakeholders, notes from focus groups, or letters of support from local entities.

    (p) Service area maps. You must provide maps with sufficient detail to show the area that will benefit from the proposed facilities and services and the location of the facilities improved or purchased with grant funds if applicable.

    (q) Form AD-3030. Form AD-3030, “Representations Regarding Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” if you are a corporation. A corporation is any entity that has filed articles of incorporation in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the various territories of the United States including American Samoa, Guam, Midway Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Corporations include both for profit and non-profit entities.

    (r) Certification of no current outstanding Federal judgment. You must certify that there are no current outstanding Federal judgments against your property and that you will not use grant funds to pay for any judgment obtained by the United States. To satisfy the Certification requirement, you should include this statement in your application: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained an unsatisfied judgment against its property and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

    (s) Environmental information necessary to support the Agency's environmental finding. Required information can be found in 7 CFR part 1970, specifically in Subpart B, Exhibit C and Subpart C, Exhibit B. These documents can be found here: http://www.rd.usda.gov/publications/regulations-guidelines/instructions. Non-construction projects applying under this Notice are hereby classified as Categorical Exclusions according to 7 CFR 1970.53(b), the award of financial assistance for planning purposes, management and feasibility studies, or environmental impact analyses, which do not require any additional documentation.

    3. DUNS Number and SAM Registration.

    In order to be eligible (unless you are exempted under 2 CFR 25.110(b), (c) or (d)), you are required to:

    (a) Provide a valid DUNS number in your application, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711;

    (b) Register in SAM before submitting your application. You may register in SAM at no cost at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/; and

    (c) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which you have an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.

    The Agency may not make a Federal award to you until you have complied with all applicable DUNS and SAM requirements. If you have not fully complied with requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and the Agency may use this determination as a basis for making an award to another applicant.

    4. Submission Date and Time.

    Application Deadline Date: November 14, 2016.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Complete paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight by November 14, 2016. The Agency will determine whether your application is late based on the date shown on the postmark or shipping invoice. You may also hand carry your application to one of our field offices, but it must be received by close of business on the deadline date. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the reporting package is due the next business day. Late applications are not eligible for funding.

    Electronic applications must be RECEIVED by http://www.grants.gov by midnight Eastern time November 7, 2016, to be eligible for funding. Please review the Grants.gov Web site at http://grants.gov/applicants/organization_registration.jsp for instructions on the process of registering your organization as soon as possible to ensure you are able to meet the electronic application deadline. Grants.gov will not accept applications submitted after the deadline.

    5. Intergovernmental Review.

    Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This EO requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many States have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. A list of States that maintain a SPOC may be obtained at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc. If your State has a SPOC, you may submit your application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to Rural Development for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established a SPOC or you do not want to submit your application to the SPOC, Rural Development will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

    You are also encouraged to contact Cooperative Programs at 202-690-1374 or [email protected] if you have questions about this process.

    6. Funding Restrictions.

    The use of project funds, including grant funds and other contributions, cannot be used for ineligible purposes. In addition, you shall not use project funds for the following:

    (a) To duplicate current services or to replace or to substitute support previously provided. However, project funds may be used to expand the level of effort or a service beyond what is currently being provided;

    (b) To pay for costs to prepare the application for funding under this Notice;

    (c) To pay for costs of the project incurred prior to the effective date of the period of performance;

    (d) To pay expenses for applicant employee training;

    (e) Fund political activities;

    (f) To pay for assistance to any private business enterprise which does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

    (g) To pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

    (h) Engage in any activities that are considered a Conflict of Interest, as defined by this Notice; or

    (i) Fund any activities prohibited by 2 CFR 200;

    In addition, your application will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:

    • Requests more than the maximum grant amount: or

    • Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of the project funds.

    If you include funds in your budget that are for ineligible purposes, we will consider the application for funding if the ineligible purposes total 10 percent or less of an applicant's project funds. However, if the application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed from the work plan and budget and replaced with eligible costs before we will make the grant award, or the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If we cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, the application will not be considered for funding.

    7. Other Submission Requirements.

    (a) You should not submit your application in more than one format. You must choose whether to submit your application in hard copy or electronically. Applications submitted in hard copy should be mailed or hand-delivered to the State Office where the project will primarily take place. You can find State Office contact information at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices. To submit an application electronically, you must follow the instructions for this funding announcement at http://www.grants.gov. A password is not required to access the Web site.

    (b) National Environmental Policy Act.

    This Notice has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” We have determined that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required because the issuance of regulations and instructions, as well as amendments to them, describing administrative and financial procedures for processing, approving, and implementing the Agency's financial programs is categorically excluded in the Agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation found at 7 CFR 1970.53(f), “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” We have determined that this Notice does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    (c) Civil Rights Compliance Requirements.

    All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX, Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.

    E. Application Review Information

    We will review your application to determine if it is complete and eligible. If at any time we determine that your application is ineligible, you will be notified in writing as to the reasons it was determined ineligible and you will be informed of your review and appeal rights.

    We will only score applications in which the lead entity, partnering Consortium member entities, and the project are eligible. The applications must also be complete and sufficiently responsive to program requirements.

    We will review each application to determine if it is eligible for funding and complete, based on the requirements of this Notice as well as other applicable Federal regulations.

    Applications that are determined to be eligible and complete will be evaluated based on the criteria described below.

    1. Criteria.

    For each criterion, you must show how the Project has merit and why it is likely to be successful. If you do not address all parts of a criterion your application will be deemed ineligible. If you do not sufficiently communicate relevant Project information, you will receive lower scores. DHCS is a competitive program, so you will receive scores based on the quality of your responses. Simply addressing the criteria will not guarantee higher scores. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced by page number in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum number of points that can be awarded to your application is 100. The minimum score requirement for funding is 60 points. It is at the Agency's discretion to fund applications with a score of 59 points or less if it is in the best interest of the Federal government.

    The evaluation criteria are detailed in the DHCS Grant Application Guide which can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants. You must address each evaluation criterion outlined in this Notice. Any criterion not substantively addressed will receive zero points. There are three criteria totaling 100 points. They are listed below:

    (a) Rurality of the Project and communities served (maximum of 30 points)—The rurality of the communities served by the Project is an objective criterion that measures the rurality of the Project's service area. It is determined by the population of the community based upon the 2010 U.S. Census data available on the American Fact Finder Web site—http://www.factfinder.census.gov. If you have multiple addresses in the same community (city, town or census designated place), please only list the community once when preparing your rurality calculation. The rurality calculation provided in the application will be checked and, if necessary, corrected by us.

    Level Community having a population Over Not in excess of Points 1 0 5,000 30 2 5,001 20,000 20 3 20,001 50,000 10 4 50,001 or located in an Urbanized Area 0

    (b) The Community Needs and Benefits derived from the Project (maximum of 30 points)—We will assess how the Project will benefit the residents in the Delta Region. This criterion will be scored based on the documentation in support of the community needs for health services and public health-related facilities and the benefits to people living in Delta Regional derived from the implementation of the proposed Project. It should lead clearly to the identification of the Project participant pool and the target population for the Project, and provide convincing links between the Project and the benefits to the community to address its health needs. RBS will consider:

    (1) The extent of the applicant's documentation explaining the health care needs, issues, and challenges facing the service area. Include what problems the residents face and how the Project will benefit the residents in the region.

    (2) The extent to which the applicant is able to show the relationship between the Project's design, outcome, and benefits.

    (3) The extent to which the applicant explains the Project and its implementation and provides milestones which are well-defined and can be realistically completed.

    (4) The extent to which the applicant clearly outlines a plan to track, report, and evaluate performance outcomes.

    Applicants should attempt to quantify benefits in terms of outcomes from the Project; that is, ways in which peoples' lives, or the community, will be improved. Provide estimates of the number of people affected by the benefits arising from the project.

    (c) The Project Management and Organization Capability (maximum of 40 points)—We will evaluate the Consortium's experience, past performance, and accomplishments addressing health care issues to ensure effective Project implementation. This criterion will be scored based on the documentation of the Project's management and organizational capability. RBS will consider:

    (1) The degree to which the organization has a sound management and fiscal structure including: Well-defined roles for administrators, staff, and established financial management systems.

    (2) The extent to which the applicant identifies and demonstrates that qualifications, capabilities, and educational background of the identified key personnel (at a minimum the Project Manager) who will manage and implement programs are relevant and will contribute to the success of the Project.

    (3) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates current successful and effective experience (or demonstrated experience within the past 5 years) addressing the health care issues in the Delta Region.

    (4) The extent to which the applicant has experience managing grant-funded programs.

    (5) The extent to which the applicant is able to correlate and support the budget to the project phases and implementation timeline.

    (6) The extent to which administrative/management costs are balanced with funds designated for the provision of programs and services.

    (7) The extent and diversity of eligible entity types within the applicant's Consortium of regional institutions of higher education, academic health and research institutes and economic development entities located in the Delta Region.

    2. Review and Selection Process.

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements in this Notice and other applicable Federal regulations. If determined eligible, your application will be scored by a panel of National and State Office employees in accordance with the point allocation specified in this Notice. A recommendation will be submitted to the Administrator to fund applications in highest ranking order, subject to availability of funds. It is at the Agency's discretion to fund applications with a score of 59 points or less if it is in the best interest of the Federal government. If your application is evaluated, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next competition.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information

    1. Federal Award Notices.

    If you are selected for funding, you will receive a signed notice of Federal award by postal mail from the State Office where your application was submitted, containing instructions on requirements necessary to proceed with execution and performance of the award. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant award will be approved. We recognize that each funded Project is unique and therefore the terms and conditions of each award may vary. We will notify applicants whose applications are selected for funding by sending a letter of conditions, which must be met before the award can be finalized.

    Once the conditions of the award are met, we will issue a grant agreement, which must be signed by the lead entity and us before the period of performance can begin. The lead entity may administer the award using the traditional subaward approach to the other Consortium members.

    If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing via postal mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. See 7 CFR part 11 for USDA National Appeals Division procedures. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2016 funding. You must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and notice requirements before the grant will be approved.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this in program can be found in 2 CFR parts 25, 170, 180, 200, 400, 415, 417, 418, and 421; and 48 CFR 31.2, and successor regulations to these parts. In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, and must report information about sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). These recipients must also maintain their registration in the SAM database as long as their grants are active. These regulations may be obtained at http://www.ecfr.gov.

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    • Agency-approved Grant Agreement.

    • Letter of Conditions.

    • Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    • Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    • Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    • Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”

    • Form AD-3031, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.”

    • Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” Each prospective recipient must sign Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15 and other Agency regulations. That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the re-lender receives Federal financial assistance. That nondiscrimination statements are in advertisements and brochures.

    • Collect and maintain data provided by ultimate recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure Ultimate Recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, “(62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

    • The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

    • Civil rights compliance reviews should be conducted by the Agency at pre award and post award. The results of the review should be documented on Form RD 400-8, Compliance Review, and appropriate documentation attached to substantiate findings of compliance or noncompliance. The original Form RD 400-8 should be maintained in the case file with copies forwarded to the Rural Development State Civil Rights Coordinator. If the recipient is not in compliance, copies must be immediately forwarded to the Director, Civil Rights Staff, with a recommendation for action to be taken.

    • RD Instruction 2006-P requires that a Civil Rights Impact Analysis be conducted prior to approving or implementing a wide range of Agency activities. The Agency will prepare Form RD 2006-38, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, on the re-lender only.

    • RD Instruction 1940-Q, Exhibit A-1, “Certification for Contracts, Grants and Loans”

    • SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” if applicable.

    3. Reporting.

    (a) Federal Financial Reports.

    (1) An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” must be submitted listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a semiannual basis. Reporting periods end each August 31 and February 28. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends.

    (2) A final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    (3) Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.

    (b) Performance Reports.

    Semiannual performance reports should compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed to date and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds should be discussed. Reports are due as provided in paragraph 3.a. of this section.

    (c) Subrecipient Reporting.

    The lead entity must have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the reporting requirements for first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 in the event the applicant receives funding unless such applicant is exempt from such reporting requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 170.110(b). The reporting requirements under the Transparency Act pursuant to 2 CFR part 170 are as follows:

    (1) First Tier Sub-Awards of $25,000 or more in non-Recovery Act funds (unless they are exempt under 2 CFR part 170) must be reported by the Recipient to http://www.fsrs.gov no later than the end of the month following the month the obligation was made.

    (2) The Total Compensation of the Recipient's Executives (five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Recipient (if the Recipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to http://www.sam.gov by the end of the month following the month in which the award was made.

    (3) The Total Compensation of the Subrecipient's Executives (five most highly compensated executives) must be reported by the Subrecipient (if the Subrecipient meets the criteria under 2 CFR part 170) to the Recipient by the end of the month following the month in which the sub-award was made. Further details regarding these requirements can be obtained at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr170_main_02.tpl.

    (d) Closeout.

    Grant closeout activities include a letter to the grantee with final instructions and reminders for amounts to be de-obligated for any unexpended grant funds, final project performance reports due, submission of outstanding deliverables, audit requirements, or other outstanding items of closure.

    (e) Report for Public Distribution.

    You must provide a report suitable for public distribution that describes the accomplishments made during this project. We may use this report as a success story to promote this program.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts

    If you have questions about this Notice, please contact the State Office as identified in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. You are also encouraged to visit the application Web site for application tools, including an application guide and templates. The Web site address is: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/delta-health-care-services-grants.

    H. Other Information Nondiscrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Samuel H. Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21982 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    September 28, 2016; 6:00 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    Four Points Sheraton, 600 Kanawha Blvd. E. Charleston, WV 25301, Capital City Suites A&B.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) announces that it will convene a public meeting on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, starting at 6:00 p.m. EDT in the Capital City Suites A&B Rooms at the Four Points Sheraton in Charleston, West Virginia.

    CSB staff will present findings and recommendations from the CSB investigation of the January 2014 leak from a storage tank at Freedom Industries that contaminated the local water supply, leaving hundreds of thousands of West Virginia residents without clean drinking water. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.

    At the conclusion of a public comment period, the Board may vote to approve the final report and recommendations. Staff presentations are preliminary and are intended to allow the Board to consider in a public forum the issues and factors involved in this case.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. The public comments will be directed to the board and facilitated by the Chairperson. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information

    Hillary Cohen, Communication Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 446-8094. Further information about the CSB and this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: September 9, 2016. Raymond C. Porfiri, Deputy General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22122 Filed 9-9-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Minnesota Advisory Committee To Discuss Project Concepts in Preparation To Select the Committee's Next Topic of Civil Rights Study AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Monday, September 26, 2016, at 11 a.m. CDT. for the purpose of discussing project concepts regarding future study of civil rights concerns in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, September 26, 2016, at 11 a.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information: Dial: 877-857-6161, Conference ID: 6681139.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-857-6161, conference ID: 6681139. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by COB Thursday September 29. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory Committee link (http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=256 . Click on “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion of Project Concepts: Civil Rights in Minnesota Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: September 7, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21900 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [8/19/2016 through 9/7/2016] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Hi-Tech Electronic Manufacturing, Inc 7420 Carrol Road, San Diego, CA 92121 8/19/2016 This firm manufactures circuit card, assemblies, chassis assemblies, and cable harnesses assemblies. Duval Sign Company 2 Shaker Road, D105, Shirley, MA 1464 8/22/2016 This firm is a manufacturer of of signs and visual displays. Machine Tech Services, LLC 1232 Wall Road, Broussard, LA 70518 8/22/2016 The firm is a manufacturer and repairer of oilfield equipment. DaVincia, LLC, d/b/a Link Electronics 2360 High Street, Suite 10, Jackson, MO 63755 8/31/2016 The firm manufactures radio and television communications equipment for both household and commercial use.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Miriam Kearse, Lead Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21891 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-475-818] Certain Pasta From Italy: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy (pasta) with respect to Tamma Industrie Alimentari di Capitanata, S.r.L. (Tamma).

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joy Zhang, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1168.

    Background

    On July 24, 1996, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on pasta from Italy, which included Delverde S.p.A. and its affiliate Tamma (collectively, Delverde).1 Pursuant to a decision by the Court of International Trade, on remand, the Department determined that Delverde had a de minimis dumping margin and should be excluded from the order.2

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order and Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Pasta From Italy, 61 FR 38547 (July 24, 1996) (AD Order).

    2See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Pursuant to Court Decision and Revocation in Part: Certain Pasta from Italy, 66 FR 65889 (December 21, 2001).

    In 2014, the Department conducted a changed circumstances review of Delverde S.p.A and found that Delverde Industrie Alimentari S.p.A. (Delverde) was not a successor-in-interest to Delverde S.p.A. based on aspects of the bankruptcy of Delverde S.p.A., changes in management, changes in supplier relationships, and changes in production facilities.3 Thus, the Department found that Delverde was not entitled to the defunct entity's antidumping exclusion from the AD Order. 4

    3See Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 28481 (May 16, 2014); unchanged in Certain Pasta from Italy: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 76339 (September 19, 2014) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Delverde CCR).

    4See Delverde CCR.

    On July 29, 2016, American Italian Pasta Company, Dakota Growers Pasta Company, and New World Pasta Company (Petitioners) filed a request for the Department to initiate a changed circumstances review of Tamma to determine whether Tamma is the successor-in-interest to the same company that was excluded from the AD Order. 5

    5See Petitioners' letter titled, “Request for 2015-2016 Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Pasta from Italy,” dated July 29, 2016. This letter requests an administrative review and changed circumstances review of Tamma. On August 11, 2016, Petitioners refiled this review request to clarify the specific company names requested for review.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds four ounces or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastasis, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white. The pasta covered by this scope is typically sold in the retail market, in fiberboard or cardboard cartons, or polyethylene or polypropylene bags of varying dimensions.

    Excluded from the scope of this order are refrigerated, frozen, or canned pastas, as well all forms of egg pasta, with the exception of non-egg dry pasta containing up to two percent egg white. Also excluded are imports of organic pasta from Italy that are certified by a European Union (EU) authorized body and accompanied by a National Organic Program import certificate for organic products. Effective July 1, 2008, gluten free pasta is also excluded from this order.

    The merchandise subject to this order is currently classifiable under items 1902.19.20 and 1901.90.9095 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the AD Order is dispositive.

    Initiation of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. In antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews involving a successor-in-interest determination, the Department typically examines several factors including, but not limited to: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.6

    6See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) and Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 22847 (May 3, 2005), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 70 FR 35624 (June 21, 2005).

    Based on the information Petitioners submitted in their July 29, 2016, letter, we find that we have received information which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant initiation of such a review in order to determine whether Tamma is the successor-in-interest to the company excluded from the AD Order that was previously affiliated with the now defunct Delverde S.p.A.7 Therefore, in accordance with the above-referenced statute and regulation, the Department is initiating a changed circumstances review.

    7See 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    We intend to issue the final results of the changed circumstances review within 270 days from the date of initiation of this changed circumstance review, or within 45 days if all parties to the proceeding agree to the outcome of the review.8 During the course of this review, we will not change the cash deposit requirements for the subject merchandise. The cash deposit rate will be changed, if warranted, pursuant only to the final results of the changed circumstances review.

    8See 19 CFR 351.216(e).

    This notice of initiation is in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1).

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22007 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-880, A-201-847, A-489-824] Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey: Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and the Republic of Turkey (Turkey).

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado (Korea), David Crespo (Mexico), or Ross Belliveau (Turkey), AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682, (202) 482-3693, and, (202) 482-4952 respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on July 21, 2016, the Department published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.1 On September 6, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.2

    1See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From The Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 47347 (July 21, 2016) (Korea Final Determination), Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Mexico: Final Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 47352 (July 21, 2016) (Mexico Final Determination), and Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From The Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 47355 (July 21, 2016) (Turkey Final Determination).

    2See ITC Notification Letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, referencing ITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-539 and 731-TA-1280-1282 (September 6, 2016) (ITC Notification).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders is certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a nominal wall thickness of not less than 4 mm. The merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-500, grade B specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.

    Included products are those in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.0 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten, or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium.

    The subject merchandise is currently provided for in item 7306.61.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 7306.61.3000. While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    As stated above, on September 6, 2016, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found material injury with respect to heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey.3 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Turkey, and Mexico are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    3Id.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 1, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,4 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determinations as further described below.

    4See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From The Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10585 (March 1, 2016) (Korea Preliminary Determination), Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Mexico: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10587 (March 1, 2016) (Mexico Preliminary Determination), and Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From The Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Determination of Sales Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10583 (March 1, 2016) (Turkey Preliminary Determination).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey. In the Turkey Final Determination the Department calculated a zero percent margin for Ozdemir Boru Profil San. Ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. (Ozdemir). Accordingly, Ozdemir is excluded from the antidumping duty order, and no suspension of liquidation is required for heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey produced and exported by Ozdemir. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.5 The relevant all-others rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed. For the purpose of determining cash deposit rates, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for imports of subject merchandise from Turkey will be adjusted, as appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation of this merchandise imported from Turkey.6

    5See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    6See Turkey Final Determination, 81 FR at 47356.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, we extended the four-month period to six months in each case.7 In the underlying investigations, the Department published the preliminary determinations on March 1, 2016. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determinations, ended on August 28, 2016. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    7See Korea Preliminary Determination, Mexico Preliminary Determination, and Turkey Preliminary Determination.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 28, 2016, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determinations in the Federal Register.

    The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Korea Dong-A Steel Company 2.34 HiSteel Co., Ltd 3.82 All Others 3.24 Mexico Maquilacero S.A. de C.V 3.83 Productos Laminados de Monterrey S.A. de C.V 5.21 All Others 4.91
    Exporter/producer Dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit
  • (percent)
  • Turkey MMZ Boru Profil Uretim Sanayi Ve Tic. A.S 35.66 35.66 All Others 17.83 17.73 Note: In the Turkey Final Determination, we adjusted the all-others cash deposit rate by 0.10 percent to account for the export subsidies included in the all-others rate calculated in the companion countervailing duty investigation. See Memorandum to the File from Rebecca Trainor, “Calculation of the All-Others Rate,” dated July 14, 2016, which is on the record of the LTFV investigation of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22003 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-840] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Final Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 10, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blaine Wiltse or Manuel Rey, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6345 or (202) 482-5518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This review covers 223 producers/exporters. The producers/exporters which the Department selected for individual examination are Falcon Marine Exports Limited and its affiliate K.R. Enterprises (collectively, Falcon) and the Liberty Group.1 The producers/exporters which were not selected for individual examination are listed in the “Final Results of the Review” section of this notice.

    1 The Liberty Group consists of: Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd.; Kader Exports Private Limited; Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited; Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.; Liberty Oil Mills Ltd.; Premier Marine Products Private Limited; and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited.

    On March 10, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. 2 In April 2016, we received a case brief Falcon, the Liberty Group, and 11 additional producers/exporters of the subject merchandise (collectively, the respondents); we also received rebuttal briefs from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (the petitioner) and the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.

    2See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Determination of No Shipments; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12705 (March 10, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    On June 7, 2016, we postponed the final results by 60 days, until September 6, 2016.3 In July 2016, we held a public hearing at the request of the respondents.

    3See memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Blaine Wiltse, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office II, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India; 2014-2015 Administrative Review: Extension of Deadline for Final Results,” dated June 7, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.4 The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.

    4 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see the memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,” (dated concurrently with these results) (Issues and Decision Memorandum), which is hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which 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; the Issues and Decision Memorandum is also available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024, of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made certain changes to the margin calculations performed for Falcon and the Liberty Group.

    Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received no-shipment claims from 19 companies named in the Initiation Notice. 5 In the Preliminary Results, we preliminarily determined that the companies listed below had no reviewable transactions during the POR.6 We received no comments from interested parties with respect to these claims and we continue to determine that these companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR. These companies are:

    5See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 16634 (March 30, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    6See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 12706.

    1. Amulya Sea Foods 2. Ayshwarya Sea Foods Private Limited 3. Baby Marine International 4. Baby Marine Sarass 5. Blue Water Foods & Exports Pvt. Ltd. 6. Capithan Exporting Company 7. Cherukattu Industries (Marine Division) 8. Coreline Exports 9. Delsea Exports Pvt. Ltd. 10. GEO Aquatic Products Pvt. Ltd. 11. GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. 12. Indo Fisheries 13. Navayuga Exports Limited 14. R F Exports 15. Santhi Fisheries & Exports Limited 16. Selvam Exports Private Limited 17. Sterling Foods 18. Veronica Marine Exports Private Limited 19. Vinner Marine Processors & Exporters of Marine Products Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    Final Results of the Review

    We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below as follows:

    Manufacturer/exporter Margin
  • (percent)
  • Falcon Marine Exports Limited/K.R. Enterprises 0.74 The Liberty Group 3.37

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 7

    7 This rate is based on the actual weighted-average margin using the publically-ranged data calculated for those companies selected for individual review. Because we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to protect business proprietary information, we find this rate to be the best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin determined for the mandatory respondents. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010); see also the memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, to the File, entitled, “Calculation of the Review-Specific Average Rate for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Manufacturer/exporter Margin
  • (percent)
  • Abad Fisheries 2.20 Adilakshmi Enterprises 2.20 Akshay Food Impex Private Limited 2.20 Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Allanasons Ltd 2.20 AMI Enterprises 2.20 Anand Aqua Exports 2.20 Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods 2.20 Ananda Enterprises (India) Private Limited 2.20 Andaman Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Angelique Intl 2.20 Anjaneya Seafoods 2.20 Apex Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.20 Aquatica Frozen Foods Global Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Arvi Import & Export 2.20 Asvini Exports 2.20 Asvini Fisheries Private Limited 2.20 Avanti Feeds Limited 2.20 B R Traders 2.20 Baby Marine Exports 2.20 Balasore Marine Exports Private Limited 2.20 Bhatsons Aquatic Products 2.20 Bhavani Seafoods 2.20 Bijaya Marine Products 2.20 Blue Fin Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Bluepark Seafoods Private Ltd 2.20 BMR Exports 2.20 BMR Industries Private Limited 2.20 Britto Exports 2.20 C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd 2.20 Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Canaan Marine Products 2.20 Castlerock Fisheries Ltd 2.20 Chemmeens (Regd) 2.20 Choice Canning Company 2.20 Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited 2.20 Coastal Aqua 2.20 Coastal Corporation Ltd 2.20 Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 D2 D Logistics Private Limited 2.20 Damco India Private Limited 2.20 Devi Fisheries Limited/Satya Seafoods Private Limited/Usha Seafoods 2.20 Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd/Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company 2.20 Devi Sea Foods Limited 8 2.20 Digha Seafood Exports 2.20 Esmario Export Enterprises 2.20 Exporter Coreline Exports 2.20 Febin Marine Foods 2.20 Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited 2.20 Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 G A Randerian Ltd 2.20 Gadre Marine Exports 2.20 Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd 2.20 Gayatri Seafoods 2.20 Geo Seafoods 2.20 Goodwill Enterprises 2.20 Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd 2.20 Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd 2.20 HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Hindustan Lever, Ltd 2.20 Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage 2.20 Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Hiravati International P. Ltd (located at APM—Mafco Yard, Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai—400 705, India) 2.20 Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India) 2.20 IFB Agro Industries Ltd 2.20 Indian Aquatic Products 2.20 Indo Aquatics 2.20 Indo French Shellfish Company Private Limited 2.20 Innovative Foods Limited 2.20 International Freezefish Exports 2.20 Interseas 2.20 ITC Limited, International Business 2.20 ITC Ltd 2.20 Jaya Satya Marine Exports 2.20 Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited 2.20 Jinny Marine Traders 2.20 Jiya Packagings 2.20 K R M Marine Exports Ltd 2.20 K V Marine Exports 2.20 Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports India Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Kalyanee Marine 2.20 Kanch Ghar 2.20 Karunya Marine Exports Private Limited 2.20 Kay Kay Exports 2.20 Kings Marine Products 2.20 Koluthara Exports Ltd 2.20 Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Landauer Ltd 2.20 Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd 2.20 Magnum Estates Limited 2.20 Magnum Export 2.20 Magnum Sea Foods Limited 2.20 Malabar Arabian Fisheries 2.20 Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Mangala Sea Products 2.20 Mangala Seafoods 2.20 Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Milesh Marine Exports Private Limited 2.20 MSRDR Exports 2.20 MTR Foods 2.20 Munnangi Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd 2.20 Naga Hanuman Fish Packers 2.20 Naik Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.20 Naik Seafoods Ltd 2.20 Neeli Aqua Private Limited 2.20 Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited 2.20 Nezami Rekha Sea Foods Private Limited 2.20 NGR Aqua International 2.20 Nila Sea Foods Exports 2.20 Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Nine Up Frozen Foods 2.20 Nutrient Marine Foods Limited 2.20 Oceanic Edibles International Limited 2.20 Overseas Marine Export 2.20 Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Paramount Seafoods 2.20 Parayil Food Products Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Penver Products Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Pesca Marine Products Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Pijikay International Exports P Ltd 2.20 Pisces Seafood International 2.20 Premier Exports International 2.20 Premier Marine Foods 2.20 Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd 2.20 R V R Marine Products Limited 2.20 Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Raju Exports 2.20 Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd 2.20 Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage 2.20 Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Razban Seafoods Ltd 2.20 RBT Exports 2.20 RDR Exports 2.20 Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Rohi Marine Private Ltd 2.20 S & S Seafoods 2.20 S Chanchala Combines 2.20 S. A. Exports 2.20 S.J. Seafoods 2.20 Safa Enterprises 2.20 Sagar Foods 2.20 Sagar Grandhi Exports Private Limited 2.20 Sagar Samrat Seafoods 2.20 Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 SAI Sea Foods 2.20 Salvam Exports (P) Ltd 2.20 Sanchita Marine Products Private Limited 2.20 Sandhya Aqua Exports 2.20 Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Sandhya Marines Limited 2.20 Sarveshwari Exports 2.20 Sawant Food Products 2.20 Sea Foods Private Limited 2.20 Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Sharat Industries Ltd 2.20 Sharma Industries 2.20 Shimpo Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Shippers Exports 2.20 Shiva Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Shree Datt Aquaculture Farms Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd 2.20 Silver Seafood 2.20 Sita Marine Exports 2.20 Sowmya Agri Marine Exports 2.20 Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports 2.20 Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage 2.20 Sri Satya Marine Exports 2.20 Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Srikanth International 2.20 Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited 2.20 Star Organic Foods Incorporated 2.20 Sun-Bio Technology Ltd 2.20 Supran Exim Private Limited 2.20 Suryamitra Exim Pvt. Ltd 2.20 Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited 2.20 Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd 2.20 TBR Exports Pvt Ltd 2.20 Teekay Marine P. Ltd 2.20 Tejaswani Enterprises 2.20 The Waterbase Ltd 2.20 Triveni Fisheries P Ltd 2.20 Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd 2.20 Unitriveni Overseas 2.20 V V Marine Products 2.20 V.S Exim Pvt Ltd 2.20 Vasista Marine 2.20 Veejay Impex 2.20 Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd 2.20 Vishal Exports 2.20 Vitality Aquaculture Pvt., Ltd 2.20 Wellcome Fisheries Limited 2.20 West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited 2.20 Z A Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd 2.20
    Assessment Rates

    8 Shrimp produced and exported by Devi Sea Foods (Devi) was excluded from this order effective February 1, 2009. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Notice of Revocation of Order in Part, 75 FR 41813, 41814 (July 19, 2010). Accordingly, we conducted this administrative review with respect to Devi only for shrimp produced in India where Devi acted as either the manufacturer or exporter (but not both).

    The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Falcon and the Liberty Group reported the entered value for all of their U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which entered value was reported. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value.

    For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used as the assessment rate the cash deposit rate assigned to these exporters, in accordance with our practice.9

    9See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 79 FR 51309 (August 28, 2014).

    The Department's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Falcon or the Liberty Group for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, 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. For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent (de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1)), the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, as well as those companies listed in the “Determination of No Shipments” section, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation.10 These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    10See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147, 5148 (February 1, 2005).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only 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 the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), this notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO, 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 subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Margin Calculations Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Revise Its Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 2: Whether To Use Entry Date To Define Time Periods for the Differential Pricing Analysis Comment 3: Ministerial Errors for the Liberty Group Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-22008 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-955] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain chemically-bonded magnesia carbon bricks from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014. We preliminarily find no evidence of any reviewable entries, shipments, or sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR by any of the companies subject to this review, and are therefore issuing a preliminary no shipments determination.

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gene Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The scope of the order includes certain chemically-bonded magnesia carbon bricks. Certain chemically-bonded magnesia carbon bricks that are the subject of this order are currently classifiable under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS): 6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 66815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000, and 6815.99.4000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.1 The written description is dispositive.

    1 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Department Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China; 2014,” (dated concurrently with this notice) (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum contains a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, and is a public document on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and 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 is identical in content.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Based on information submitted after the initiation of this administrative review, and due to the fact that we have not received any information from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) indicating that the companies subject to this review had reviewable entries to the United States during the POR,2 the Department has preliminarily determined that the record evidence indicates that no company subject to this review had reviewable entries during the POR. As is our practice, the Department finds that it is not appropriate to rescind this review, but, rather, to complete this review and to issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of this review.3

    2See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum for a list of companies subject to this review.

    3See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Intent to Revoke the Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 15686 (March 12, 2013) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at 7-8, unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Revocation of Order (in Part); 2011-2012, 78 FR 42497 (July 16, 2013) at the section, “Rescission, in Part;” see also Silicomanganese From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 28826 (May 10, 2016) and accompanying Decision Memorandum at 3.

    Assessment Rates

    We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of the final results of this review.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice.4 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.5 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed through ACCESS.7 In order to be properly filed, ACCESS must successfully receive an electronically-filed document in its entirety by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date on which it is due.

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    7See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or wish to participate in a hearing if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically through ACCESS, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless extended, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    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 countervailing 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 countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double countervailing duties.

    Notice to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22001 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-048] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate (CTL plate) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Mullen, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty (CVD) Determination With Final Antidumping Duty (AD) Determination

    On the same day the Department initiated this CVD investigation, the Department also initiated CVD investigations of CTL plate from Brazil and the Republic of Korea (Korea) and AD investigations of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the PRC, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey.1 The CVD investigation covers the same merchandise as the AD investigations of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey.2

    1See 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) (Initiation Notice); see also 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).

    2 For a complete case history, see Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice and hereby incorporated by reference, and adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    On August 25, 2016, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act), Petitioners 3 requested alignment of the final CVD determination with the final AD determination of CTL plate from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final CVD determination with the final AD determination of CTL plate from Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Taiwan.4 Consequently, we intend to issue the final CVD determination on the same date as the final AD determination, which is currently scheduled to be issued no later than January 18, 2017, unless postponed.5

    3 Petitioners in this investigation are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, and SSAB Enterprises LLC.

    4See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners, “Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from People's Republic of China and Korea—Petitioners' Request to Align the Countervailing Duty Final Determinations with the Companion Antidumping Duty Final Determination,” (August 25, 2016).

    5 The AD determinations of CTL plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey were not postponed. See Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate Austria, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, and Taiwan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 59185 (August 29, 2016).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers CTL plate from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preamble to the Department's regulations,6 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).7 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of this investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice, as well as additional language proposed by the Department. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Department's Scope Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.8 The Department is preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice to clarify the exclusion for stainless steel plate.9 The Department is also correcting two tariff numbers that were misidentified in the Petitions and in the Initiation Notice. 10

    6See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble).

    7See Initiation Notice, 81 FR at 27099.

    8See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “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 Korea, the Republic of South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations” (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum) dated concurrently with this preliminary determination.

    9 Specifically, the revised scope now states that stainless steel plate must not contain more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight.

    10Id.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this CVD investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.11 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at 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/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    11See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination and Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we determined an estimated countervailable subsidy rate for each producer/exporter of the subject merchandise individually investigated. We preliminarily determine these rates to be:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Jiangyin Xingcheng Special Steel Works Co. Ltd 210.50 Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel 210.50 Viewer Development Co., Ltd 210.50 All Others 210.50

    In accordance with section 703(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of CTL from the PRC as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amounts indicated above.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    In accordance with section 705(b)(3) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 75 days after the Department makes its final determination.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement.12 Interested parties may submit case and rebuttal briefs, as well as request a hearing.13 For a schedule of the deadlines for filing case briefs, rebuttal briefs, and hearing requests, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    12See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    13See 19 CFR 351.309(c)-(d) and 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain carbon and alloy steel hot-rolled or forged flat plate products not in coils, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances (cut-to-length plate). Subject merchandise includes plate that is produced by being cut-to-length from coils or from other discrete length plate and plate that is rolled or forged into a discrete length. The products covered include (1) Universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, which are not in coils and without patterns in relief), and (2) hot-rolled or forged flat steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness, and which are not in coils, whether or not with patterns in relief. The covered products described above may be rectangular, square, circular or other shapes and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such non-rectangular cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”, (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges).

    For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above, the following rules apply:

    (1) Except where otherwise stated where the nominal and actual thickness or width measurements vary, a product from a given subject country is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above unless the product is already covered by an order existing on that specific country (e.g., orders on hot-rolled flat-rolled steel); and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less by weight.

    Subject merchandise includes cut-to-length plate that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to pickling, oiling, levelling, annealing, tempering, temper rolling, skin passing, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, beveling, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cut-to-length plate.

    All products that meet the written physical description, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded or covered by the scope of an existing order. The following products are outside of, and/or specifically excluded from, the scope of this investigation:

    (1) Products clad, plated, or coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastic or other non-metallic substances;

    (2) military grade armor plate certified to one of the following specifications or to a specification that references and incorporates one of the following specifications:

    • MIL-A-12560,

    • MIL-DTL-12560H,

    • MIL-DTL-12560J,

    • MIL-DTL-12560K,

    • MIL-DTL-32332,

    • MIL-A-46100D,

    • MIL-DTL-46100-E,

    • MIL-46177C,

    • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY80,

    • MIL-S-16216K Grade HY100,

    • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-80;

    • MIL-S-24645A HSLA-100,

    • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY80,

    • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HY100,

    • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA80,

    • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Grade HSLA100, and

    • T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 Mod. Grade HSLA115,

    except that any cut-to-length plate certified to one of the above specifications, or to a military grade armor specification that references and incorporates one of the above specifications, will not be excluded from the scope if it is also dual- or multiple-certified to any other non-armor specification that otherwise would fall within the scope of this order;

    (3) stainless steel plate, containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium by weight and not more than 1.2 percent of carbon by weight;

    (4) CTL plate meeting the requirements of ASTM A-829, Grade E 4340 that are over 305 mm in actual thickness;

    (5) Alloy forged and rolled CTL plate greater than or equal to 152.4 mm in actual thickness meeting each of the following requirements:

    (a) Electric furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed and having a chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28,

    • Silicon 0.05-0.20,

    • Manganese 1.20-1.60,

    • Nickel not greater than 1.0,

    • Sulfur not greater than 0.007,

    • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020,

    • Chromium 1.0-2.5,

    • Molybdenum 0.35-0.80,

    • Boron 0.002-0.004,

    • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm,

    • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and

    • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) With a Brinell hardness measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness falling within one of the following ranges:

    (i) 270-300 HBW,

    (ii) 290-320 HBW, or

    (iii) 320-350 HBW;

    (c) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.0, C not exceeding 0.5, D not exceeding 1.5; and

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 2 mm flat bottom hole;

    (6) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, Ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.23-0.28,

    • Silicon 0.05-0.15,

    • Manganese 1.20-1.50,

    • Nickel not greater than 0.4,

    • Sulfur not greater than 0.010,

    • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020,

    • Chromium 1.20-1.50,

    • Molybdenum 0.35-0.55,

    • Boron 0.002-0.004,

    • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm,

    • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and

    • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm;

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.5, B not exceeding 1.5, C not exceeding 1.0, D not exceeding 1.5;

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties:

    (i) With a Brinell hardness not more than 237 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 75 ksi min and UTS 95 ksi or more, Elongation of 18% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −75 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 15 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens) and conforming to the requirements of NACE MR01-75; or

    (ii) With a Brinell hardness not less than 240 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 90 ksi min and UTS 110 ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 30% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the longitudinal direction equal or greater than 21 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 31 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301;

    (7) Alloy forged and rolled steel CTL plate over 407 mm in actual thickness and meeting the following requirements:

    (a) Made from Electric Arc Furnace melted, ladle refined & vacuum degassed, alloy steel with the following chemical composition (expressed in weight percentages):

    • Carbon 0.25-0.30,

    • Silicon not greater than 0.25,

    • Manganese not greater than 0.50,

    • Nickel 3.0-3.5,

    • Sulfur not greater than 0.010,

    • Phosphorus not greater than 0.020,

    • Chromium 1.0-1.5,

    • Molybdenum 0.6-0.9,

    • Vanadium 0.08 to 0.12

    • Boron 0.002-0.004,

    • Oxygen not greater than 20 ppm,

    • Hydrogen not greater than 2 ppm, and

    • Nitrogen not greater than 60 ppm.

    (b) Having cleanliness in accordance with ASTM E45 method A (Thin and Heavy): A not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), B not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h), C not exceeding 1.0(t) and 0.5(h), and D not exceeding 1.5(t) and 1.0(h);

    (c) Having the following mechanical properties: A Brinell hardness not less than 350 HBW measured in all parts of the product including mid thickness; and having a Yield Strength of 145ksi or more and UTS 160ksi or more, Elongation of 15% or more and Reduction of area 35% or more; having charpy V at −40 degrees F in the transverse direction equal or greater than 20 ft. lbs (single value) and equal or greater than 25 ft. lbs (average of 3 specimens);

    (d) Conforming to ASTM A578-S9 ultrasonic testing requirements with acceptance criteria 3.2 mm flat bottom hole; and

    (e) Conforming to magnetic particle inspection in accordance with AMS 2301.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 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.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7208.40.6060, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.19.1500, 7211.19.2000, 7211.19.4500, 7211.19.6000, 7211.19.7590, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, 7214.10.0000, 7214.30.0010, 7214.30.0080, 7214.91.0015, 7214.91.0060, 7214.91.0090, 7225.11.0000, 7225.19.0000, 7225.40.5110, 7225.40.5130, 7225.40.5160, 7225.40.7000, 7225.99.0010, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9060, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.91.0500, 7226.91.1530, 7226.91.1560, 7226.91.2530, 7226.91.2560, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, and 7226.99.0180.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Alignment VI. Injury Test VII. Application of the CVD Law to Imports From the PRC VIII. Subsidies Valuation IX. Use of Fact Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences X. Analysis of Programs XI. ITC Notification XII. Disclosure and Public Comment XIII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-21999 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-825] Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). Also, as explained in this notice, the Department is amending its final affirmative determination with respect to HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey to correct the rate assigned to MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San Ve Tic. A.S. (MMZ) and the “All-Others” rate.

    DATES:

    Effective September 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Smith or Aqmar Rahman, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1766 or (202) 482-0768, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 21, 2016, the Department published its final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey.1

    1See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 47349 (July 21, 2016) (Final Determination).

    On July 21, 2016, and July 25, 2016, the Department received timely allegations from respondents Ozdemir Boru Profil San ve Tic. Ltd. Sti. (Ozdemir), MMZ, and the Government of Turkey, that the Department made ministerial errors in the final determination.2 The Department analyzed the allegations and determined that there was a ministerial error as alleged by MMZ, within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224(f).3 See “Amendment to the Final Determination” section below for further discussion.

    2See Letter from Ozdemir, entitled “Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey; Request for correction of ministerial error,” dated July 21, 2016; Letter from MMZ, entitled “Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Ministerial Error Comments,” dated July 25, 2016; and Letter from the Government of Turkey, entitled “Request of the Government of Turkey for Correction of Ministerial Errors on Final Determination in CVD Investigation on Imports of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Turkey,” dated July 25, 2016.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Ministerial Error Allegations in the Final Determination,” dated August 19, 2016 (Ministerial Error Memorandum). The Ministerial Error 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.

    On September 6, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey.4

    4See ITC Notification Letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, referencing ITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-539 and 731-TA-1280-1282 (September 6, 2016) (ITC Notification).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this order are certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a nominal wall thickness of not less than 4 mm. The merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-500, grade B specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications.

    Included products are those in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.0 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten, or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium.

    The subject merchandise is currently provided for in item 7306.61.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 7306.61.3000. While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Amendment to the Final Determination

    As discussed above, after analyzing the comments received, we determined, in accordance with section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), that we made a ministerial error in certain calculations for the Final Determination with respect to MMZ, as alleged by MMZ.5 Accordingly, we issued amended final calculation memoranda with respect to the net subsidy rates for MMZ and “All-Others” in light of that ministerial error.6 To correct the error, we are issuing this amended final CVD determination, which revises the ad valorem subsidy rates for MMZ and “All-Others.” The amended ad valorem subsidy rate for MMZ is 9.87 percent. We are using this rate to derive an amended ad valorem subsidy rate of 12.58 percent for “All-Others.” 7

    5See Ministerial Error Memorandum.

    6See Memorandum to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program Manager, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Determination Subsidy Rate for MMZ Onur Boru Profil San Ve Tic. A.S.,” dated August 19, 2016; see also Memorandum to Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Program Manager, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Calculation of the “All Others” Rate,” dated August 19, 2016.

    7See Ministerial Error Memorandum.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that the industry in the United States producing HWR pipes and tubes is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing this countervailing duty order.

    As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 28, 2015, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determination in the Federal Register,8 and before April 26, 2016, the effective date on which the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Therefore, entries of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey made on or after April 26, 2016, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's discontinuation, effective April 26, 2016, of the suspension of liquidation.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    8See Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 80749 (December 28, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the Federal Register, and to assess, upon further instruction by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register, CBP must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates noted below:

    Exporter/producer Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim San Ve Tic. A.S 9.87 Ozdemir Boru Profil San ve Tic. Ltd Sti 15.08 All-Others 12.58
    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervailing duty order with respect to HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

    This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22000 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE870 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public joint meeting of its Whiting Advisory Panel and Whiting Plan Development Team on October 6, 2016 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048; telephone: (508) 339-2200; fax: (508) 339-1040.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Advisory Panel and PDT will analyze potential small-mesh multispecies fishery limited access qualification criteria options as well as discuss other Amendment 22 alternatives. The panel and team will also discuss scheduling and priorities for 2017 and develop framework adjustment alternatives, if the Council initiates a framework adjustment at its September Council meeting in response to northern red hake exceeding its Annual Catch Limit. They will also address other business as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21907 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE792 Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; Fall Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In preparation for the 2016 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) meeting, the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT is announcing the convening of its fall meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held October 13-14, 2016. There will be an open session on Thursday, October 13, 2016, from 9 a.m. through approximately 12:30 p.m. The remainder of the meeting will be closed to the public and is expected to end by 1 p.m. on October 14. Interested members of the public may present their views during the public comment session on October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Doubletree Hotel, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910. Written comments should be sent via email (Rachel.O'[email protected]). Comments may also be sent via mail to Rachel O'Malley at NMFS, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, Room 10653, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel O'Malley, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, 301-427-8373.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT will meet October 13-14, 2016, first in an open session to consider management- and research-related information on stock status of Atlantic highly migratory species and then in a closed session to discuss sensitive matters. The open session will be from 9 a.m. through 12:30 p.m. on October 13, 2016, including an opportunity for public comment beginning at approximately 12 p.m. Comments may also be submitted in writing for the Advisory Committee's consideration. Interested members of the public can submit comments by mail or email; use of email is encouraged. All written comments must be received by October 11, 2016 (see ADDRESSES).

    NMFS expects members of the public to conduct themselves appropriately at the open session of the Advisory Committee meeting. At the beginning of the public comment session, an explanation of the ground rules will be provided (e.g., alcohol in the meeting room is prohibited, speakers will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak, each speaker will have an equal amount of time to speak and speakers should not interrupt one another). The session will be structured so that all attending members of the public are able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the degree of controversy of the subject(s). Those not respecting the ground rules will be asked to leave the meeting.

    After the open session, the Advisory Committee will meet in closed session to discuss sensitive information relating to upcoming international negotiations regarding the conservation and management of Atlantic highly migratory species.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting location is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Rachel O'Malley at (301) 427-8373 or Rachel.O'[email protected] at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. John Henderschedt, Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21992 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE793 Advisory Committee and Species Working Group Technical Advisor Appointment AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is soliciting nominations to the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) as established by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). NMFS is also soliciting nominations for Technical Advisors to the Advisory Committee's species working groups.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by October 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent via email (Rachel.O'[email protected]). Nominations may also be sent via mail to Rachel O'Malley at NMFS, Office of International Affairs, Room 10653, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel O'Malley, Office of International Affairs, 301-427-8373.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 971b of ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) requires that an advisory committee be established that shall be comprised of: (1) Not less than five nor more than 20 individuals appointed by the U.S. Commissioners to ICCAT who shall select such individuals from the various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the ICCAT Convention; and (2) the chairs (or their designees) of the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf Fisheries Management Councils. Each member of the Advisory Committee appointed under paragraph (1) shall serve for a term of 2 years and be eligible for reappointment. All members of the Advisory Committee are appointed in their individual professional capacity and undergo a background screening. Any individual appointed to the Committee who is unable to attend all or part of an Advisory Committee meeting may not appoint another person to attend such meetings as his or her proxy. Members of the Advisory Committee shall receive no compensation for their services. The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State may pay the necessary travel expenses of members of the Advisory Committee. The terms of all currently appointed Advisory Committee members expire on December 31, 2016.

    Section 971b(1) of ATCA specifies that the U.S. Commissioners may establish species working groups for the purpose of providing advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commissioners and to the Advisory Committee on matters relating to the conservation and management of any highly migratory species covered by the ICCAT Convention. Any species working group shall consist of no more than seven members of the Advisory Committee and no more than four technical advisors, as considered necessary by the Commissioners. Currently, there are four species working groups advising the Committee and the U.S. Commissioners: A Bluefin Tuna Working Group, a Swordfish/Sharks Working Group, a Billfish Working Group, and a Bigeye, Albacore, Yellowfin, and Skipjack (BAYS) Tunas Working Group. Technical Advisors to the species working groups serve at the request of the Commissioners; therefore the Commissioners can choose to alter these appointments at any time. As with Committee Members, Technical Advisors may not be represented by a proxy during any official meetings of the Advisory Committee.

    Nominations to the Advisory Committee or to a species working group should include a letter of interest and a resume or curriculum vitae. Self-nominations are acceptable. Letters of recommendation are useful but not required. When making a nomination, please specify which appointment (Advisory Committee member or Technical Advisor to a species working group) is being sought. Nominees may also indicate which of the species working groups is preferred, although placement on the requested group is not guaranteed.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. John Henderschedt, Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21995 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council: Public Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council). The meeting is open to the public, and participants may provide comments at the appropriate time during the meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 27, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, and an opportunity for public comment will be provided at 3:45 p.m. ET. Both these times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in The National Press Club's Bloomberg Room located on the 13th Floor of The National Press Building at 529 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20045.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Holyoke, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Phone: 240-533-0685; Fax: 301-713-0404; Email: [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ONMS serves as the trustee for a network of underwater parks encompassing more than 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington state to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. The network includes a system of 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. National marine sanctuaries protect our Nation's most vital coastal and marine natural and cultural resources, and through active research, management, and public engagement, sustain healthy environments that are the foundation for thriving communities and stable economies. One of the many ways ONMS ensures public participation in the designation and management of national marine sanctuaries is through the formation of advisory councils. The Sanctuary System Business Advisory Council (council) has been formed to provide advice and recommendations to the Director regarding the relationship of ONMS with the business community. Additional information on the council can be found at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/ac/welcome.html.

    Matters to be Considered: The meeting will provide an opportunity for council members to hear news from across the National Marine Sanctuary System, including updates on the potential designation of two new national marine sanctuaries; two proposed sanctuary expansions; and the differences between a national marine sanctuary and a marine national monument. Council members will also be able to review and comment on ongoing efforts to develop a sanctuary system business plan and enhance the online presence of ONMS's social media campaign, Earth is Blue. Lastly, council members will learn about NOAA's plans to maintain progress on its resilient communities, place-based conservation, and “blue economies” priorities during the transition to a new presidential administration in 2017. The agenda, available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/bac/meetings.html, is subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, et seq.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program) Dated: August 23, 2016. John Armor, Acting Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21933 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service Advisory Board of the National Technical Information Service AGENCY:

    National Technical Information Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the next meeting of the Advisory Board of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (the Advisory Board), which advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of NTIS on policies and operations of NTIS.

    DATES:

    The Advisory Board will meet on Thursday, September 22, 2016 from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Advisory Board meeting will be held in Room 116 of the NTIS location at 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22312. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Don Hagen, (703) 605-6142, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NTIS Advisory Board is established by section 3704b(c) of title 15 of the United States Code. The charter has been filed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.).

    The meeting will focus on a review of NTIS data mission and strategic direction. A final agenda and summary of the proceedings will be posted at NTIS Web site as soon as they are available (http://www.ntis.gov/about/advisorybd.aspx).

    The NTIS location is a secure one. Accordingly, persons wishing to attend should call the NTIS Security Office, (703) 605-6440, to arrange for attendance no later than Tuesday, September 20, 2016. If there are sufficient expressions of interest, up to one-half hour will be reserved for public comments during the session. Questions from the public will not be considered by the Board but any person who wishes to submit a written question for the Board's consideration should email it to Mr. Don Hagen, [email protected], Subject: NTIS Advisory Board, not later than Friday, September 16, 2015.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Gregory Capella, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21976 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. on both days. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link: http://www.pfpa.mil/access.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting will be held in Room M2. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email: [email protected], phone: 571-256-9004.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Government-Industry Advisory Panel will review sections 2320 and 2321 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), regarding rights in technical data and the validation of proprietary data restrictions and the regulations implementing such sections, for the purpose of ensuring that such statutory and regulatory requirements are best structured to serve the interest of the taxpayers and the national defense. The scope of the panel is as follows: (1) Ensuring that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not pay more than once for the same work, (2) Ensuring that the DoD contractors are appropriately rewarded for their innovation and invention, (3) Providing for cost-effective reprocurement, sustainment, modification, and upgrades to the DoD systems, (4) Encouraging the private sector to invest in new products, technologies, and processes relevant to the missions of the DoD, and (5) Ensuring that the DoD has appropriate access to innovative products, technologies, and processes developed by the private sector for commercial use.

    Agenda: This will be the seventh meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel with a series of meetings planned through December 14, 2016. The panel will cover details of 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321, begin understanding the implementing regulations and detail the necessary groups within the private sector and government to provide supporting documentation for their review of these codes and regulations during follow-on meetings. Agenda items for this meeting will include the following: (1) Final discussions and deliberations on 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 tension points; (2) Briefings from various industry suppliers to understand challenges within the supply chain; (3) Briefing from a Service Program Executive Office; (4) Briefing from the Defense Logistics Agency; (5) Briefing on government and industry perspectives on a DoD Consortium; (6) Briefing from Defense Pricing Center; (7) Comment Adjudication & Planning for follow-on meeting.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the September 28-29, 2016 meeting will be available as requested or at the following site: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetingdocuments.aspx?flr=141645&cid=2561.

    Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin upon publication of this meeting notice and end three business days (September 23) prior to the start of the meeting. All members of the public must contact LTC Lunoff at the phone number or email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon's Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 8:30 a.m. on September 28. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the panel until its next meeting. Please note that because the panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the panel's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21977 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0099] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test Recruitment 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 revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 14, 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-0099. 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: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test Recruitment.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0695.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,594.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,190.

    Abstract: The Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) is an international assessment of fourth and eighth grade students' achievement in mathematics and science. Since its inception in 1995, TIMSS has continued to assess students every 4 years. The United States will participate in TIMSS 2019 to continue to monitor the progress of its students compared to that of other nations and to provide data on factors that may influence student achievement. New in 2019, TIMSS will be a technology-based assessment conducted in an electronic format. TIMSS is designed by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and is conducted in the U.S. by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). In preparation for the TIMSS 2019 main study, in April 2017, U.S. will participate in a pilot study to assist in the development of eTIMSS and, in March through April 2018, in a field test to evaluate new assessment items and background questions. The TIMSS 2019 Main Study data collection will take place from April through May 2019. This submission is to conduct the TIMSS 2019 pilot test and to begin recruitment of schools, teachers, and students for the field test study. The pilot test data collection will begin in April 2017 and the recruitment for the field test in May 2017. Recruitment for the main study will begin in May of 2018 In May 2017, NCES will submit a request to conduct the 2018 field test and recruit schools for TIMSS 2019 Main Study.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21925 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0100] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Gainful Employment Disclosure Template AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection. In accordance with the requirements of § 668.412 of the Gainful Employment (GE) final regulations published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64890), as corrected on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 71957), this collection describes the items that must be disclosed on the GE disclosure template.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 14, 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-0100. 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: Gainful Employment Disclosure Template.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0107.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 27,944,411.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 3,118,160.

    Abstract: Under the new disclosure requirements, an institution must provide current and prospective students with information about each of its programs that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation (GE programs) using a disclosure template provided by the Secretary. The Secretary must specify the information to be included on the disclosure template in a notice published in the Federal Register. In accordance with the requirements of § 668.412 of the Gainful Employment (GE) final regulations published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2014 (79 FR 64890), as corrected on December 4, 2014 (79 FR 71957), this collection describes the items that must be disclosed on the GE disclosure template. This request revises the current information collection for the disclosure template to reflect the new disclosure requirements and provides notice of the information that institutions must disclose. The Department is further requesting that burden currently calculated for 1845-0107 be discharged and transfer the burden already calculated for § 668.412 regarding the GE disclosure requirements from 1845-0123 to this information collection.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21940 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for OMB review and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies, OMB Control Number 1910-5134. The proposed collection will request information necessary to evaluate applications for loan guarantees submitted under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended. Applications for loan guarantees submitted to DOE in response to a solicitation must contain certain information. This information will be used to analyze whether a project is eligible for a loan guarantee and to evaluate the application under criteria specified in DOE's regulations implementing Title XVII.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark S. Westergard, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5134; (2) Information Collection Request Title: 10 CFR part 609—Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Technologies; (3) Type of Request: Extension; (4) Purpose: This information collection package covers collection of information necessary to evaluate applications for loan guarantees submitted under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 16511-16516. Applications for loan guarantees submitted to DOE in response to a solicitation must contain certain information. This information will be used to analyze whether a project is eligible for a loan guarantee and to evaluate the application under criteria specified in 10 CFR part 609; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 Applications; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: It is estimated that the total number of annual responses will not exceed 100; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 13,000 hours, most of which is likely to be time committed by firms that seek debt and/or equity financing for their projects, regardless of their intent to apply for a DOE loan guarantee; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: It is estimated that the annual estimated reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for applicants will not exceed $25,000 per annum.

    Statutory Authority:

    Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 42 U.S.C. 16511-16516 authorizes the collection of information.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 7, 2016. Mark A. McCall, Executive Director, Department of Energy Loan Programs Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21961 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for OMB review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will gather opinions of experts in industry and other organizations regarding the impact on the development and diffusion of energy-efficient technologies and techniques in the construction of residential buildings of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office (BTO) investments. Expert opinions are necessary to characterize expected patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, and so (by comparing these expectations with actual observations) estimate the difference DOE investments have made. This information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of production builder companies (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE).

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 13, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    And to: John Mayernik, By email to: [email protected], or by mail to: Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Mayernik, [email protected] or call 202-287-1754.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. New; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Surveys/Interviews to Gather Expert Opinion on the Impact of DOE/EERE Building Technologies Office Investments have had on the Development and Diffusion of Energy-Efficient Technologies and Techniques in the Construction of Residential Buildings; (3) Type of Request: New collection; (4) Purpose: The information collection will characterize expected patterns of technology development and diffusion in the absence of DOE investments, so that by comparing these expectations with actual observations the impacts of DOE investments can be estimated; this information is needed by DOE for budget justification and strategic planning. Respondents will include representatives of production builder companies (including companies that received DOE R&D funding and companies that received no direct funding from DOE); (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 104; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 104; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 52; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

    Statutory Authority:

    DOE Org Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and 42 U.S.C. 16191 (AMO authority).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 30, 2016. David Nemtzow, Director, Building Technologies Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21962 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-144-000.

    Applicants: Pioneer Wind Park I LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Pioneer Wind Park I, LLC.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-027.

    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Filed Date: 9/6/16.

    Accession Number: 20160906-5252.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2544-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Interconnection Coordination Agreement SA No. 4531, Project No. b2633.2 to be effective 8/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5159.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2545-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-09-02_SA 2945 ITC Midwest-Interstate Power & Light FSA (J233) to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2546-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement ACES Project to be effective 9/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2547-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: UAMPS E&P Agreement—Lehi to be effective 11/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2548-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement ACES Project—WDT 1430 Grapeland to be effective 9/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16

    Accession Number: 20160902-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2549-000.

    Applicants: Pinetree Power-Tamworth, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Baseline Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 9/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2550-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Small Generator Interconnection Agreement, Service Agreement No. 329 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 9/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160902-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2551-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position AA2-159, Original Service Agreement No. 4519 to be effective 8/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/6/16.

    Accession Number: 20160906-5277.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/16.

    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: September 6, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21919 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.http://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, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-558-000 8-22-2016 Jill S. Dodds. 2. CP16-96-000 8-22-2016 Lidia E. Mino. 3. CP15-558-000 8-22-2016 Janice Zuzov. 4. CP15-558-000 8-23-2016 Jill S. Dodds. Exempt: 1. CP16-10-000 8-17-2016 U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner. 2. CP15-520-000 8-23-2016 FERC Staff.1 3. P-1494-000 8-25-2016 U.S. Senator James Lankford. 4. CP15-558-000 8-25-2016 State of New Jersey Assemblyman Erik Peterson. 5. CP15-554-000 8-25-2016 U.S. House Representative Bob Goodlatte. 6. CP16-9-000 8-25-2016 Town of Stoughton, Massachusetts Board of Selectmen. 7. CP15-558-000 8-30-2016 State of New Jersey Senator Shirley K. Turner. 8. CP13-83-000 8-30-2016 U.S. Senate.2 9. CP16-22-000 8-31-2016 FERC Staff.3 10. P-10810-000 8-31-2016 U.S. House Representative John Moolenaar. 11. CP16-22-000 9-1-2016 FERC Staff.4 1 Memo reporting phone call on August 1, 2016 with James Taylor, Supervisor with the Township of Lenox. 2 Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. 3 Email dated July 21, 2016 with Jonathan Strong from Technology Engineering Group, LLC. 4 Email dated August 22, 2016 with Leatra Harper from FreshWater Accountability Project. Dated: September 6, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21920 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565; FRL-9951-37-OEI] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Confidentiality Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Confidentiality Rules (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1665.13, OMB Control No. 2020-0003) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2013-0565, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Gottesman, National Freedom of Information Act Officer, FOIA, Libraries and Accessibility Division, Office of Environmental Information, 2822T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-2162; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: In the course of administering environmental protection statutes, EPA collects data from “businesses” in many sectors of the U.S. economy. In many cases, “businesses” mark the data it submits to EPA as confidential business information (CBI). In addition, businesses submit information to EPA without the Agency requesting the information. EPA established the procedures described in 40 CFR part 2, subparts A and B, to protect the confidentiality of information as well as the rights of the public to obtain access to information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In accordance with these regulations, when EPA finds it necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (e.g., in response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or litigation, a resubstantiation of a prior claim, or an advance confidentiality determination), it shall notify the affected business and provide an opportunity to submit a substantiation of confidentiality claims. This ICR relates to information EPA needs to collect to assist in determining whether previously submitted information is entitled to confidential treatment.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are businesses and other for-profit companies.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit, 5 U.S.C. Section 522 Freedom of Information Act.

    Estimated number of respondents: 228 (total).

    Frequency of response: 1 response per respondent annually.

    Total estimated burden: 1,533 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $139,514 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    As part of the ICR renewal process, EPA is obtaining usage for the past 12 months of each of the letters covered by this ICR to obtain up-to-date estimates.

    Larry F. Gottesman, Agency FOIA Officer, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Enterprise Information Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21988 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9952-25-OA] Notification of Two Public Teleconferences of the Science Advisory Board: Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces two public teleconferences of the SAB Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel to review its draft report regarding the development of nutrient load reduction targets for Lake Erie.

    DATES:

    The SAB Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel will conduct public teleconferences on October 12 and October 13, 2016. Each of the teleconferences will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The teleconferences will be conducted by telephone only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public who wants further information concerning the public teleconferences may contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at (202) 564-2155 or via email at [email protected] General information concerning the EPA SAB can be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. 2. The SAB will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the SAB Lake Erie Phosphorus Objectives Review Panel will hold two public teleconferences to discuss its draft report on the development of nutrient load reduction targets for Lake Erie. The Panel will provide advice to the Administrator through the chartered SAB.

    EPA Region 5 is co-leading a binational workgroup to develop and implement the Nutrients Annex (“Annex 4”) of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in accordance with Article 3(b)(i) of the GLWQA. Under Annex 4, the United States and Canada were charged with establishing binational Substance Objectives for phosphorus concentrations, loading targets, and allocations for the nearshore and offshore waters of Lake Erie. The EPA Region 5 Water Division requested that the SAB review modeling results that informed the development of the binational phosphorus reduction targets. The EPA also requested advice on future work to support implementation and evaluation of nutrient reduction goals for Lake Erie. The SAB Panel reviewed the documents titled Annex 4 Ensemble Modeling Report and Appendix B, and Recommended Phosphorus Loading Targets for Lake Erie. The SAB Panel met on June 21-22, 2016 to receive briefings from the EPA and invited experts, hear public comments, and deliberate on responses to the EPA charge questions (81 FR 31936). The purpose of the teleconferences described in this notice is to discuss the Panel's draft report. The two panel teleconferences will be conducted as one complete meeting beginning on October 12, 2016 and continuing on October 13, 2016, if needed to complete agenda items. Additional information about this SAB advisory activity can be found at the following URL http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/GLWQA%20Annex%204?OpenDocument.

    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning work conducted under the GLWQA Annex 4 and the documents reviewed by the SAB should be directed to Ms. Santina Wortman, Water Division, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (WW-15J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, by telephone (312) 353-8319 or via email at [email protected]

    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the teleconference agenda, draft panel report, and other materials will be available on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA. Interested members of the public may submit relevant information on the topic of this advisory activity for the SAB to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or technical information or analysis for SAB committees and panels to consider or if it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information. Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO directly. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at the teleconference will be limited to three minutes. Interested parties wishing to provide comments should contact Dr. Armitage, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by October 5, 2016, to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting. Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by Panel members, statements should be supplied to the DFO (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by October 5, 2016. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the Web page for advisory meetings. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without explicit permission of the copyright holder.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Dr. Armitage at the contact information provided above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Dr. Armitage preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Khanna Johnston, Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21989 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection—extension without change: Local Union Report (EEO-3).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension without change of the Local Union Report (EEO-3) (Form 274). Pending OMB approval of an emergency extension request, to be effective after the current September 30, 2016 expiration date, a regular clearance request for OMB review and approval of a three-year extension of the EEO-3 Report is beginning.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the fax receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number.) Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to EEOC, 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. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide, except as noted below. The EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting libelous or otherwise inappropriate comments including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters' Library, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment, contact EEOC Library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ronald Edwards, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4958 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY). Requests for this notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 663-4191 (voice) or (202) 663-4494 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of Information Collection

    Collection Title: Local Union Report (EEO-3).

    OMB Number: 3046-0006.

    Frequency of Report: Biennial.

    Type of Respondent: Local referral unions with 100 or more members.

    Description of Affected Public: Local referral unions and independent or unaffiliated referral unions and similar labor organizations.

    Responses: 1,036.

    Biennial Reporting Hours: 2,123.8.

    Biennial Burden Hour Cost: $87,588.10.

    Biennial Federal Cost: $81,935.

    Number of Forms: 1.

    Form Number: EEOC Form 274.

    Abstract: Section 709(c) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires labor organizations to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to produce reports from the data. The EEOC issued regulations requiring local referral unions with 100 or more members to submit EEO-3 reports. The individual reports are confidential. The EEOC uses EEO-3 data to investigate charges of discrimination and for research.

    Burden Statement: The EEOC has updated its methodology for calculating annual burden to reflect the different staff that are responsible for preparing and filing the EEO-3. The EEOC now accounts for time to be spent biennially on EEO-3 reporting by business agents and administrative staff, as well as time spent by attorneys who, in a few cases, may consult briefly during the reporting process. The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial EEO-3 survey is 1,036 referral unions, as this is the number of filers from the 2014 reporting cycle. The estimated hour burden per report will be 2.05 hours, and the estimated total biennial respondent burden hours will be 2,123.8. Burden hour cost was calculated using median hourly wage rates for administrative staff and legal counsel, and average hourly wage rates for labor union business agents.1 The burden hour cost per report will be $84.54, and the estimated total biennial burden hour cost will be $87,588.10. (See Table 1 for calculations.)

    1 Median hourly wage rates for administrative staff and legal counsel were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www/bls.gov/ooh/) and the average hourly wage rate for a labor union business agent was obtained from salaryexpert.com (see https://www.salaryexpert.com/salarysurveydata/job=labor-union-business-agent/salary).

    Table 1—Updated Estimate of Burden for EEO-3 Report Local referral union staff Hourly wage rate Hours
  • per local
  • Cost
  • per local
  • Total burden hours Total burden hour cost
    Secretaries and administrative assistants $17.55 1 $17.55 1036 $18,181.80 Business agent 64.21 1 64.21 1036 66,521.56 Corporate legal counsel 55.69 0.05 2.7845 51.8 2,884.74 Total 2.05 84.5445 2,123.8 87,588.10

    These estimates are based on an assumption of paper reporting. However, the EEOC has made electronic filing much easier for respondents required to file the EEO-3 Report. As a result, more respondents are using this filing method. This development, along with the greater availability of human resource information software, is expected to significantly reduce the actual burden of reporting. The Commission continues to develop more reliable estimates of reporting burdens given the significant increase in electronic filing and explore new approaches to make such reporting even less burdensome. In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically whenever possible.

    Dated: September 2, 2016.

    For the Commission.

    Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21892 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [GN Docket No. 12-268; AU Docket No. 14-252; WT Docket No. 12-269; DA 16-990] Clearing Target of 114 Megahertz Set for Stage 2 of the Broadcast Television Spectrum Incentive Auction; Stage 2 Bidding in the Reverse Auction Will Start on September 13, 2016 AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Incentive Auction Task Force and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau announce the spectrum clearing target of 114 megahertz and band plan for Stage 2 of the incentive auction and that bidding in Stage 2 of the reverse auction is scheduled to begin on September 13, 2016. Also announces details and dates regarding bidding and the availability of educational and informational materials for reverse and forward auction bidders eligible to participate in Stage 2; the availability of Stage 2 bidding and timing information in the Incentive Auction Public Reporting System; and the importance of bidder contingency plans and reminds each reverse and forward auction applicant of its continuing obligations under the FCC's rules.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: For general auction questions, contact Linda Sanderson at (717) 338-2868. For reverse auction or forward auction legal questions, refer to the contact information listed in the Incentive Auction Stage 2 Clearing Target Public Notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Incentive Auction Stage 2 Clearing Target Public Notice, GN Docket No. 12-268, AU Docket No. 14-252, WT Docket No. 12-269, DA 16-990, released August 31, 2016. The complete text of the Incentive Auction Stage 2 Clearing Target Public Notice is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, the Auction 1000 Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/auctions/1000, or by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    1. The Incentive Auction Task Force (Task Force) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) announce the 114 megahertz spectrum clearing target that has been set by the Auction System's optimization procedure and the associated band plan for Stage 2 of the incentive auction, as well as the number of Category 1 and Category 2 generic license blocks in each Partial Economic Area (PEA) that will be offered in Stage 2 of the forward auction. The Task Force and Bureau also provide details and specific dates regarding bidding and the availability of educational materials and remind reverse and forward auction applicants of their continuing obligations.

    I. Stage 2 Clearing Target and Band Plan

    2. Auction System's clearing target determination procedure has set a spectrum clearing target of 114 megahertz for Stage 2 of the incentive auction. Under the band plan associated with this spectrum clearing target, 90 megahertz, or 90 paired blocks, of licensed spectrum will be offered in the forward auction on a near-nationwide basis.

    3. The generic license blocks offered in Stage 2 of the forward auction under this band plan will consist of a total of 3688 Category 1 blocks (zero to 15 percent impairment) and a total of five Category 2 blocks (greater than 15 percent and up to 50 percent impairment). Approximately 99.9 percent of the blocks offered will be Category 1 blocks, and 99.8 percent of the Category 1 blocks will be zero percent impaired. Attached to the Incentive Auction Stage 2 Clearing Target Public Notice as Appendix A is a list indicating the number of Category 1 and Category 2 blocks available in each PEA.

    4. The clearing target for Stage 2 was determined by the procedure the Commission adopted in the Auction 1000 Bidding Procedures Public Notice, 80 FR 61917, October 14, 2015, using the same objectives as in the initial clearing target optimization and taking into account the additional channel in the TV band and any participating stations that have dropped out of the auction in the previous stage. Based on the new provisional television channel assignment plan, the nationwide impaired weighted-pops were calculated on a 2x2 cell level and the one-block-equivalent nationwide standard for impairments was applied.

    II. Important Information Concerning the Reverse Auction (Auction 1001)

    5. Online Stage 2 Tutorial. The Task Force and Bureau will make available an online tutorial on bidding procedures specific to Stage 2 of the reverse auction (and any subsequent stage, if necessary) on Thursday, September 1, 2016. This new tutorial will be accessible from the Auction 1001 Web site through a link under the “Education” section. Once posted, it will remain available and accessible on the Auction 1001 Web site for reference.

    6. Accessing the Auction System for Stage 2. Starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Wednesday, September 7, 2016, any bidder that had one or more stations with the status “Frozen—Provisionally Winning” at the end of the previous stage can log in to the Reverse Auction Bidding System for Stage 2 and view the bidding status, and, where applicable, the following information for round 1 of the new stage for each of the bidder's stations that qualified to participate in the clock rounds of the reverse auction: Initial bid option, available bid options, vacancy ranges, and clock price offers.

    7. A bidder will need to use the RSA SecurID® tokens (RSA tokens) it used for placing bids in the previous stage to access the Reverse Auction Bidding System for Stage 2. RSA tokens with previously set personal identification numbers (PINs) may be used without setting a new PIN. Any authorized bidder that has not already set a PIN for his or her designated RSA token (e.g., an authorized bidder recently identified on Form 177 or one using a replacement RSA token) must set a PIN as described in the materials sent with the Second Confidential Status Letter. Each bidder will be able to access the Reverse Auction Bidding System at the same web address used during the previous stage. In addition, the FCC Auction Bidder Line phone number for Stage 2 will be the same number used for the previous stage.

    8. Returning RSA Tokens. Each bidder that did not have any stations with the status “Frozen—Provisionally Winning” at the end of the previous stage will be sent a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to return its RSA tokens.

    9. Clocks Rounds Start Date and Round Schedule. Bidding in the clock rounds of Stage 2 of Auction 1001 will begin on Tuesday, September 13, 2016, on the following schedule: Bidding Round (10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. ET). Starting on Wednesday, September 14, 2016, and continuing until further notice, the schedule will be: Bidding Round (10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET) and Bidding Round (3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. ET). The Bureau may adjust the number and length of bidding rounds based upon its monitoring of the bidding and assessment of the reverse auction's progress. The Bureau will provide notice of any adjustment by announcement in the Reverse Auction Bidding System during the course of the auction.

    10. Reset Base Clock Price and Clock Decrement for Round 1 of Stage 2. The base clock price has been reset to $900 per unit of volume for Stage 2 of the reverse auction. The price decrement for round 1 of Stage 2 of the reverse auction will be five percent of the reset base clock price.

    III. Important Information Concerning the Forward Auction (Auction 1002)

    11. Bidding in Stage 2. Bidding in the clock phase of Stage 2 of the forward auction will begin on the next business day after the close of bidding in Stage 2 of the reverse auction. The schedule for bidding in Stage 2 of the forward auction will be announced in the Forward Auction Bidding System and in the Incentive Auction Public Reporting System (PRS). The PRS can be accessed directly at auctiondata.fcc.gov and from a link under the Results section of the Auction 1001 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auctions/1001) and the Auction 1002 Web site (www.fcc.gov/auction/1002).

    12. Accessing the Forward Auction Bidding System in Stage 2. Any bidder that is eligible to bid in Stage 2 of the forward auction will be able to access the Forward Auction Bidding System beginning at 10:00 a.m. ET on Thursday, September 8, 2016, using the same RSA tokens, web address, and instructions provided in the bidder registration materials from Stage 1 of the forward auction. Any bidder with zero eligibility by the end of Stage 1 will not be eligible to bid in Stage 2 of the forward auction. Upon logging in to the Forward Auction Bidding System, an eligible bidder can download detailed impairment information for Stage 2, as well as the stage transition files. The detailed impairment information and bidder-specific information, including stage transition files and Stage 1 bidding information, are non-public and are provided only to eligible bidders to help guide their bidding in Stage 2 of the forward auction. This information will not be disclosed publicly until after the auction concludes.

    13. Returning RSA Tokens. Each bidder that is no longer eligible to participate in the forward auction (i.e., any bidder that has zero eligibility by the end of Stage 1) will be sent a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to return its RSA tokens.

    14. Rule for Round 1 of Stage 2. Starting in the first round of Stage 2, each bidder must be active on at least 95 percent of its bidding eligibility to maintain its bidding eligibility for the next round. Any changes to the activity requirement in subsequent rounds will be announced via the Forward Auction Bidding System. Prior to the start of Stage 2 of the forward auction, a bidder may view its initial eligibility and required activity for round 1 by downloading the My Bidder Status file under the Bid/Status tab.

    15. Clock Increment for Round 1 of Stage 2. An increment of five percent will be used to set clock prices for products in round 1 of Stage 2 of the forward auction. Prior to the announcement of the forward auction bidding schedule for Stage 2, a bidder may view the clock prices for round 1 by downloading the Sample Bids file in the Forward Auction Bidding System.

    IV. Public Reporting System

    16. As was the case for Stage 1 of the incentive auction, publicly available bidding and timing information for Stage 2 of the reverse auction and the forward auction will be accessible through the PRS. The PRS will display the same types of bidding and other information for Stage 2 as was available for Stage 1. For more information about the types of bidding and other information available in the PRS, please see the Public Reporting System Public Notice.

    V. Bidding Contingency Plan

    17. The Task Force and Bureau remind each bidder that it should develop a comprehensive contingency plan that can be quickly implemented in case difficulties arise when participating in the incentive auction. While the Commission will correct any problems with Commission-controlled facilities, each bidder is solely responsible for anticipating and overcoming problems such as bidder computer failures or other technical issues, loss of or problems with data connections (including those used to access and place bids in the Reverse Auction Bidding System or the Forward Auction Bidding System), telephone service interruptions, adverse local weather conditions, unavailability of its authorized bidders, or the loss or breach of confidential security codes.

    18. A bidder should ensure that each of its authorized bidders can access and place bids in the Reverse Auction Bidding System or Forward Auction Bidding System, and it should not rely upon the same computer or data connection to do so. Contingency plans will ideally include arrangements for accessing and placing bids in the Reverse Auction Bidding System or the Forward Auction Bidding System from one or more alternative locations. A bidder's contingency plan might also include, among other arrangements, calling the Auction Bidder Line.

    19. Each reverse auction bidder is further reminded that a failure to submit a bid for a station with the status “Bidding” is considered to be a missing bid, and the Reverse Auction Bidding System will automatically submit a bid to drop out of the auction for all stations with missing bids. The status of a station that bids to drop out of the auction will be “Exited—Voluntarily” once bid processing is complete for the round (unless the station first becomes frozen). Once a station has the status “Exited,” a bidder cannot bid for the station in any subsequent round or stage.

    20. Each forward auction bidder is reminded that its failure to submit a bid during a clock round will be considered a missing bid and will be treated as a bid for zero blocks, at the lowest price in the price range for the round, for any products in which the bidder had processed demand from the previous round. If there is insufficient excess demand, the “missing” bid may be partially applied or not applied at all and the bidder will continue to have processed demand for the product in the next round. If the “missing” bid is partially or fully applied, that bidder's eligibility may be irrevocably reduced in the next round.

    VI. Continuing Obligations

    21. Due Diligence. The Task Force and Bureau remind each reverse and forward auction bidder that it is solely responsible throughout the auction for investigating and evaluating all legal, technical, and marketplace factors and risks that may have a bearing on the bid(s) it submits in the incentive auction. For more information, each bidder should review the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice, 80 FR 66429, October 29, 2015.

    22. Prohibited Communications Reminder. The Task Force and Bureau remind all full power and Class A broadcast television licensees, as well as forward auction applicants, that they remain subject to the Commission's rules prohibiting certain communications in connection with Commission auctions. For communications among broadcasters, and between broadcasters and forward auction applicants, the prohibited communication period ends when the results of the incentive auction are announced by public notice. For communications among forward auction applicants, the period ends on the deadline for making down payments on winning bids. A party that is subject to the prohibition remains subject to the prohibition regardless of developments during the auction process.

    23. The Task Force and Bureau further remind each full power and Class A broadcast television licensee that even though communicating whether or not a party filed an application to participate in the reverse auction does not violate the rules prohibiting certain communications, communicating that a party “is not bidding” in or has “exited” the reverse auction could constitute an apparent violation that needs to be reported. All forward auction applicants, including those that did not qualify to bid and those that have since lost eligibility to bid in the forward auction, are also reminded that they remain subject to the rules prohibiting certain communications until the deadline for making down payments on winning bids.

    24. The Commission's rules require covered parties to report violations of the prohibition of certain communications to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief of the Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, by the most expeditious means available. Any such report should be submitted by email to Ms. Wiener at the following email address: [email protected] Any report in hard copy must be delivered only to Margaret W. Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-C217, Washington, DC 20554. Failure to make a timely report under the rule constitutes a continuing violation of the rule, with attendant consequences.

    25. For a thorough discussion of the prohibition of certain communications during the incentive auction, please refer to the Prohibited Communications Public Notice, 80 FR 63216, October 19, 2015.

    26. Making Modifications to Applications. The Task Force and Bureau remind each reverse and forward auction applicant that the Commission's rules require an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its application to participate in Auctions 1001 and 1002, respectively. Each applicant should amend its application to furnish additional or corrected information within five days of a significant occurrence, or no more than five days after the applicant becomes aware of the need for amendment. Any applicant that needs to make changes must do so using the procedures described in the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice and the Auction 1002 Qualified Bidders Public Notice.

    27. To make changes to an FCC Form 177 or FCC Form 175 while the Auction System is available, the applicant must make those changes electronically using the Auction System and submit a letter briefly summarizing the changes to its FCC Form 177 by email to [email protected], or to its FCC Form 175 by email to [email protected] To make changes at a time when the Auction System is unavailable, the applicant must make those changes using the procedures described in the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, WTB.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22105 Filed 9-9-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE & TIME:

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Correction and Approval of Minutes for July 14, 2016 Correction and Approval of Minutes for August 16, 2016 REG 2014-10: Implementing the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 REG 2016-03: Political Party Rules REG 2013-01: Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Technological Modernization Request for Guidance on Interpretation of Conciliation Agreement in MUR 5635 (The Viguerie Company, et al.) Proposal to Rescind Advisory Opinion 2006-15 (TransCanada) Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Utah Republican Party (URP) (A13-06) Proposal to Launch Rulemaking to Ensure that U.S. Political Spending is Free from Foreign Influence Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk, at (202)694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22039 Filed 9-9-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2016-N-06] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning the currently-approved information collection known as the “National Survey of Mortgage Originations” (NSMO), which has been assigned control number 2590-0012 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (the collection was previously known as the “National Survey of Mortgage Borrowers”). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `National Survey of Mortgage Originations, (No. 2016-N-06)' ” by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219, ATTENTION: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: “National Survey of Mortgage Originations, (No. 2016-N-06).”

    We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Forrest Pafenberg, Supervisory Economist, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 649-3129; or Eric Raudenbush, Associate General Counsel, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 649-3084, (these are not toll-free numbers), Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Need For and Use of the Information Collection

    The NSMO is a recurring quarterly survey of individuals who have recently obtained a loan secured by a first mortgage on single-family residential property. The survey questionnaire is sent to a representative sample of approximately 6,000 recent mortgage borrowers each calendar quarter and typically consists of between 90 and 95 multiple choice and short answer questions designed to obtain information about borrowers' experiences in choosing and in taking out a mortgage. The questionnaire may be completed either on paper or electronically online, where it is available in both English and Spanish. A copy of the most recent NSMO questionnaire appears at the end of this document.1

    1 Fully formatted copies of the questionnaire in both English and Spanish can be accessed online at: http://www.fhfa.gov/Homeownersbuyer/Pages/National-Survey-of-Mortgage-Originations.aspx.

    The NSMO is one component of a larger project, known as the “National Mortgage Database” (NMDB) Project, which is a multi-year joint effort of FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (although the NSMO is sponsored only by FHFA). The NMDB Project was created, in part, to satisfy the Congressionally-mandated requirements of section 1324(c) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Safety and Soundness Act).2 Section 1324(c) requires that FHFA conduct a monthly survey to collect data on the characteristics of individual prime and subprime mortgages, and on the borrowers and properties associated with those mortgages, in order to enable it to prepare a detailed annual report on the mortgage market activities of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) for review by the appropriate Congressional oversight committees. Section 1324(c) also authorizes and requires FHFA to compile a database of timely and otherwise unavailable residential mortgage market information to be made available to the public.

    2 12 U.S.C. 4544(c).

    In order to fulfill those and other statutory mandates, as well as to support policymaking and research efforts, FHFA and CFPB committed in July 2012 to fund, build and manage the NMDB Project. The core data in the NMDB are drawn from a random 1-in-20 sample of all closed-end first-lien mortgages outstanding at any time between January 1998 and the present in the files of Experian, one of the three national credit repositories. A random 1-in-20 sample of mortgages newly reported to Experian is added to the NMDB each quarter. The NMDB also draws information on mortgages in the NMDB datasets from other existing sources, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database that is maintained by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), property valuation models, data files maintained by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and by federal agencies, and the NSMO and other surveys.3 When fully complete, the NMDB will be a de-identified loan-level database of closed-end first-lien residential mortgages that: Is representative of the market as a whole; contains detailed, loan-level information on the terms and performance of mortgages, as well as characteristics of the associated borrowers and properties; is continually updated; has an historical component dating back to 1998; and provides a sampling frame for surveys to collect additional information.

    3 In addition to the NSMO, FHFA has recently begun to collect data through a new survey called the American Survey of Mortgage Borrowers (ASMB). While the NSMO solicits information about the experiences of borrowers who have recently obtained a mortgage, the ASMB solicits information on borrowers' experience with maintaining their existing mortgages. OMB has cleared the ASMB under the PRA and assigned it control no. 2590-0015, which expires on July 31, 2019.

    FHFA views the NMDB Project as a whole, including the NSMO, as the monthly “survey” required by section 1324(c) of the Safety and Soundness Act. Core inputs to the NMDB, such as a regular refresh of the credit repository data, occur monthly, though NSMO itself does not. In combination with the other information in the NMDB, the information obtained through the NSMO is also used: (1) To prepare the report to Congress on the mortgage market activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that FHFA is required to submit under section 1324(c); (2) for research and analysis to support policymaking by FHFA and other federal regulators; and (3) to provide a resource for research and analysis by academics and other interested parties outside of the government. Generally, the information collected will enable regulators and other interested parties to more effectively monitor emerging trends in the mortgage origination process throughout the United States and will allow them to determine more quickly and accurately when the mortgage origination process is changing in a way that is unfavorable to borrowers and consumers.

    In particular, the NSMO provides timely information on newly-originated mortgages and those borrowing that is not available from existing sources, including: The range of nontraditional and subprime mortgage products being offered, the methods by which these mortgages are being marketed, and the characteristics of borrowers for these types of loans. The survey is critical to ensuring that the NMDB contains complete and timely information on the characteristics of individual subprime and nontraditional mortgages and on the characteristics of borrowers on such mortgages, including information on the creditworthiness of those borrowers and information sufficient to determine whether those borrowers would have qualified for prime lending. The NSMO questionnaire is designed to elicit this information directly from borrowers, who are likely to be the most reliable and accessible—and, in some cases, the only—source for this information. The questionnaire focuses on topics such as mortgage shopping behavior, mortgage closing experiences, and other information that cannot be obtained from any other source, such as expectations regarding house price appreciation, critical household financial events, and life events such as unemployment, large medical expenses, or divorce. In general, borrowers are not asked to provide information about mortgage terms in the questionnaire since these fields are available in the Experian data. However, the survey collects a limited amount of information on each respondent's mortgage to verify that the credit repository records and survey responses pertain to the same mortgage.

    FHFA is also seeking clearance to pre-test the survey questionnaire and related materials from time to time through the use of cognitive testing. FHFA will use information collected through the cognitive testing to assist in drafting and modifying the survey questions and instructions, as well as the related communications, to read in the way that will be most readily understood by the survey respondents and that will be most likely to elicit usable responses. Such information will also be used help the Agency decide on how best to organize and format the survey questionnaires.

    The OMB control number for the information collection is 2590-0012. The current clearance for the information collection expires on December 31, 2016.

    B. Burden Estimate

    FHFA has analyzed the hour burden on members of the public associated with conducting the survey (12,000 hours) and with pre-testing the survey materials (30 hours) and estimates the total annual hour burden imposed on the public by this information collection to be 12,030 hours. The estimate for each phase of the collection was calculated as follows:

    I. Conducting the Survey

    FHFA estimates that the NSMO questionnaire will be sent to 24,000 recipients annually (6,000 recipients per quarterly survey × 4 calendar quarters). Although, based on historical experience, the Agency expects that only 30 to 35 percent of those surveys will be returned, it has assumed that all of the surveys will be returned for purposes of this burden calculation. Based on the reported experience of respondents to prior NSMO questionnaires, FHFA estimates that it will take each respondent 30 minutes to complete the survey, including the gathering of necessary materials to respond to the questions. This results in a total annual burden estimate of 12,000 hours for the survey phase of this collection (24,000 respondents × 30 minutes per respondent = 12,000 hours annually).

    II. Pre-Testing the Materials

    FHFA estimates that it will pre-test the survey materials with 30 cognitive testing participants annually. The estimated participation time for each participant is one hour, resulting in a total annual burden estimate of 30 hours for the pre-testing phase of the collection (30 participants × 1 hour per participant = 30 hours annually).

    C. Comment Request

    FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) The accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on survey respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency. BILLING CODE 8070-01-P EN13SE16.000 EN13SE16.001 EN13SE16.002 EN13SE16.003 EN13SE16.004 EN13SE16.005 EN13SE16.006 EN13SE16.007 EN13SE16.008 EN13SE16.009 EN13SE16.010 EN13SE16.011
    [FR Doc. 2016-21983 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-C
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 28, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. CRB Group Inc., Teaneck, New Jersey; to engage in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 8, 2016. Michele T. Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21953 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 161 0061] ON Semiconductor Corporation; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fairchildconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “In the Matter of ON Semiconductor Corporation, File No. 161-0061—Consent Agreement” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fairchildconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of ON Semiconductor Corporation, File No. 161-0061—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Llewellyn Davis (202-326-3394), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR § 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 25, 2016), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 26, 2016. Write “In the Matter of ON Semiconductor Corporation, File No. 161-0061— Consent Agreement” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

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

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

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

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

    If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of ON Semiconductor Corporation, File No. 161-0061—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 26, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 1. Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted from ON Semiconductor Corporation (“ON”), subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that would likely result from ON's proposed acquisition of Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (“Fairchild”).

    On November 18, 2015, ON announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement involving an all-cash tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Fairchild for approximately $2.4 billion (“Acquisition”). The proposed Acquisition would combine the two largest suppliers of insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) used in automotive ignition systems (“Ignition IGBTs”) worldwide. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by substantially lessening competition in the worldwide market for Ignition IGBTs.

    Under the terms of the proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) contained in the Consent Agreement, ON is required to divest its Ignition IGBT business to Littelfuse, Inc. (“Littelfuse”) no later than 10 days from the close of the Acquisition. The divestiture package includes design files and intellectual property associated with the manufacture and sale of Ignition IGBTs, customer and distributor relationships with respect to Ignition IGBTs, and technology transfers and transitional services such as manufacturing support. In short, the Consent Agreement provides Littelfuse with everything it needs to compete effectively in the Ignition IGBT market.

    The Commission has placed the Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement and the comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.

    2. The Parties

    Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, ON is a semiconductor developer and manufacturer providing a highly diversified portfolio of semiconductor products, including power and signal management, image sensing, and other standard and custom devices, for a variety of end-use applications, including communications, computing, consumer, industrial, and automotive. ON designs, manufactures, and sells Ignition IGBTs, among other products, in its Automotive Product Division.

    Fairchild, headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, develops and manufactures a wide variety of low to high voltage power semiconductor products and devices as well as certain non-power semiconductor devices, which are used in a variety of end-use applications, including automotive, consumer, computing, and industrial applications. Fairchild designs, manufactures, and sells Ignition IGBTs in its Automotive Business Unit.

    3. The Relevant Product and Market Structure

    The relevant product market in which to assess the competitive effects of the proposed Acquisition is no broader than Ignition IGBTs. IGBTs are a type of semiconductor that transmits, converts, and switches electrical power. Ignition IGBTs are a type of IGBT specifically designed and calibrated for automotive ignition systems in gasoline engine vehicles. They function as switches that control the electrical current that passes through the ignition coil. ON and Fairchild sell Ignition IGBTs to Tier 1 automotive suppliers, who then incorporate them into the ignition systems that they sell to automotive manufacturers. Currently, there is no functional substitute for Ignition IGBTs.

    The relevant geographic market for Ignition IGBTs is worldwide. The two major Ignition IGBT suppliers—ON and Fairchild— manufacture the products in facilities around the world, and ship them to customer locations worldwide. There are no regulatory barriers, tariffs, or technical specifications to impede worldwide trade, and transportation costs are low.

    The Ignition IGBT market is characterized by a limited number of suppliers. ON and Fairchild are by far the two largest suppliers of Ignition IGBTs. Fairchild is the market leader and ON is the second-largest supplier. Their combined share of the Ignition IGBT market would exceed 60%. The parties' next closest competitor has a significantly smaller share of the market. Other market participants are even smaller and do not constrain the parties. There are also several other suppliers located in Japan, but they primarily supply Japanese automotive manufacturers. Due to burdensome qualification requirements for customers outside of Japan, it would take several years before these suppliers could be qualified to supply the parties' customers with Ignition IGBTs.

    The proposed ON/Fairchild combination would cause a highly concentrated market for Ignition IGBTs to become even more concentrated, increasing the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”) by more than 1500. This increase in concentration far exceeds the thresholds set out in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines for raising a presumption that the Acquisition would create or enhance market power.

    4. Effects of the Acquisition

    Absent a divestiture, the proposed Acquisition is likely to cause competitive harm in the Ignition IGBT market. ON and Fairchild compete directly against each other for Ignition IGBT sales, and customers benefit from that competition in terms of both pricing and product innovation. Customers describe ON and Fairchild as each other's closest competitor. Likewise, ON and Fairchild view each other the same way. By eliminating the competition between ON and Fairchild, the proposed Acquisition likely would lead to unilateral effects in the form of higher prices and reduced innovation.

    5. Entry

    Entry into the Ignition IGBT market is not likely to deter or counteract any anti-competitive effects of the proposed Acquisition. Given the niche nature of the Ignition IGBT market, declining demand, and the lengthy time it would take to qualify new products with customers, entry is unlikely and would not be timely. Market participants confirmed that it would take at least three to four years before a new entrant could become a viable supplier. Existing IGBT manufacturers, moreover, are not rapid entrants. The process of designing an IGBT for ignition systems and qualifying it with customers would take years.

    6. The Proposed Consent Agreement

    The Consent Agreement restores the competition lost from the proposed Acquisition by requiring ON to divest its Ignition IGBT business to Littelfuse, a publicly traded company based in Chicago, Illinois. The proposed divestiture includes everything needed for Littelfuse to compete effectively in the worldwide market for Ignition IGBTs.

    Under the Order, ON is required to divest its Ignition IGBT business to Littelfuse no later than 10 days from the close of the Acquisition. The divestiture package consists of the following assets: Design files, patents and technologies for Ignition IGBTs; licenses to manufacturing process technology; a process to facilitate the transfer of customer and distributor relationships with respect to Ignition IGBTs; technology transfers and transitional services including manufacturing support; and, if Littelfuse requests, secondment of ON personnel to support the transfer from ON to Littelfuse of the technology and know-how for production of Ignition IGBTs. No physical assets are being divested because a third party will manufacture Ignition IGBTs for Littelfuse.

    The Order requires that, at the request of Littelfuse and in a manner approved by the Commission, ON must provide transitional manufacturing for a period of up to three years with a possible option to extend the period by up to two years. Similarly, the Order also requires ON to provide support services such as logistical and administrative support for up to three years with a possible option to extend the period for up to two years. In addition, the Order includes other standard terms designed to ensure the viability of the divested business.

    A Monitor will monitor ON's compliance with the obligations set forth in the Order. If ON does not fully comply with the divestiture and requirements of the Order, the Commission may appoint a Divestiture Trustee to divest the Ignition IGBT business and perform ON's other obligations consistent with the Order.

    The divestiture of ON's Ignition IGBT business to Littelfuse will preserve competition that would otherwise have been lost as a result of the Acquisition. Potential customers have confirmed that the divested assets include everything necessary to compete effectively as a viable business. Similarly, potential customers have confirmed that Littelfuse would be a competitive option as a supplier.

    7. Opportunity for Public Comment

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement to aid the Commission in determining whether it should make the Consent Agreement final. This analysis is not an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and does not modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21902 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-WWICC-2016-04; Docket No. 2016-0006; Sequence 4] World War One Centennial Commission; Notification of Upcoming Public Advisory Meeting AGENCY:

    World War One Centennial Commission.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice of this meeting is being provided according to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2). This notice provides the schedule and agenda for the September 30, 2016 meeting of the World War One Centennial Commission (the Commission). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 13, 2016.

    Meeting Date and Location: The meeting will be held on Friday, September 30, 2016, starting at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and ending no later than 5:00 p.m. (EDT). The meeting will be held at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, 1100 Spaatz St., Dayton, OH, 45431. This location is handicapped accessible. The meeting will be open to the public. Persons attending in person are requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances (see http://www.access-board.gov/about/policies/fragrance.htm for more information).

    Written Comments may be submitted to the Commission and will be made part of the permanent record of the Commission. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on September 23, 2016 and may be provided by email to [email protected] Contact Daniel S. Dayton at [email protected]1centennial.org to register to comment during the meeting's 30-minute public comment period.

    Registered speakers/organizations will be allowed five minutes, and will need to provide written copies of their presentations. Requests to comment, together with presentations for the meeting, must be received by 5:00 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, September 23, 2016. Please contact Mr. Dayton at the email address above to obtain meeting materials.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Officer, World War 1 Centennial Commission, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 123, Washington, DC, 20004-2608, or via phone at 202-380-0725 (note: this is not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The World War One Centennial Commission was established by Public Law 112-272 (as amended), as a commission to ensure a suitable observance of the centennial of World War I, to provide for the designation of memorials to the service of members of the United States Armed Forces in World War I, and for other purposes.

    Under this authority, the Committee will plan, develop, and execute programs, projects, and activities to commemorate the centennial of World War I, encourage private organizations and State and local governments to organize and participate in activities commemorating the centennial of World War I, facilitate and coordinate activities throughout the United States relating to the centennial of World War I, serve as a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information about events and plans for the centennial of World War I, and develop recommendations for Congress and the President for commemorating the centennial of World War I. The Commission does not have an appropriation and operated solely on donated funds.

    Agenda: Friday September 30, 2016 Old Business • Acceptance of minutes of last meeting • Public Comment Period New Business • Executive Director's Report—Mr. Dayton • Approval of United States Foundation Relationship Memo • Approval of Budget Request for Foundation • Memorial Report—Mr. Fountain • Education Report—Dr. O'Connell • Endorsements—(RFS)—Dr. Seefried • International Report—Dr. Seefried • Report on April 6 Event—Drs. Seefried and Naylor • Other Business • Chairman's Report • Set Next Meeting • Motion to Adjourn Dated: September 7, 2016. Daniel S. Dayton, Designated Federal Official, World War I Centennial Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21901 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-95-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16BBS] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations—Airline and Traveler Information Collection: Domestic Manifests and the Passenger Locator Form; Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a document in the Federal Register of September 2, 2016, concerning request for comments on Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations—Airline and Traveler Information Collection: Domestic Manifests and the Passenger Locator Form. The document provided the incorrect docket number (CDC-2016-0088).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leroy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-4965; email: [email protected]

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 2, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-21103, on page 60702, in the second column (second and third paragraphs), correct the Docket No. to read:

    CDC-2016-0086

    Dated: September 9, 2016. Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21923 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-1005] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Older Adult Safe Mobility Assessment Tool (OMB Control No. 0920-1005, Expiration Date: 10/31/2016)—Extension—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking OMB approval to extend the previously approved information collection project under OMB Control Number 0920-1005 to evaluate the Mobility Planning Tool (MPT).

    Within the Injury Center, preventing falls and ensuring safe transportation for older adults are strategic priorities. The purposes of this information collection is to evaluate whether the Mobility Planning Tool is effective for promoting readiness to adopt mobility-protective behaviors in older adults and to assess potential strategies for dissemination of the MPT.

    The study population is community-living older adults ages 60-74 with no known mobility limitations. Effectiveness of the tool will be assessed using two different comparisons: (1) A comparison between individuals' attitudes and behaviors related to protecting their mobility as they age before and after receiving the MPT in the group that received the MPT, and (2) a comparison of both mobility-related attitudes and behaviors and changes between the group that received the MPT and the group that did not receive the MPT.

    Study findings will be used to identify areas of the MPT that may need revision before it is disseminated publicly.

    There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annual burden hours are 367.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Individuals Responding to Initial Phone Call Who Refuse to be Screened Screening Interview Guide 1,250 1 1/60 Individuals Responding to Initial Phone Call Responding to Screening Questions Screening Interview Guide 750 1 5/60 Study Participants Baseline Interview Guide 500 1 10/60 Study Participants MPT 250 1 30/60 Study Participants Follow-up Interview Guide 450 1 10/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21922 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-2244] Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” This guidance provides a qualified context of use (COU) for plasma fibrinogen in interventional clinical trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects at high risk for exacerbations and/or all-cause mortality. This guidance also describes the experimental conditions and constraints for which this biomarker is qualified through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Biomarker Qualification Program. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified COU in submissions of investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comment 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-2015-D-2244 for “Qualification for the Use of Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Availability.” 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.

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marianne Noone, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4528, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014 (79 FR 831), FDA announced the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools” that described the process that would be used to qualify Drug Development Tools (DDTs) and to make new DDT qualification recommendations available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. The qualification recommendations in the current guidance were developed using the process described in that 2014 guidance, and the current guidance is an attachment to that 2014 guidance.

    Later, in the Federal Register of July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38694), FDA announced the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Qualification of Biomarker—Plasma Fibrinogen in Studies Examining Exacerbations and/or All-Cause Mortality for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” The Agency did not receive any comments on that draft guidance during the public comment period. The current guidance finalizes that draft guidance.

    This guidance provides recommendations for the use of plasma fibrinogen, measured at baseline, as a prognostic biomarker to enrich clinical trial populations of COPD subjects at high risk for exacerbations and/or all-cause mortality for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This biomarker should be considered with other subject demographic and clinical characteristics, including a prior history of COPD exacerbations, as an enrichment factor in these trials. Specifically, this guidance provides the COU for which this biomarker is qualified through the CDER Biomarker Qualification Program. “Biomarker qualification” is a conclusion that within the stated COU, the biomarker can be relied upon to have a specific interpretation and application in drug development and regulatory review. Qualification of this biomarker for this specific COU represents the conclusion that analytically valid measurements of the biomarker can be relied on to have a specific use and interpretable meaning. This biomarker can be used by drug developers for the qualified context in submission of INDs, NDAs, and BLAs without the relevant CDER review group reconsidering and reconfirming the suitability of the biomarker. After a biomarker is qualified for the specific COU, its qualification is not limited to a single, specific drug development program. Making the qualification recommendations widely known and available for use by drug developers will contribute to drug innovation, thus supporting public health.

    Innovative and improved DDTs can help streamline the drug development process, improve the chances for clinical trial success, and yield more information about a treatment and/or disease. DDTs include, but are not limited to, biomarkers, clinical outcome assessments, and animal models under the animal rule. Refer to DDTs Qualification Programs at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/default.htm for additional information.

    CDER has initiated this formal qualification process to work with developers of these biomarker DDTs to guide them as they refine and evaluate DDTs for use in the regulatory context. Once qualified, biomarker DDTs will be publicly available for use in any drug development program for the qualified COU. As described in the January 2014 guidance, biomarker DDTs should be developed and reviewed using this process.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the use of plasma fibrinogen, measured at baseline, as a prognostic biomarker to enrich clinical trial populations of COPD subjects at high risk for exacerbations and/or all-cause mortality for inclusion in interventional clinical trials. This guidance does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains an information collection that is subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The information collection has been approved under the OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0014. The information requested in this guidance is currently submitted to FDA to support medical product effectiveness (see 21 CFR 312.30, 21 CFR 314.50(d)(5), and 21 CFR 314.126(b)(6)).

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21964 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1143] Use of Nucleic Acid Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of HCT/Ps with recommendations for testing living donors for West Nile Virus (WNV). Specifically, the guidance provides recommendations regarding the use of an FDA-licensed nucleic acid test (NAT) to test living donors of HCT/Ps for evidence of infection with WNV. The guidance does not provide recommendations regarding testing of cadaveric HCT/P donors for WNV. The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated December 2015. This guidance supplements the donor screening recommendations for WNV (which will remain in place) in sections IV.E. (recommendations 15 and 16) and IV.F. (recommendation 5), and supersedes the “West Nile Virus (WNV)” section in Appendix 6 of the guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry: Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps)” dated August 2007 (2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance).

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the guidance by December 12, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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-D-1143 for “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Guidance for Industry.” 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.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan McKnight, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus From Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Guidance for Industry.” The guidance document provides establishments that make donor eligibility determinations for donors of HCT/Ps with recommendations for testing living donors for WNV. The guidance does not provide recommendations regarding testing of cadaveric HCT/P donors for WNV. FDA believes that the use of an FDA-licensed NAT will reduce the risk of transmission of WNV from living donors of HCT/Ps and therefore recommends that you use an FDA-licensed NAT for testing living donors of HCT/Ps for infection with WNV as set forth in the guidance. The 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance indicated that FDA may recommend routine use of an appropriate, licensed donor screening test(s) to detect acute infections with WNV using NAT technology, once such tests were available.

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77645), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps); Draft Guidance for Industry” dated December 2015 (December 2015 draft guidance). FDA received several comments on the draft guidance and those comments were considered as the guidance was developed.

    In the Federal Register of February 28, 2007 (72 FR 9007), FDA announced the availability of the 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance. FDA issued a revised version of this guidance under the same title, dated August 2007 (2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance).

    The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the December 2015 draft guidance and supplements sections IV.E. (recommendations 15 and 16) and IV.F. (recommendation 5), and supersedes the “West Nile Virus (WNV)” section in Appendix 6 of the 2007 Donor Eligibility Guidance.

    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Nucleic Acid Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of West Nile Virus from Living Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps).” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21969 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Healthy Start Evaluation and Quality Improvement AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Healthy Start Evaluation and Quality Improvement OMB No. 0915-0338—Revision

    Abstract: The National Healthy Start Program, funded through HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), has the goal of reducing disparities in infant mortality and adverse perinatal outcomes. The program began as a demonstration project with 15 grantees in 1991 and has expanded over the past 2 decades to 100 grantees across 37 states and Washington, DC. Healthy Start grantees operate in communities with rates of infant mortality at least 1.5 times the U.S. national average and high rates for other adverse perinatal outcomes. These communities are geographically, racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse low-income areas. Healthy Start covers services during the perinatal period (before, during, after pregnancy) and follows the woman and infant through 2 years after the end of the pregnancy. The Healthy Start program has five approaches including: (1) Improving women's health; (2) promoting quality services; (3) strengthening family resilience; (4) achieving collective impact; and (5) increasing accountability through quality assurance, performance monitoring, and evaluation.

    MCHB seeks to implement a uniform set of data elements for monitoring and conducting a mixed-methods evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the program on individual, organizational, and community-level outcomes. Data collection instruments will include a National Healthy Start Program Survey; Community Action Network Survey; Healthy Start Site Visit Protocol; Healthy Start Participant Focus Group Protocol—these instruments have not been changed. The Preconception, Pregnancy and Parenting (3Ps) Information Form will also be used as a data collection instrument; however the 3Ps Information Form has been redesigned from one form into six forms. The six forms include: (1) Demographic Intake Form; (2) Pregnancy Status/History; (3) Preconception; (4) Prenatal; (5) Postpartum; and (6) Interconception/Parenting. The purpose of this redesign is to enhance the 3Ps Information Form to ensure collected data is meaningful for monitoring and evaluation, as well as screening and care coordination, and streamline previously separate data systems. The 3Ps Information Form was also redesigned to allow questions to be administered in accordance with the participant's enrollment/service delivery status and perinatal period. In addition to redesigning the 3Ps Information Form, HRSA deleted questions that are neither critical for evaluation nor programmatic purposes. HRSA also added questions to the 3Ps Information Form to allow the Form to be used as an all-inclusive data collection instrument for MCHB and Healthy Start grantees. The additional questions extend and refine previously approved content, allowing for the collection of more granular and/or in-depth information on existing topics. Adding these questions allows Healthy Start grantees to better assess risk, identify needed services, provide appropriate follow-up activities to program participants, and improve overall service delivery and quality.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The purpose of the data collection instruments is to obtain consistent information across all grantees about Healthy Start and its outcomes. The data will be used to: (1) Conduct ongoing performance monitoring of the program; (2) provide credible and rigorous evidence of program effect on outcomes; (3) assess the relative contribution of the five program approaches to individual and community-level outcomes; (4) meet program needs for accountability, programmatic decision-making, and ongoing quality assurance; and (5) strengthen the evidence-base, and identify best and promising practices for the program to support sustainability, replication, and dissemination of the program.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents include project directors and staff for the National Healthy Start Program Survey; representatives from partner organizations for the Community Action Network Survey; program staff, providers, and partners for the Healthy Start Site Visit Protocol; and program participants for the Healthy Start Participant Focus Group Protocol. Respondents for the redesigned 3Ps Information Form (i.e., (1) Demographic Intake; (2) Pregnancy Status/History; (3) Preconception; (4) Prenatal; (5) Postpartum; and (6) Interconception/Parenting) are pregnant women and women of reproductive age who are served by the Healthy Start Program.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    3Ps Information Form: 1. Demographic Intake Form * + 40,675 1 40,675 0.08 3,254 2. Pregnancy Status/History 40,675 1 40,675 0.17 6,915 3. Preconception * + 20,337 1 20,337 1.00 20,337 4. Prenatal 20,337 1 20,337 1.00 20,337 5. Postpartum 20,337 1 20,337 1.00 20,337 6. Interconception/Parenting 20,337 1 20,337 1.00 20,337 National Healthy Start Program Web Survey + 100 1 100 2.00 200 CAN member Web Survey + 225 1 225 0.75 169 Healthy Start Site Visit Protocol + 15 1 15 6.00 90 Healthy Start Participant Focus Group Protocol + 180 1 180 1.00 180 Total 61,532 61,532 92,156 * The same individuals (40,675) complete the Demographic Intake and Pregnancy Status/History forms, and a subset of these same individuals (20,337) also complete the Preconception, Prenatal, Postpartum, and Interconception/Parenting forms for total of 61,532 respondents and responses. + These are the numbers included in the total respondent count.
    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21889 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board was renewed for an additional two-year period on August 31, 2016.

    It is determined that the Fogarty International Center Advisory Board is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

    Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or [email protected]

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21899 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Cell Replacement Technology for Type 1 Diabetes (SBIR).

    Date: October 4, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Thomas A. Tatham, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7021, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-3993, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Ancillary Studies (R01).

    Date: October 27, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jason D. Hoffert, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7343, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-496-9010, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 7, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21895 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

    ADDRESSES:

    Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email [email protected] A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Title of invention: Analogues of Withanolide E Sensitize Cancer Cells to Apoptosis.

    Keywords: TRAIL, TLR3, apoptosis, immunotherapy, tumor necrosis factor, TNF.

    Description of Technology: The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) protein has been a target of interest in cancer therapy because it plays a large role in inducing cell apoptosis in cancer cells but not in normal cells. Although TRAIL has been reported to successfully target certain tumor cells which are resistant to traditional chemotherapy or radiation, TRAIL resistance has also been widely observed. Similarly, Toll-like receptor (TLR) 3 ligands such as poly I:C have also been reported to promote apoptosis in certain cancer cells, though the apoptotic signaling in most cancer cells was weak and was only significant following longer term incubations. Thus, there is a need to develop compounds that can sensitize cancer cells to apoptosis inducing ligands, such as poly I:C and TRAIL.

    In collaboration with the University of Arizona, NCI investigators have discovered a series of compounds in the withanolide family that synergistically enhance the response of cancer cells to treatment with an apoptosis-inducing ligand. The compounds each show a 4- to 10-fold increase in potency compared to withanolide E alone in promoting death ligand-mediated cancer cell death. One biotinylated analogue in particular is at least 15-fold more potent than withanolide E in promoting apoptosis in human melanoma cells when used in combination with either poly I:C or TRAIL. A selection of active compounds were tested in murine xenograft models of human melanoma and showed decreased tumor growth and tumor regression.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • Potential therapeutic for the treatment of cancer either alone or in combination with an apoptosis inducing agent such as TRAIL receptor or TLR 3 agonists by directly promoting tumor cell apoptosis.

    • Possible indirect enhancement of cancer immunotherapy due to release of cancer cell antigens in the presence of the powerful immune-adjuvant effects of TLR3 agonists.

    Value Proposition

    • Withanolide E derivatives enhance the anti-cancer activity of known apoptosis inducing ligands such as TRAIL or poly I:C and may be used to enhance efficacy of TRAIL receptor or poly I:C agonists that are currently under development.

    Development Stage: Pre-clinical (in vivo validation).

    Inventor(s): Thomas Sayers (NCI), Alan Brooks (NCI), Curtis Henrich (NCI), Poonam Tewary (NCI), James McMahon (NCI), Leslie Gunatilaka (University of Arizona), Ya-ming Xu (University of Arizona), and E.M. Kithsiri Wijeratne (University of Arizona).

    Intellectual Property: US Provisional Application No. 62/292,974, entitled “Method of Sensitizing Cancer Cells to The Cytotoxic Effects of Apoptosis Inducing Ligands in Cancer Treatment,” filed February 9, 2016.

    Publications

    1. Tewary P., Gunatilaka A.A. and Sayers T.J. (2016) Using natural products to promote caspase-8-dependent cancer cell death. Cancer Immunol Immunother. doi:10.1007/s00262-016-1855-0.

    Related Technologies: US Patent 9,238,069 (HHS Ref. No. E-050-2010) entitled “Use of withanolides to sensitize cancer cells to the cytotoxic effects of Apo2L/TRAIL” issued January 19, 2016.

    Collaboration Opportunity: Researchers at the NCI seek licensing and/or co-development research collaborations for development of withanolide E analogues for the treatment of cancer.

    Contact Information: Requests for copies of the patent application or inquiries about licensing, research collaborations, and co-development opportunities should be sent to John D. Hewes, Ph.D., email: [email protected]

    Dated: September 6, 2016. John D. Hewes, Technology Transfer Specialist, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21904 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; 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 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 Mental Health Initial Review Group; Mental Health Services Research Committee.

    Date: October 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hotel Monaco, 700 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    Contact Person: Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6136, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-1225, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 7, 2016. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21897 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; 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 Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program.

    Date: September 27-29, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Imperial Hotel and Convention Center, 4700 Emperor Blvd., Durham, NC 27703.

    Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute Environmental Health Sciences, 530 Davis Drive, Room 3074, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1307, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Superfund Hazardous Substance Research and Training Program.

    Date: September 29, 2016.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Imperial Center, One Europa Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27517.

    Contact Person: Leroy Worth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 530 Davis Drive, Room 3171, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-0670, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 7, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21896 Filed 9-12-16; 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 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 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; Health, Behavior, and Context Subcommittee.

    Date: October 14, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Priscah Mujuru, DRPH, MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Bethesda Drive, 2221A, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, [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: September 7, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21894 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group, Tumor Cell Biology Study Section.

    Date: October 5-6, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Charles Morrow, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6202, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9850, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Emerging Technologies and Training Neurosciences Integrated Review Group; Molecular Neurogenetics Study Section.

    Date: October 6-7, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marriott New Orleans, 555 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    Contact Person: Mary G Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-915-6301, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group; Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health Study Section.

    Date: October 12-13, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Jessica Bellinger, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Center for Scientific of Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Surgical Sciences, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Integrated Review Group; Surgery, Anesthesiology and Trauma Study Section.

    Date: October 12-13, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Weihua Luo, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5114, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1170, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Digestive, Kidney and Urological Systems Integrated Review Group; Xenobiotic and Nutrient Disposition and Action Study Section.

    Date: October 12, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Handlery Union Square Hotel, 351 Geary Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Martha Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Reviewer Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2186, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1243, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Surgical Sciences Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.

    Date: October 12, 2016.

    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jan Li, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.402.9607, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 7, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21893 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

    ADDRESSES:

    Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email [email protected] A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Title of invention: A SNP-based blood test for predicting breast cancer survival and determining treatment strategies.

    Keywords: SNP Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Array Probe Breast Cancer.

    Description of Technology

    Metastasis is a primary cause of patient morbidity and mortality in solid tumors. Although recent advances in genomic technologies have provided major insights into tumor etiology, there is a significant lack of knowledge regarding the factors that contribute to metastasis.

    Through studying the metastatic susceptibility of tumors, researchers at NCI's Laboratory of Cancer Biology and Genetics have discovered a select panel of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and a method for predicting breast cancer patient's survival. In this array, SNPs are analyzed from a patient's genomic DNA (gDNA); the result can be used to predict whether a patient is likely to respond to current breast cancer treatment strategies. This invention can reassure newly diagnosed patients that they have a high probability of responding to treatment and can also identify those patients that require alternative, more aggressive therapeutic strategies. Importantly, this invention has several advantages over the currently-offered gene expression-based breast cancer prognostic tests. Since this array can be completed following routine blood draw, rather than through a tumor biopsy, the samples are more stable, the process is quicker, simpler, less-invasive, and more cost-effective than current methods.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • Identification of patients with higher susceptibility to tumor progression (i.e., metastasis).

    • Prediction of breast cancer survival (less than 10 years, for example) using array and methods.

    • Personalization of patient treatment.

    Value Proposition: Since the array processes DNA from blood rather than tissue from a standard biopsy or resection of a primary tumor, it is faster, simpler, more stable, more cost-efficient, and less-invasive because gDNA is more stable than tumor mRNA.

    Development Stage: Pre-clinical (in vivo validation).

    Inventor(s): Kent W. Hunter, Ph.D. (NCI), Howard H. Yang, Ph.D. (NCI), Maxwell P. Lee, Ph.D. (NCI).

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-082-2015/0-US-01

    US Provisional Application 62/297,557 (HHS Reference No. E-082-2015/0-US-01) filed February 19, 2016 entitled “SNP-Based Assay to Predict Breast Cancer Survival”.

    Collaboration Opportunity: Researchers at the NCI seek licensing and/or co-development research collaborations for methods that provide significant improvements in examining additional SNPs for improved prognostics, and to evaluate whether the SNP signature is associated with overall cancer incidence or effective treatment strategies.

    Contact Information: Requests for copies of the patent application or inquiries about licensing, research collaborations, and co-development opportunities should be sent to John D. Hewes, Ph.D., email [email protected]

    Dated: September 5, 2016. John D. Hewes, Technology Transfer Specialist, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21905 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

    ADDRESSES:

    Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or Email [email protected] A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Title of invention: Immunotoxins with Increased Stability for Cancer Therapy.

    Keywords: Recombinant Immunotoxin, RIT, Antibody, Mesothelin, Mesothelioma.

    Description of Technology

    Recombinant immunotoxins (RITs) are fusions of an antibody-based targeting moiety and a toxin. Pseudomonas exotoxin A (PE) is a bacterial toxin that has been used in several RITs evaluated in clinical trials.1 2 Once the Fv portion of the immunotoxin binds to its target receptor, the immunotoxin is internalized by endocytosis. Following internalization, Furin cleavage is critically important for proper cytosolic shuttling of the immunotoxin. Early PE-containing RITs were effective, but also had issues of off-target toxicity.

    1 Fitzgerald DJ, Kreitman R, et al. Int J Med Microbiol. 2004;293:577-582.

    2 Sampson JH, Akabani G, Archer GE, et al. J Neurooncol. 2003;65(1):27-35.

    To mitigate off-target toxicity of PE, the inventors removed specific sequences of domain II, and connected the Fv domain to domain III (PE24) by a furin linker peptide. These PE24-RITs are very active and better tolerated by mice. However, the PE24-containing RITs could potentially be cleaved and inactivated before internalization by cell surface furin or other proteases in the bloodstream or the tumor microenvironment, due to the absence of a key disulfide bond (lost after removal of domain II sequences).

    Researchers at the National Cancer Institute's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (NCI LMB) developed and isolated several de-immunized, low toxicity, PE24-based RITs with a longer serum half-life. This was enabled by using a disulfide bond to protect the furin cleavage sequence (FCS). Collectively, the new RITs are designated “DS-PE24” immunotoxins. The goal of the disulfide bond is to protect the RIT from cleavage-based deactivation before internalization. The most active of these new RITs has longer serum half-life than an RIT without the disulfide bond, has the same anti-tumor activity, while remaining less cytotoxic in vitro. Currently, the inventors are working with mouse models to further develop the DS-PE24 RITs towards developing an anti-mesothelin RIT for treatment of mesothelin-expressing cancers, such as mesothelioma.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • A more stable cancer therapeutic for currently used PE-coupled RITs, for example, anti-mesothelin PE-based immunotoxins.

    Value Proposition

    • Protection of the FCS by a disulfide bond results in more stable RIT, which can lead to fewer off-target effects.

    Development Stage: In-vivo.

    Inventor(s): Ira Pastan M.D. (NCI), et al.

    Intellectual Property: United States Provisional Patent Application 62/323,668 (NIH Reference E-157-2016/0-US-01), entitled “New, More Stable Immunotoxin Variants with a Disulfide Bond Protecting the Furin Cleavage Site.”

    Related Technologies • NIH Reference E-262-2005, entitled “Mutated Pseudomonas Exotoxins with Reduced Antigenicity” • NIH Reference E-292-2007, entitled “Deletions in Domain II of Pseudomonas Exotoxin A that Reduce Non-Specific Toxicity” • NIH Reference E-174-2011, entitled “Pseudomonas Exotoxin A with Less Immunogenic T-Cell and/or B-Cell Epitopes” • NIH Reference E-263-2011, entitled “Pseudomonas Exotoxin A with Less Immunogenic B-Cell Epitopes”

    Collaboration Opportunity: Researchers at the NCI seek parties interested in licensing DS-PE24 RITs.

    Contact Information: Requests for copies of the patent application or inquiries about licensing, research collaborations, and co-development opportunities should be sent to John D. Hewes, Ph.D., email: [email protected]

    Dated: September 5, 2016. John D. Hewes, Technology Transfer Specialist, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21906 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; 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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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 Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; R01/R21/K01/K99 Conflicts.

    Date: December 2, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-594-4937, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 7, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of the Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21898 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2016-N153; FXES11130300000-167-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct activities intended to enhance the survival of endangered or threatened species. Federal law prohibits certain activities with endangered species unless a permit is obtained.

    DATES:

    We must receive any written comments on or before October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments by U.S. mail to the Regional Director, Attn: Carlita Payne, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; or by electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carlita Payne, (612) 713-5343.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless the activities are specifically authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.

    A permit granted by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with U.S. endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or interstate commerce (the latter only in the event that it facilitates scientific purposes or enhancement of propagation or survival). Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.

    Applications Available for Review and Comment

    We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to comment on the following applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Documents and other information the applicants have submitted with the applications 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 Applications

    Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.

    Application No. Applicant Species Location Activity Type of take Permit
  • action
  • TE04397C Giorgianna G. Auteri Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), gray bat (Myotis grisescens) Rangewide Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, radio-tag, release New. TE04398C Robert J. Arndt Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat Rangewide Conduct presence/absence surveys, document habitat use, conduct population monitoring, evaluate impacts Capture, handle, radio-tag, release New. TE04399C Cleveland Museum of Natural History Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra) Ohio Collection of dead specimens for museum research collection Salvage New. TE02560A Timothy C. Carter Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, gray bat Rangewide Renew existing permit and amend to add scientific research—white nose syndrome (WNS) treatment trials Capture, handle, radio-tag, release, survey within hibernacula; harass within the context of WNS research Amend, renew. TE06844A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangered mussels Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska Collection of dead specimens for reference collection Salvage Renew.
    National Environmental Policy Act

    The proposed activities in the requested permits qualify as categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by Department of the Interior implementing regulations in part 46 of title 43 of the CFR (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, and 46.215).

    Public Availability of Comments

    We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive in response to this notice are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed above in ADDRESSES.

    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 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.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Lori H. Nordstrom, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21929 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2016-N145; FXES11120800000-167-FF08EVEN00] Receipt of Application for Renewal of Incidental Take Permit for Morro Shoulderband Snail; Kellaway Habitat Conservation Plan; Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of permit renewal application; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Thomas R. Kellaway and Doris J. Redmond (permittees), for a renewal of incidental take permit TE48316A (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The requested a renewal would extend ITP expiration by 5 years from the date of reissuance. The existing ITP authorizes take of the federally endangered Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the construction of one residence on each of two separate but contiguous parcels in Los Osos, an unincorporated community of San Luis Obispo County. If renewed, the ITP would not authorize any additional take of the species.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: You may obtain a copy of the HCP by writing to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Office, Attn: Permit Number TE48316A, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. We will make the HCP available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the above address.

    Submitting Comments: Please address written comments to Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 93003. Comments may also be sent by facsimile to (805) 644-3958.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie M. Vanderwier, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address or by calling (805) 644-1766.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the Morro shoulderband (=banded dune) snail as endangered on December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613). Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the Act to include the following activities: “[T]o harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). However, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental Take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are, respectively, in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22. Issuance of an incidental take permit also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. All species included in the incidental take permit would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).

    The Kellaway HCP area includes two existing legal parcels of 5.08 acres and 0.45 acre, legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 074-022-042 and 074-483-052, respectively. Both are located between Seahorse Lane and San Leandro Court in the southwestern portion of the unincorporated community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, California. The current ITP authorizes incidental take of Morro shoulderband snail that would result from direct impacts to 1.68 acres of coastal dune scrub, maritime chaparral, and ruderal habitat occupied by this species. Take would be incidental to the otherwise lawful construction of a single-family residence on each of the two parcels, along with limited habitat enhancement on the larger of the parcels.

    Incidental Take Permit

    The ITP was issued on September 21, 2011, and expires on September 20, 2016. The process to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission took much longer than anticipated and required a project redesign. This redesign did not exceed the 1.68-acre development area or change the amount or form of take of Morro shoulderband snail currently authorized in the ITP. The permittees have requested no change to the covered species, covered activities, or HCP area and commit to fully implement the HCP. Measures to minimize the amount and form of take include the following: (1) Pre-construction and construction monitoring surveys for Morro shoulderband snail within the 1.68-acre impact area, (2) capture and moving of all identified individuals of Morro shoulderband snail into the conservation easement area by an individual in possession of a current valid recovery permit for the species, (3) installation of protective fencing, and (4) development and presentation of a contractor and employee training program for Morro shoulderband snail. Mitigation for unavoidable take of Morro shoulderband snail includes: (1) Preservation in perpetuity of 3.83 acres of coastal dune scrub and maritime chaparral habitats occupied by Morro shoulderband snail in a conservation easement that will preclude any use not consistent with resource management, (2) enhancement of 0.24 acres of disturbed coastal dune scrub within the conservation easement to increase its value and function for Morro shoulderband snail, (3) post-construction monitoring and maintenance of the habitat enhancement activities within conservation easement area for a period of 4 years to ensure its success, and (4) establishment of a Letter of Credit in the amount of $16,740 to ensure that adequate funding is available to implement all of the minimization and mitigation measures contained in the plan.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    The Service has made a preliminary determination that ITP renewal would not represent a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, it will not have, individually or cumulatively, more than a negligible effect on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we have determined that the incidental take permit for this project is “low effect” and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by 43 CFR 46.205 and 43 CFR 46.210.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit renewal and/or HCP, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    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 ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: August 26, 2016. Stephen P. Henry, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21930 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Acquisition of Trust Land AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2016, requesting the Office Management and Budget (OMB) renew the Agency Information Collection for Acquisition of Trust Land, OMB Control Number 1076-0100. The notice contained an incorrect title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, telephone: (202) 273-4680, email: [email protected]

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 30, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-20811 on page 59652, in the first column, correct the title of the notice to read:

    Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Acquisition of Trust Land Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21917 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1017] Certain Quartz Slabs and Portions Thereof (II); Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 2), which terminated the investigation on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jean H. Jackson, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3104. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on August 16, 2016, based on a complaint filed by Cambria Company LLC (Cambria) of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. 81 FR 54600-1 (Aug. 16, 2016). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain quartz slabs and portions thereof. The alleged violation of section 337 is based upon infringement of U.S. Patent No. D712,666; U.S. Patent No. D712,670; U.S. Patent No. D751,298; U.S. Patent No. D712,161; and U.S. Patent No. D737,058. The notice of investigation named as the respondents: Stylen Quaza LLC DBA Vicostone USA of Dallas, Texas; Vicostone Joint Stock Company of Vietnam; Building Plastics, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee; Fasa Industrial Corporation, Ltd. of China; Foshan FASA Building Material Co., Ltd. of China; Solidtops LLC, of Oxford, Maryland; Dorado Soapstone LLC of Denver, Colorado; and Pental Granite and Marble Inc. (Pental) of Seattle, Washington. 81 FR 54601. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was also named as a party. Id.

    On August 23, 2016, Cambria moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. On August 24, 2016, respondent Pental responded that it does not oppose the motion to terminate, but strongly denies the allegations against it set forth in Cambria's complaint. On August 24, 2016, the Commission investigative attorney responded in support of the motion.

    On August 25, 2016, the ALJ granted the motion as the subject ID (Order No. 2). The ALJ found that the motion complied with Commission Rules, and that extraordinary circumstances did not exist to prevent granting the motion. Id. at 3; see 19 CFR 210.21(a). No petitions for review of the ID were filed. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 7, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21903 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-1018] Certain Athletic Footwear; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 10, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Reebok International Ltd. of Canton, Massachusetts and Reebok International Limited of England. Supplements were filed on August 12, 19, and 25, 2016. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain athletic footwear by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,637,035 (“the '035 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,505,221 (“the '221 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on September 7, 2016, ORDERED THAT—

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain athletic footwear by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 9-15, 18, 19, and 23-27 of the '035 patent and claims 1, 5, 6, and 11-15 of the '221 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    Reebok International Ltd., 1895 J.W. Foster Boulevard, Canton, MA 02021. Reebok International Limited, 11/12 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5LU, England.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    TRB Acquisitions LLC, 34 West 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001. RBX Active 01 LLC, 34 West 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001. RBX Direct LLC, 34 West 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001. RBX.COM LLC, 34 West 33rd Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10001. Elite Performance Footwear, LLC, 10 West 33rd Street, Suite 804, New York, NY 10001.

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 8, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21971 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. U.S.-Morocco FTA-103-030] Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the U.S.-Morocco FTA Rules of Origin AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of institution of investigation and opportunity to provide written comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Following receipt of a request on August 24, 2016, from the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Commission instituted investigation No. 103-030, Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the U.S.-Morocco FTA Rules of Origin, for the purpose of providing the advice required under § 104(1) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

    DATES:

    October 13, 2016: Deadline for filing written submissions.

    January 24, 2017: Transmittal of Commission report to USTR.

    ADDRESSES:

    All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Project leader Mahnaz Khan (202-205-2046 or [email protected]) or deputy project leader Heidi Colby-Oizumi (202-205-3391 or [email protected]) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of this investigation, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or [email protected]). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819 or [email protected]). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

    BACKGROUND:

    In his request letter, the USTR stated that U.S. negotiators have recently reached agreement in principle with representatives of the government of Morocco on certain proposed modifications to the textile and apparel goods rules of origin contained in the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement (U.S.-Morocco FTA). The USTR noted that § 203(j)(2)(B)(i) of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the Act) authorizes the President, subject to the consultation and layover requirements of § 104 of the Act, to proclaim such modifications to the rules of origin as are necessary to implement an agreement with Morocco pursuant to Annex 4.3 of the FTA. The USTR further stated that one of the requirements set out in § 104(1) is that the President obtain advice regarding the proposed action from the U.S. International Trade Commission.

    In his request letter, the USTR asked that the Commission provide advice on the probable economic effect of the proposed modifications on U.S. trade under the U.S.-Morocco FTA, total U.S. trade, and on domestic producers of the affected articles. The affected articles identified in the proposal are certain apparel goods, including dresses, skirts, blouses, tops, shirts, shirt-blouses, and pants. The request letter and the complete list of proposed modifications are available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/what_we_are_working_on.htm. As requested, the Commission will provide its advice to USTR by January 24, 2017.

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

    No public hearing is planned for this investigation. However, interested parties are invited to file written submissions concerning this investigation. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, and all such submissions should be received not later than 5:15 p.m., October 13, 2016. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures require that interested parties file documents electronically on or before the filing deadline and submit eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00 p.m. eastern time on the next business day. In the event that confidential treatment of a document is requested, interested parties must file, at the same time as the eight paper copies, at least four (4) additional true paper copies in which the confidential information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division (202-205-1802).

    CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION:

    Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform to the requirements of § 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information is clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties.

    The Commission may include some or all of the confidential business information submitted in the course of this investigation in the report it sends to the USTR. As requested, the Commission will issue a public version of its report, with any confidential business information deleted, shortly after it transmits its report. All information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.

    SUMMARIES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

    The Commission intends to publish summaries of the positions of interested persons in an appendix to its report. Persons wishing to have a summary of their position included in the appendix should include a summary with their written submission. The summary may not exceed 500 words, should be in MSWord format or a format that can be easily converted to MSWord, and should not include any confidential business information. The summary will be published as provided if it meets these requirements and is germane to the subject matter of the investigation. In the appendix the Commission will identify the name of the organization furnishing the summary, and will include a link to the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) where the full written submission can be found.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 8, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21974 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Invitation for Membership on Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board), established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), is responsible for the enrollment of individuals who wish to perform actuarial services under ERISA. To assist in its examination duties mandated by ERISA, the Joint Board has established the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations (Advisory Committee) in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The current Advisory Committee members' terms expire on February 28, 2017. This notice describes the Advisory Committee and invites applications from those interested in serving on the Advisory Committee for the March 1, 2017-February 28, 2019, term.

    DATES:

    Applications for membership on the Advisory Committee must be received by the Executive Director of the Joint Board, by no later than December 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or deliver applications to: Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, Return Preparer Office SE:RPO, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., REFM, Park 4, Floor 4, Washington, DC 20224. Send applications electronically to: [email protected] See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for application requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Background

    To qualify for enrollment to perform actuarial services under ERISA, an applicant must satisfy certain experience and knowledge requirements, which are set forth in the Joint Board's regulations. An applicant may satisfy the knowledge requirement by successful completion of Joint Board examinations in basic actuarial mathematics and methodology and in actuarial mathematics and methodology relating to pension plans qualifying under ERISA.

    The Joint Board, the Society of Actuaries, and the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries jointly offer examinations acceptable to the Joint Board for enrollment purposes and acceptable to the other two actuarial organizations as part of their respective examination programs.

    2. Scope of Advisory Committee Duties

    The Advisory Committee plays an integral role in the examination program by assisting the Joint Board in offering examinations that enable examination candidates to demonstrate the knowledge necessary to qualify for enrollment. The Advisory Committee's duties, which are strictly advisory, include (1) recommending topics for inclusion on the Joint Board examinations, (2) reviewing and drafting examination questions, (3) recommending examinations, (4) reviewing examination results and recommending passing scores, and (5) providing other recommendations and advice relative to the examinations, as requested by the Joint Board.

    3. Member Terms and Responsibilities

    Members are appointed for a 2-year term. The upcoming term will begin on March 1, 2017, and end on February 28, 2019. Members may seek reappointment for additional consecutive terms.

    Members are expected to attend approximately 4 meetings each calendar year and are reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with applicable government regulations. In general, members are expected to devote 125 to 175 hours, including meeting time, to the work of the Advisory Committee over the course of a year.

    4. Member Selection

    The Joint Board seeks to appoint an Advisory Committee that is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and functions to be performed. Every effort is made to ensure that most points of view extant in the enrolled actuary profession are represented on the Advisory Committee. To that end, the Joint Board seeks to appoint several members from each of the main practice areas of the enrolled actuary profession, including small employer plans, large employer plans, and multiemployer plans. In addition, to ensure diversity of points of view, the Joint Board limits the number of members affiliated with any one actuarial organization or employed with any one firm.

    Membership normally will be limited to actuaries currently enrolled by the Joint Board. However, individuals having academic or other special qualifications of particular value for the Advisory Committee's work also will be considered for membership. Federally-registered lobbyists and individuals affiliated with Joint Board enrollment examination preparation courses are not eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee.

    5. Member Designation

    Advisory Committee members are appointed as Special Government Employees (SGEs). As such, members are subject to certain ethical standards applicable to SGEs. Upon appointment, each member will be required to provide written confirmation that he/she does not have a financial interest in a Joint Board examination preparation course. In addition, each member will be required to attend annual ethics training.

    6. Application Requirements

    To receive consideration, an individual interested in serving on the Advisory Committee must submit (1) a signed, cover letter expressing interest in serving on the Advisory Committee and describing his/her professional qualifications, and (2) a resume and/or curriculum vitae. Applications may be submitted by regular mail, overnight and express delivery services, and email. In all cases, the cover letter must contain an original signature. Applications must be received by December 6, 2016.

    Dated: September 6, 2016. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21950 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Foreign Claims Settlement Commission [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 8-16] Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

    Tuesday, September 27, 2016: 10:00 a.m.—Oral hearing on Objection to Commission's Proposed Decision in Claim No. LIB-III-018.

    11:30 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Iraq.

    Status: Open.

    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street NW., Suite 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

    Brian M. Simkin, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22112 Filed 9-9-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; ETA Quick Turnaround Surveys ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.

    This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all written comments received by November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Richard Muller by telephone at (202) 693-3680, TTY (202) 693-7755, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research, Attention: Richard Muller, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210; by email: [email protected]; or by Fax (202) 693-2766.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Richard Muller by telephone at (202) 693-3680 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ETA is soliciting comments regarding a revision to the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance for a series of quick turnaround surveys in which data will be collected from State workforce agencies, local workforce investment areas, and other entities involved in employment and training and related programs. The surveys will focus on a variety of issues concerning the very broad spectrum of programs administered by ETA including but not limited to the governance, administration, funding, service design, and delivery structure of workforce programs authorized by the Workforce Innovation Opportunities Act of 2014 (WIOA) and other statutes.

    ETA has a continuing need for information on the operation of all of its programs and is seeking another extension of the clearance for conducting a series of 8 to 20 separate surveys over the next 3 years. Each survey will be short (typically 10-30 questions) and, depending on the nature of the survey, may be administered to state workforce agencies, local workforce boards, American Job Centers, employment service offices, or other entities involved in employment and training or related activities. Each survey will be designed on an ad hoc basis and will focus on topics of pressing policy interest. Examples of broad topic areas include:

    • Local management information system developments

    • New processes and procedures

    • Services to different target groups

    • Integration and coordination with other programs

    • Local workforce investment board membership and training

    ETA needs quick turnaround surveys for a number of reasons. The most pressing reason concerns the need to understand key operational issues in light of changes in focus deriving from the Administration's policy priorities. ETA needs timely information that identifies the scope and magnitude of various practices or problems, and to fulfill its obligations to develop high quality policy, research, administrative guidance, regulations, and technical assistance.

    ETA will request data in the quick turnaround surveys that are not otherwise available. Other research and evaluation efforts, including case studies or long-range evaluations, either cover only a limited number of sites or take many years for data to be gathered and analyzed. Administrative information and data are too limited. The Five-Year Workforce Investment Plans, developed by States and local areas, are too general in nature to meet ETA's specific informational needs. Quarterly or annual data reported by States and local areas do not provide information on key operational practices and issues. Thus, ETA has no alternative mechanism for collecting precise information that both identifies the scope and magnitude of emerging issues and provides the information on a quick turnaround basis.

    ETA will make every effort to coordinate the quick turnaround surveys with other research it is conducting, in order to ease the burden on local and State respondents, to avoid duplication, and to fully explore how interim data and information from each study can be used to inform other studies. Information from the quick turnaround surveys will complement but not duplicate other ETA reporting requirements or evaluation studies. Section 169 of WIOA authorizes this information collection for both evaluation activities (Section 169 (a)) and research activities (Section 169 (b)).

    CURRENT ACTION: The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Quick Turnaround Surveys.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the PRA.

    II. Review Focus

    The Department is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate 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;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

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

    Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the ADDRESSES section. Comments must be written to receive consideration, and they will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the final ICR. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention 1205-0436.

    Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the Internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.

    Agency: DOL-DOL-ETA.

    Type of Review: REVISION.

    Title of Collection: Quick Turnaround Surveys.

    Form: N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0436.

    Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits and not-for profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 620.

    Frequency: Various.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 25,000.

    Estimated Average Time per Response: 2 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,333 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Cost Burden: $0.

    Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21916 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (16-064)] NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Astrophysics Subcommittee; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.

    DATES:

    Monday, October 3, 2016, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Tuesday, October 4, 2016, 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355, fax (202) 358-2779, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be open to the public telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA toll free conference call number 1-877-601-4492 or toll number 1-773-756-4808, passcode 7555144, to participate in this meeting by telephone on both days. The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number on October 3 is 992 939 742, password is Astrophysics!1; and the meeting number on October 4 is 992 964 807, password is Astrophysics!1.

    The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

    —Astrophysics Division Update —Updates on Specific Astrophysics Missions —Reports From the Program Analysis Groups —Reports From Specific Research and Analysis Programs —Report on the National Academies Midterm Review

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Carol J. Hamilton, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21981 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before October 13, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at [email protected] and (2) NCUA PRA Clearance Officer, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428 or email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing [email protected] or viewing the entire information collection request at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 3133-0163.

    Type of Review: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

    Title: Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Under Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Regulation P, 12 CFR 1016.

    Abstract: Title V, Subtitle A of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Act), Public Law 106-102, governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by financial institutions. Section 502 of the Act, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits a financial institution from disclosing nonpublic personal information about a consumer to nonaffiliated third parties, unless the institution satisfies various notice and opt-out requirements, and provided the consumer has not elected to opt out of the disclosure. Section 503 of the Act requires a financial institution to provide notice of its privacy policies and practices to its customers.

    Section 504 of the Act granted rulemaking authority for the privacy provisions of the Act to be shared by eight Federal agencies: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Each of the agencies issued rules (which were consistent and comparable) to implement the Act's privacy provisions.

    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA) amended a number of consumer financial protection laws, including the Act. Among other changes, the DFA transferred rulemaking authority for most of Subtitle A of Title V of the Act, with respect to financial institutions described in section 504(a)(1)(A) of the Act, from FRB, FDIC, OCC, OTS, and NCUA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Pursuant to the DFA and the Act, as amended, the CFPB promulgated Regulation P, 12 CFR 1016, to implement those privacy provisions of the Act for which CFPB has rulemaking authority.

    Regulation P implements the requirements of the Act to provide consumers with financial institutions' privacy policies and practices, as well as describes when the consumer's information may be shared with nonaffiliated third parties, and provides a method for consumers to prevent disclosure of their information to nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure. Regulation P details the specifics of how the Act should be implemented, which companies and situations this applies to, and the method of delivering the information to consumers. Regulation P includes model forms that can be used to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Act and Regulation P, although the use of the model forms is not required. See Appendix to Regulation P.

    Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 386,104.

    By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on September 7, 2016.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Troy S. Hillier, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21942 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

    NAME:

    Advisory Committee for Geosciences (1755).

    DATES AND TIMES:

    October 19, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., October 20, 2016; 8:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    PLACE:

    National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Stafford I, Room 1235, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    TYPE OF MEETING:

    Open.

    CONTACT PERSON:

    Melissa Lane, National Science Foundation, Suite 705, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230. Phone 703-292-8500.

    MINUTES:

    May be obtained from the contact person listed above.

    PURPOSE OF MEETING:

    To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight on support for geoscience research and education including atmospheric, geo-space, earth, ocean and polar sciences.

    Agenda: Wednesday, October 19, 2016

    • Directorate and NSF activities and plans

    • Committee of Visitor Reports

    • Update on GEO Education Activities

    • Presentation on Reproducibility of Research Results

    • Meeting with the NSF Director and CIO

    Thursday, October 20, 2016

    • Division Subcommittee Meetings

    • Briefing on NSF Activities Related to Broader Participation and Broader Impacts

    • Action Items/Planning for Spring 2017 Meeting

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21955 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0188] Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from August 16, 2016, to August 29, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on August 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by October 13, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0188. 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.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected]

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0188, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0188.

    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.

    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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0188, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).

    The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by November 14, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter “petition”), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a petition will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16194A342.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system. The proposed changes include conforming administrative changes to the TSs.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change requires that three AFW steam supplies must be operable. The AFW system is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated; therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed changes. The change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident because three steam supplies are needed to ensure that the AFW system can perform its specified function for all postulated events in the presence of a single failure. The proposed changes do not adversely impact the ability of the AFW system to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated because the proposed change reduces the allowable out of service time for a single inoperable steam supply.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change requires that three steam supplies are available to ensure that the AFW system can perform its specified function in the presence of a single failure. As such, the proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement than currently exists because the LCO [limiting condition for operation] can no longer be met with only two AFW steam supplies operable.

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for existing equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components.

    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-related system.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement than currently exists because the LCO can no longer be met with only two AFW steam supplies operable. The proposed change will not adversely affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings. The change does not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.

    South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 2, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16154A226.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revise the Combined Licenses (COL) concerning the design details of the safety-related passive core cooling system (PXS), the nonsafety-related normal residual heat removal system (RNS), and the nonsafety-related containment air filtration system (VFS). The amendment request proposes changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information, and involves changes to related plant-specific DCD Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL Appendix C information. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes result from identifying PSX, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described in the licensing basis as ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code Section III, evaluated to meet the LBB [leak-before-break] design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal and seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional capability. Neither planned or inadvertent operation nor failure of the PXS, RNS, or VFS is an accident initiator or part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the ability of the PXS, RNS, or VFS to perform their design functions. The design of the PXS, RNS, and VFS continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the changes ensure that the capabilities of the PXS, RNS, and VFS to mitigate the consequences of an accident meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria, and there is no adverse effect on any safety-related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident. The changes do not affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed changes result from identifying PXS, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described in the licensing basis as ASME Code Section III, evaluated to meet the LBB design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal and seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional capability. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other PXS, RNS, VFS, or SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.

    Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The proposed changes ensure that PXS, RNS, and VFS design requirements and design functions are met. The proposed changes maintain existing safety margin through continued application of the existing requirements of the UFSAR, while adding additional design features to ensure the PXS, RNS, and VFS perform the design functions required to meet the existing safety margins. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, no margin of safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A268.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, “Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” by (1) increasing the existing Type A integrated leak test program test interval from 10 to 15 years in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J” (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML100620847); (2) extending the containment isolation valve leakage test (Type C) frequency from 60 months to 75 months in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A; (3) adopting the use of the American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society 56.8-2002, “Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements;” and (4) adopting a more conservative grace interval of 9 months for Type A, Type B, and Type C leakage test in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.

    Additionally, the amendment would also delete the information from TS 5.5.12 regarding the performance of Type A tests for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 in 2008 and 2010, respectively, on the basis that both tests have already occurred.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) involves the extension of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in Type A test frequency from three in ten years to one in fifteen years, measured as an increase in the total integrated plant dose risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 9.90E-03 person-rem/yr using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidance values, and drops to 1.96E-03 person-rem/yr using the EPRI Expert Elicitation values. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” Types B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The HNP, Units 1 and 2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.

    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leakage rate test (LLRT) requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the ILRT [integrated leak rate test] test frequency for both Units 1 and 2. These exceptions were for activities that have already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no physical impact on how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the HNP, Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities of the equipment.

    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both Units 1 and 2. These exceptions were for activities that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of the HNP, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.

    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for HNP, Units 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT Interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,” Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.

    The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for both HNP Units 1 and 2. These exceptions were for activities that have taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16207A496.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to plant-specific Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated combined license (COL) Appendix C information, and involves associated Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific design control document Tier 1 material departures. Specifically, the requested amendment proposes clarifications to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and COL Appendix C) table and a UFSAR table in regard to the inspections of the excore source, intermediate, and power range detectors.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to specify the inspection of the excore source, intermediate, and power range detectors is done to verify that aluminum surfaces are contained in stainless steel or titanium, and avoids the introduction of aluminum into the post-loss of coolant accident (LOCA) containment environment due to detector materials. The proposed change does not alter any safety related functions. The materials of construction are compatible with the post[-]LOCA conditions inside containment and will not significantly contribute to hydrogen generation or chemical precipitates. The change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events.

    The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. Consequently, the plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new accident precursors.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed change to specify the inspection of the excore source, intermediate, and power range detectors is done to verify that aluminum surfaces are contained in stainless steel or titanium, and avoids the introduction of aluminum into the post[-]LOCA containment environment due to detector materials. In addition, the proposed change to the [inspection, test, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC)] verified materials of construction does not alter the design function of the excore detectors. The detector canning materials of construction are compatible with the post-LOCA containment environment and do not contribute a significant amount of hydrogen or chemical precipitates. The change to the ITAAC aligns the inspection with the Tier 2 design feature. Consequently, because the excore detectors functions are unchanged, there are no adverse effects on accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to specify the inspection of the excore source, intermediate, and power range detectors is done to verify that aluminum surfaces are contained in stainless steel or titanium, and avoids the introduction of aluminum into the post-LOCA containment environment, does not alter any safety-related equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016, as revised on August 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16166A409 and ML16225A655, respectively.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information. Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to the UFSAR to revise the details of the structural design of auxiliary building floors.

    A biweekly Federal Register notice was published on August 2, 2016, providing an opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene for a License Amendment Request (LAR) for the VEGP combined licenses. Since that time, the licensee has submitted a revision to the original LAR, dated August 12, 2016, that increases the scope of the LAR.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The design functions of the auxiliary building floors are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The thickness and strength of the auxiliary building floors are not reduced. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the changes described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The changes to UFSAR descriptions are proposed to address changes in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not adversely altered. The concrete and reinforcement materials are not altered. The properties of the concrete are not altered. The changes to the design details of the auxiliary building structure do not create any new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute (ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the auxiliary building structure conforms to criteria and requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the margin of safety. Analysis of the connection design confirms that code provisions are appropriate to the floor to wall connection. The proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The proposed changes also incorporate the requirements for development and anchoring of headed reinforcement which were previously approved. There is no change to design requirements of the auxiliary building structure. There is no change to the method of evaluation from that used in the design basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the in structure response spectra. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16159A403.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow use of component cooling system (CCS) pump 2B-B to support CCS Train 1B operability when the normally-aligned CCS pump is inoperable. The amendment would provide increased flexibility for maintaining CCS operability.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to allow the use of the CCS pump 2B-B to support Train 1B operability does not result in any physical changes to plant safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The CCS functions to remove plant system heat loads during normal, shutdown, and accident conditions. The CCS will continue to perform this function with equipment qualified to the same standards. The CCS is not an accident initiator, but instead performs accident mitigation functions by serving as the heat sink for safety-related equipment, ensuring the conditions and assumptions credited in the accident analyses are preserved. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    The purpose of this change is to modify the CCS TS to allow the use of CCS pump 2B-B to replace CCS pump C-S in supporting Train 1B operability. The proposed change provides assurance that the minimum conditions necessary for the CCS to perform its heat removal safety function are maintained. Accordingly, operation as specified by the addition of the Notes and the additional surveillance requirement will provide the necessary assurance that fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment integrity limits are not challenged during worst-case pos[t]-accident conditions. CCS pump C-S and pump 2B-B are identical pumps with identical controls except that the CCS pump 2B-B does not receive an automatic start signal from a Unit 1 Safety Injection (SI) actuation signal. To compensate for the lack of the SI actuation signal, CCS pump 2B-B is required to be in operation to support Unit 1 operation when substituting for CSS pump C-S. With the CCS pump 2B-B in operation, the pump will continue to operate following a SI actuation signal. Accordingly, the conclusions of the accident analyses will remain as previously evaluated such that there will be no significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to plant safety-related SSCs or alter the modes of plant operation in a manner that will change the design function or operation of the CCS. The proposed additional limits on CCS alignment and CCS pump 2B-B operation provide assurance that the conditions and assumptions credited in the accident analyses are preserved. Thus, the plant's overall ability to reject heat to the ultimate heat sink during normal operation, normal shutdown, and worst-case accident conditions will not be significantly affected by this proposed change. Because the safety and design requirements continue to be met and the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure boundary is not challenged, no new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators are created, and there will be no effect on the accident mitigating systems in a manner that would significantly degrade the plant's response to an accident.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change modifies the CCS TS to maintain the CCS Train 1B operable while aligned with CCS pump 2B-B. With CCS pump 2B-B in operation when aligned to CCS Train 1B, CCS pump 2B-B will operate to provide the CCS accident mitigation function if a postulated accident occurs. CCS pumps C-S and 2B-B are identical pumps and will perform the same function with this change, resulting in essentially no change in the safety margin before the change to the safety margin after the change. Accordingly, the proposed change will not significantly reduce the margin of safety of any SSCs that rely on the CCS for heat removal to perform their safety-related functions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, TN 37902.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A572.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to correct an administrative error regarding the steam generator (SG) narrow range (NR) level specified in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.6.3.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The WBN Unit 2 TS SR 3.4.6.3 is being amended due [to] an administrative error that was incorporated into the initial submittal of the WBN Unit 2 Revision 0 TS. The impact of this amendment will not affect how plant equipment is operated or maintained. This proposed amendment corrects an error in the required SG NR level minimum value, while in Mode 4, from 32% to 6%. The purpose for this SR is to ensure the steam generator u-tubes are covered with water on the secondary side of the tubes. For the WBN Unit 2 SGs the lower SG NR level tap is above the top of the U-tubes. Therefore, a 6% NR level ensures the U-tubes are covered with water. There are no changes to the physical plant or analytical methods.

    The proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility. The proposed changes do not affect any design functions, or analyses that verify the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The proposed changes do not change any of the accidents previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed changes do not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any of these accidents.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will not change the design function of any SSCs or result in any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are intended to be operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.

    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.

    III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of 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 combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, 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. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: January 29, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated June 2 and 10, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment approved the post- loss-of-coolant-accident drawdown time for secondary containment from 12 to 19 minutes as described in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report and technical specification bases.

    Date of issuance: August 17, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16217A332; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the Updated Safety Analysis Report.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21599). The supplemental letters dated June 2 and 10, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 17, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated April 11, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised LSCS technical specifications (TS), Section 2.1.1, “Reactor Core SLs [safety limits],” to reflect a lower reactor steam dome pressure stated for reactor core SLs, Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2. Specifically, the amendment reduced the reactor steam dome pressure in TS SLs, Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, from 785 psig [pound per square inch gage] to 700 psia [pound per square inch absolute]. This change to TS, Section 2.1.1, was identified as a result of 10 CFR part 21, General Electric report SC05-03, “Potential to Exceed Low Pressure Technical Specification Safety Limit.” This change is valid for the NRC-approved pressure range pertinent to the critical power correlations applied to the fuel types in use at LSCS.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and the amendment shall be implemented for LSCS, Unit 1, within 30 days of issuance of the amendment. Also, the amendment shall be implemented for LSCS, Unit 2, prior to startup following refueling outage L2R16 in February 2017.

    Amendment Nos.: 220 for NPF-11, Unit 1, and 206 for NPF-18, Unit 2. The publicly-available version of documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16155A110.

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5497). The supplemental letter dated April 11, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: October 19, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated January 21, 2016, and April 18, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CNP, Unit 2, technical specification (TS) requirements for the Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation by adding a new Condition for inoperable required channels for main feedwater pump trips, and by adding a footnote to the Applicable Mode column of TS Table 3.3.2-1 to reflect the new Condition.

    Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 313. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16216A181; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: The amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : December 22, 2015 (80 FR 79621). The supplemental letters dated January 21, 2016, and April 18, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated April 12, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the value of reactor steam dome pressure specified within the Reactor Core Safety Limits Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1. This resolved a 10 CFR part 21, condition concerning a potential to momentarily violate Reactor Core Safety Limit (TSs 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2) during a pressure regulator failure maximum demand (Open) transient.

    Date of issuance: August 18, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

    Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16153A091; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69713). The supplemental letter dated April 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated August 18, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing the current stored diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TSs and replacing them with emergency diesel generator operating time requirements consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, “Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control,” including plant-specific variances.

    Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16182A363; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment revised the License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73239). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated August 19, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: November 16, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated February 12, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* information. The proposed changes are related to changes to construction methods and construction sequence used for the composite floors and roof of the auxiliary building.

    Date of issuance: June 29, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 49. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16146A734; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5495). The supplemental letter dated February 12, 2016, provided additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment request and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21998 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0192] Service Level I, II, III, and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG)-1331, “Service Level I, II, III, and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants.” This DG is proposed Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.54, “Service Level I, II, and III Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants.” The NRC proposes to revise the guide to update the latest American Society for Standards and Testing (ASTM) International standards approved for use in the prior revision of this guide. In addition, the NRC proposes to expand the scope of the regulatory guide to address aging management of internal coatings and linings on components within the scope of the NRC's license renewal regulations.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by November 14, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0192. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew G. Yoder, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-4017, email: [email protected]; and Mark Orr, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-6003, email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0192 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0192.

    • 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 DG is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16097A448. The regulatory analysis for this DG is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16070A091.

    • 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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0192 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enters the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Additional Information

    The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.

    The DG, entitled “Service Level I, II, III, and In-Scope License Renewal Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants,” is proposed Revision 3 of RG 1.54, “Service Level I, II, and III Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Power Plants.” The DG is temporarily identified by its task number,DG-1331. This revision (Revision 3) of RG 1.54 approves, with certain clarifications and exceptions, the use of ASTM International Standard D 5144-08ε 1, “Standard Guide for Use of Protective Coating Standards in Nuclear Power Plants,” 1 and multiple sub-tier ASTM International standards as identified in the RG. In addition, the NRC proposes to expand the scope of the RG to address aging management of internal coatings and linings on components within the scope of license renewal under part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR).

    1 The “ε 1” symbol at the end of ASTM International Standard D 5144-08ε 1 is used by ASTM to identify an ASTM International standard that was revised to correct an editorial error. The copyright date of the edited standard is April 2016 which differs from the original 2008 publication date of the standard.

    III. Backfitting and Issue Finality

    Draft regulatory guide-1331 is proposed Revision 3 of RG 1.54. It proposes to approve, with certain clarifications and exceptions, the use of ASTM International Standard D 5144-08ε 1, “Standard Guide for Use of Protective Coating Standards in Nuclear Power Plants,” and multiple sub-tier ASTM International standards as identified in Figure 1 of DG-1331 and described below. The ASTM International Standard D 5144-08ε 1 was issued to provide a common basis on which protective coatings for the surfaces of nuclear power generating facilities may be qualified and selected through reproducible evaluation tests. This revision also expands the scope to include internal coatings and linings on components within the scope of license renewal. Copies of the ASTM International standards identified in DG-1331 are available for purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959; telephone: 610-832-9585. Purchase information is also available through the ASTM Web site at http://www.astm.org.

    In addition, the NRC made some clarifications and format changes that did not change the intent of the guidance.

    If DG-1331 is finalized, it may be applied to current applications for operating licenses, combined licenses, early site permits, and certified design rules docketed by the NRC as of the date of issuance of the final RG, as well as future applications submitted after the issuance of the RG. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) or be otherwise inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR part 52. Neither the Backfit Rule nor the issue finality provisions under 10 CFR part 52, with certain exclusions discussed below, were intended to apply to every NRC action that substantially changes the expectations of current and future applicants.

    The exceptions to this general principle are applicable whenever a combined license applicant references a 10 CFR part 52 license (e.g., an early site permit) or NRC regulatory approval (e.g., a design certification rule) with specified issue finality provisions. The NRC does not, at this time, intend to impose the positions represented in Revision 3 of RG 1.54 on combined license applicants in a manner that is inconsistent with any issue finality provisions. If, in the future, the NRC seeks to impose a position in Revision 3 of RG 1.54 in a manner that does not provide issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision, then the NRC must address the criteria for avoiding issue finality as described in the applicable issue finality provision.

    Proposed Revision 3 of RG 1.54 updates the ASTM International standards the NRC staff has approved for use when qualifying and testing protective coatings and linings used in nuclear power plants.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of September, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Thomas H. Boyce, Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21956 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan; Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment ACTION:

    Notice of Availability and Request for Public Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), on behalf of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the Committee on Technology; National Science and Technology Council (NSTC); announces the availability of the draft 2016 National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Strategic Plan for public comment. The draft plan is posted at www.nano.gov/2016strategy. Comments of approximately one page or less in length are requested.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The draft 2016 NNI Strategic Plan is available on the NNI Web site, www.nano.gov/2016strategy. The public is encouraged to submit comments electronically through www.nano.gov/2016strategy, or via email to [email protected] Please reference page and line numbers in your response, as appropriate. For individuals who do not have access to the internet, comments may be submitted in writing to: Stacey Standridge, ATTN: NNI Strategic Plan Comments, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Stafford II, Suite 405, Arlington, VA 22230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stacey Standridge, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 703-292-8103, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NNI is a U.S. Government R&D program involving 20 departments and independent agencies, 11 of which have budgets for nanotechnology R&D, working together toward the common vision of a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale level leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society. The combined, coordinated efforts of these agencies have accelerated discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology towards agency missions and the broader national interest.

    The NNI Strategic Plan describes the NNI vision and goals and the strategies by which these goals are to be achieved. The plan includes a description of the NNI investment strategy and the program component areas called for by the 21st Century Research and Development Act of 2003, and it also identifies specific objectives toward collectively achieving the NNI vision. This plan updates and replaces the NNI Strategic Plan of February 2014.

    The NNI Strategic Plan provides the framework that underpins the nanotechnology-related activities of the NNI agencies. Its aim is to ensure that advancements in nanotechnology and its applications continue in this vital R&D enterprise, while potential concerns about current and future applications are also addressed. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to catalyze achievements in support of the goals and vision of the NNI by providing guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the research community regarding the planning and implementation of Federal nanotechnology R&D investments and activities.

    Ted Wackler, Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21796 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3270-F6-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78782; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-58] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Section 907.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Adjust the Timing of Entitlements to Complimentary Products and Services for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies September 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on August 26, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 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 Section 907.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to adjust the service entitlements of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) under that rule. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 907.00 of the Manual to adjust the service entitlements of special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) under that rule.

    The Exchange offers complimentary products and services for a period of 24 calendar months from the date of initial listing to a category of listed companies defined as Eligible New Listings. Eligible New Listings include: (I) Any U.S. company that lists common stock on the Exchange for the first time and any non-U.S. company that lists an equity security on the Exchange under Section 102.01 or 103.00 of the Manual for the first time, regardless of whether such U.S. or non-U.S. company conducts an offering and (ii) any U.S. or non-U.S. company emerging from a bankruptcy, spinoff (where a company lists new shares in the absence of a public offering), and carve-out (where a company carves out a business line or division, which then conducts a separate initial public offering).

    Eligible New Listings are eligible for services as a Tier A or Tier B company as follows:

    • Tier A: For Eligible New Listings with a global market value of $400 million or more, calculated as of the date of listing on the Exchange, the Exchange offers market surveillance, market analytics, Web-hosting, Web-casting, corporate governance tools, and news distribution products and services for a period of 24 calendar months from the date of listing.

    • Tier B: For Eligible New Listings with a global market value of less than $400 million, calculated as of the date of listing on the Exchange, the Exchange offers Web-hosting, market analytics, Web-casting, corporate governance tools, and news distribution products and services for a period of 24 calendar months from the date of listing.

    Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, if an Eligible New Listing begins to use a particular product or service provided for under Section 907.00 within 30 days of its initial listing date, the complimentary period will begin on the date of first use.4

    4 The Exchange does not propose to make any changes in this filing to the values of the various services set forth above as provided to eligible listed companies as specified in Section 907.00.

    A SPAC is a special purpose company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more operating businesses or assets. To qualify for initial listing a SPAC must meet the requirements of Section 102.06 and 102.01A of the Manual.5 Section 102.06 of the Manual provides that the Exchange will consider on a case-by-case basis the appropriateness for listing of SPACs that conduct an initial public offering of which at least 90% of the proceeds, together with the proceeds of any other concurrent sales of the SPAC's equity securities, will be held in a trust account controlled by an independent custodian (the “Trust Account”) until consummation of a business combination in the form of a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more operating businesses or assets with a fair market value equal to at least 80% of the net assets held in trust (net of amounts disbursed to management for working capital purposes and excluding the amount of any deferred underwriting discount held in trust) (a “Business Combination” or the “Business Combination Condition”). Under Section 102.06, the SPAC must be liquidated if no Business Combination has been consummated within a specified time period not to exceed three years. The Exchange will promptly commence delisting procedures with respect to any SPAC that fails to consummate its Business Combination within (i) the time period specified by its constitutive documents or by contract or (ii) three years, whichever is shorter.

    5 Section 102.06 refers to SPACs as “acquisition companies” or “ACs.”

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Section 907.00 to exclude newly-listed SPACs from the definition of Eligible New Listings. In lieu of receiving these services at the time of initial listing, the proposed amended rule would treat a SPAC that remains listed after meeting the Business Combination Condition as an Eligible New Listing and would provide the services to which that status would entitle it for 24 months from the date of meeting the Business Combination Condition.

    The Exchange believes this approach is appropriate in light of the special characteristics of a SPAC. SPACs raise money on a one-time basis and typically trade at a price that is very close to their liquidation value. As such, SPAC managements are typically not focused on their stock price and investor relations to the same degree as operating companies are. As the services provided to Eligible New Listings are targeted in large part on those market-driven concerns of newly-listed operating companies, they are less useful to SPACs. A SPAC that has met the Business Combination Condition, on the other hand, is similarly situated to a newly-formed publicly-traded operating company and the Exchange believes that the services provided to Eligible New Listings will be as relevant and attractive to a SPAC that has met the Business Combination Condition as to the newly-listed operating companies that are generally eligible for those services.

    The Exchange believes that companies will often require a period of time after meeting the Business Combination Condition to complete the contracting and training process with vendors providing the complimentary products and services. Therefore, many companies may not be able to begin using the suite of products offered to them immediately on becoming eligible. To address this issue, the Exchange proposes to specify in Section 907.00 that if a SPAC that has met the Business Combination Condition begins using a particular service within 30 days after the date of meeting the Business Combination Condition, the complimentary period begins on such date of first use. In all other instances, the complimentary period will begin on the date the SPAC meets the Business Combination Condition.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) 7 of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) 8 of the Act in that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to offer complimentary products and services to attract and retain listings and respond to competitive pressures. As SPACs are unlikely to utilize the services available to them currently at the time of initial listing but would likely find those services useful if they remain listed after they meet the Business Combination Condition, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to shift the time when SPACs are eligible for the services available to Eligible New Listings to the period immediately after meeting the Business Combination Condition.

    The Exchange believes that it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide SPACs with the applicable services only if and when they meet the Business Combination Condition. The Exchange recognizes that not all SPACs will meet the Business Combination Condition and that some listed SPACs will therefore never become eligible for the services that would be provided to an otherwise similarly qualified operating company. However, given the specific characteristics of the SPAC structure, these services are generally not of any particular value to a SPAC prior to meeting the Business Combination Condition and the Exchange therefore believes that those SPACs that never qualify for the services will not suffer any meaningful detriment as a consequence.

    Allowing SPACs up to 30 days after meeting the Business Combination Condition to start using the complimentary products and services is a reflection of the Exchange's experience that it can take companies a period of time to review and complete necessary contracts and training for services following their becoming eligible for those services. Allowing this modest 30 day period, if the company needs it, helps ensure that the company will have the benefit of the full period permitted under the rule to actually use the services, thus giving companies the full intended benefit.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In many cases, SPACs will consider transferring to a new listing venue at the time they meet the Business Combination Condition. The proposed rule change enables the Exchange to compete for the retention of these companies by offering them a package of complimentary products and services that assist their transition to being a publicly listed operating company for the first time. All similarly situated companies are eligible for the same package of services. Therefore, the proposed amendment to Section 907.00 will increase competition by enabling the Exchange to more effectively compete for listings.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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-NYSE-2016-58 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-58. 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-NYSE-2016-58 and should be submitted on or before October 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21914 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78780; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-87] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 903 and Rule 900.2NY(50) September 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that on September 6, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 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 Rule 903 and Rule 900.2NY(50). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the filing is to amend Rule 903 and Rule 900.2NY(50), so as to allow the listing and trading of options with Wednesday expirations.

    Currently, under the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays, provided that such Friday is not a Friday in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Series”). The Exchange is now proposing to amend its rule to permit the listing of options expiring on Wednesdays. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that it may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day, series of options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series expire (“Wednesday SPY Expirations”). The proposed Wednesday SPY Expiration series will be similar to the current Short Term Option Series, with certain exceptions, as explained in greater detail below. The Exchange notes that having Wednesday expirations is not a novel proposal. Specifically, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) recently received approval to list Wednesday expirations for broad-based indexes.4 The Commission also recently approved a proposal by the BOX Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”) to list Wednesday expirations for SPY Options.5

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2015-106).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78668 (August 24, 2016), 81 FR 59696 (August 30, 2016) (Order Approving SR-BOX-2016-28).

    In regards to Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange is proposing to remove the current restriction preventing the Exchange from listing Short Term Option Series that expire in the same week in which monthly option series in the same class expire. Specifically, the Exchange will be allowed to list Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same week in which monthly option series in SPY expire. The current restriction to prohibit the expiration of monthly and Short Term Option Series from expiring on the same trading day is reasonable to avoid investor confusion. This confusion will not apply with Wednesday SPY Expirations and standard monthly options because they will not expire on the same trading day, as standard monthly options do not expire on Wednesdays. Additionally, it would lead to investor confusion if Wednesday SPY Expirations were not listed for one week every month because there was a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that week.

    Under the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange may list up to five consecutive Wednesday SPY Expirations at one time. The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Wednesday SPY Expirations listed. This is the same listing procedure as Short Term Option Series that expire on Fridays. The Exchange is also proposing to clarify that the five expiration limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program Rule will not include any Wednesday SPY Expirations. This means, under the proposal, the Exchange would be allowed to list five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday under the current rule and five Wednesday SPY Expirations. The interval between strike prices for the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series. Specifically, the Wednesday SPY Expirations will have $0.50 strike intervals.

    Currently, for each Short Term Option Expiration Date,6 the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class. The thirty (30) series restriction does not include series that are open by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; NYSE Amex may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges. The thirty (30) series restriction shall apply to Wednesday SPY Expiration series as well. In addition, the Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by other exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission to list SPY options expiring on Wednesdays.

    6 The Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). See Rule 903(h).

    As is the case with current Short Term Option Series, the Wednesday SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Wednesday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Friday, which provide market participants a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange seeks to introduce Wednesday SPY Expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Wednesday expirations, similar to Friday expirations, would allow market participants to purchase an option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.

    The Exchange is also amending the definition of Short Term Option Series to make clear that it includes Wednesday expirations. Specifically, the Exchange is amending the definition to expand Short Term Option Series to those listed on any Tuesday or Wednesday and that expire on the Wednesday of the next business week. If a Tuesday or Wednesday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday or Wednesday. The Exchange is also revising portions of the definition that have not been updated to reflect changes in the Short Term Options rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to rename One Week options as Short Term options so that reference to the product is consistent across Rule 900.2NY(50). The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 900.2NY(50) to clarify that Short Term Options may be opened and may expire on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, in addition to Friday which was already a part of the rule. The proposed changes are non-substantive and are intended to add clarity to Exchange rules.

    The Exchange believes that the introduction of Wednesday SPY Expirations will provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the industry.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Wednesday SPY Expirations simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Wednesday SPY Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives. The Exchange believes that allowing Wednesday SPY Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Wednesday SPY Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to Rule 900.2NY(50) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by providing greater clarity to the rule text regarding the listing and trading of Short Term Options on the Exchange.

    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that having Wednesday expirations is not a novel proposal.9 The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to those that the Exchange is currently proposing.

    9See supra, notes 4 and 5.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 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 intention 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.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 12 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that it recently approved BOX's substantially similar proposal to list and trade Wednesday SPY Expirations.13 The Exchange has stated that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to list and trade Wednesday SPY Expirations as soon as possible, and therefore, promote competition among the option exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal effective upon filing.14 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 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.

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    13See supra note 5.

    14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    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-NYSEMKT-2016-87 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-NYSEMKT-2016-87. 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-NYSEMKT-2016-87 and should be submitted on or before October 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21912 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78781; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule September 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 25, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at MIAX's principal office, 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 is proposing to modify the current list of options for which the Exchange assesses the $0.12 per contract Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee (described below), which applies to options overlying DIA, EEM, FB, GDX, GLD, IWM, QQQ, SLV, SPY, USO, UVXY, and VXX (the “designated symbols”), as listed in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange is also proposing to modify the current list of designated symbols for which the Exchange assesses the $0.50 per contract transaction fee applicable to orders executed for the account of non-MIAX market makers in options overlying the designated symbols, and the discounted $0.48 per contract transaction fee with respect to the designated symbols applicable to any Member or its Affiliate that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3 or higher, as discussed below. The Exchange proposes to remove some of the current designated symbols from both the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee and the non-MIAX market maker transaction fees beginning with transactions occurring on or after the proposed September 1, 2016 effective date of this proposed rule change, and to continue to assess the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee and the non-MIAX market maker transaction fees for the remaining symbols for transactions occurring on or after September 1, 2016 and extending through October 31, 2016.3

    3 The Commission notes that in August 2016, the Exchange expanded the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee to include 7 additional symbols. See File No. SR-MIAX-2016-22 (withdrawn) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78681 (August 25, 2016), 81 FR 60077 (August 31, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-28). In the present filing, MIAX has removed those seven additional symbols effective September 1, 2016. Further, the Exchange has proposed to remove the five original symbols after October 31, 2016, which will result in no symbols being subject to the additional $0.12 per contract Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee. With this change, the Commission notes that net transaction fees for removing liquidity on MIAX that are assessed on market makers (i.e., the transaction fee together with the marketing fee and Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee) will no longer exceed $0.50 per contract in classes in the Penny Pilot Program.

    Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee

    Marketing Fees are currently assessed on certain transactions of all MIAX Market Makers.4 Currently, Section (1)(b) of the Fee Schedule provides that the Exchange will assess a Marketing Fee to all Market Makers for contracts, including mini options, they execute in their assigned classes when the contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer. MIAX does not assess a Marketing Fee to Market Makers for contracts executed as a PRIME Agency Order, Contra-side Order, Qualified Contingent Cross Order, PRIME Participating Quote or Order, or a PRIME AOC Response in the PRIME Auction, unless it executes against an unrelated order.

    4See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section (1)(b), entitled “Marketing Fee” for more detail regarding the Marketing Fee.

    The Exchange assesses an additional $0.12 per contract Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee to all Market Makers for any standard options overlying the designated symbols that Market Makers execute in their assigned class when the contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer and the Priority Customer order was posted on the MIAX Book at the time of the execution.5 The Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee is assessed in addition to the current Marketing Fee of $0.25 per contract for standard options overlying the designated symbols that Market Makers execute in their assigned class when the contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer.6

    5 For a complete description of the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73848 (December 16, 2014), 79 FR 76421 (December 22, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-62).

    6See id.

    The Exchange is proposing to remove options overlying DIA, FB, GDX, SLV, USO, UVXY, and VXX from the current Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee. For transactions that occur on or after September 1, 2016 and extending through October 31, 2016, MIAX will continue to assess the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee for transactions in options overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY.

    The Exchange is also proposing to remove options overlying DIA, FB, GDX, SLV, USO, UVXY, and VXX from the list of symbols for which the Exchange assesses a $0.50 per contract transaction fee that currently applies to options overlying the designated symbols executed by non-MIAX market makers, as set forth in Section (1)(a)(ii) of the Fee Schedule at footnote 8 7 The Exchange is proposing to continue to assess the $0.50 per contract non-MIAX market maker transaction fee for transactions in in options overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY that occur on or after September 1, 2016 and extending through October 31, 2016.

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73850 (December 16, 2014), 79 FR 76424 (December 22, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-63) (adopting the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee and $0.50 per contract non-MIAX market maker transaction fee for certain symbols).

    Additionally, with respect to contracts executed by non-MIAX market makers, the Exchange proposes to modify the list of symbols for which the Exchange currently assesses transaction fees to any Member or its Affiliate that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program 8 volume tier 3 or higher. Members or Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tier 3 or higher are currently assessed a discounted transaction fee of $0.45 per contract for standard options in all options classes except for options overlying the designated symbols, for which Members and their Affiliates are assessed a $0.48 per contract transaction fee. The Exchange is proposing to remove options overlying DIA, FB, GDX, SLV, USO, UVXY, and VXX from the list of designated symbols for which the Exchange assesses the $0.48 per contract transaction fee. The Exchange is proposing to continue to assess the $0.48 per contract transaction fee to Members or Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tier 3 or higher for transactions in in options overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY that occur on or after September 1, 2016 and extending through October 31, 2016.

    8 MIAX credits each Member the per contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding QCC Orders, mini-options, Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, PRIME AOC Responses, PRIME Contra-side Orders, PRIME Orders for which both the Agency and Contra-side Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Priority Customer Rebate Program table. See Fee Schedule, Section (1)(a)(iii).

    The current transaction fee of $0.47 per contract for standard options, discounted to $0.45 per contract for any Member or its Affiliate that qualifies for Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tiers 3 or higher (and $0.045 per contract for mini options) 9 assessed to non-MIAX market makers will apply to options overlying symbols that are deleted from the designated symbols. The proposed rule change is scheduled to become effective September 1, 2016.

    9 See Fee Schedule Section (1)(a)(ii).

    2. Statutory Basis

    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and in particular, furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,11 in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities, and 6(b)(5) of the Act,12 in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and (b)(5).

    The proposed modification of the Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee is fair, equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all Market Makers that execute against Priority Customer orders in options overlying the current designated symbols that are resting on the Exchange's Book. All similarly situated Market Makers that execute against Priority Customer orders in options overlying the current designated symbols that are resting on the Exchange's Book are subject to the same marketing fees, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.

    Further, the Exchange's proposed modification of the list of symbols for which the Exchange assesses the $0.50 per contract transaction fee for non-MIAX market makers in options overlying the current designated symbols, and the $0.48 per contract transaction fee for Members or Affiliates in Priority Customer Rebate Program volume tier 3 or higher for options overlying the current designated symbols, is reasonable because the fees and the modification of the list of symbols will apply equally to all non-MIAX market makers submitting orders to the Exchange.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment because it applies equally to all similarly situated MIAX participants.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 14 thereunder. 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 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.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    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-MIAX-2016-30 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-30. 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 such 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-MIAX-2016-30, and should be submitted on or before October 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21913 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2 p.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.

    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and

    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 8, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22035 Filed 9-9-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78779; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2016-127] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.1(b)(41) and Rule 6.4 September 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on September 6, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 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 Rule 6.1(b)(41) and Rule 6.4. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the filing is to amend Rule 6.1(b)(41) and Rule 6.4, so as to allow the listing and trading of options with Wednesday expirations.

    Currently, under the Short Term Option Series Program, the Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays, provided that such Friday is not a Friday in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Series”). The Exchange is now proposing to amend its rule to permit the listing of options expiring on Wednesdays. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing that it may open for trading on any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day, series of options on the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series expire (“Wednesday SPY Expirations”). The proposed Wednesday SPY Expiration series will be similar to the current Short Term Option Series, with certain exceptions, as explained in greater detail below. The Exchange notes that having Wednesday expirations is not a novel proposal. Specifically, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) recently received approval to list Wednesday expirations for broad-based indexes.4 The Commission also recently approved a proposal by the BOX Options Exchange LLC (“BOX”) to list Wednesday expirations for SPY Options.5

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76909 (January 14, 2016), 81 FR 3512 (January 21, 2016) (Order Approving SR-CBOE-2015-106).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78668 (August 24, 2016), 81 FR 59696 (August 30, 2016) (Order Approving SR-BOX-2016-28).

    In regards to Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange is proposing to remove the current restriction preventing the Exchange from listing Short Term Option Series that expire in the same week in which monthly option series in the same class expire. Specifically, the Exchange will be allowed to list Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same week in which monthly option series in SPY expire. The current restriction to prohibit the expiration of monthly and Short Term Option Series from expiring on the same trading day is reasonable to avoid investor confusion. This confusion will not apply with Wednesday SPY Expirations and standard monthly options because they will not expire on the same trading day, as standard monthly options do not expire on Wednesdays. Additionally, it would lead to investor confusion if Wednesday SPY Expirations were not listed for one week every month because there was a monthly SPY expiration on the Friday of that week.

    Under the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations, the Exchange may list up to five consecutive Wednesday SPY Expirations at one time. The Exchange may have no more than a total of five Wednesday SPY Expirations listed. This is the same listing procedure as Short Term Option Series that expire on Fridays. The Exchange is also proposing to clarify that the five expiration limit in the current Short Term Option Series Program Rule will not include any Wednesday SPY Expirations. This means, under the proposal, the Exchange would be allowed to list five Short Term Option Series expirations for SPY expiring on Friday under the current rule and five Wednesday SPY Expirations. The interval between strike prices for the proposed Wednesday SPY Expirations will be the same as those for the current Short Term Option Series. Specifically, the Wednesday SPY Expirations will have $0.50 strike intervals.

    Currently, for each Short Term Option Expiration Date,6 the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for each expiration date for the specific class. The thirty (30) series restriction does not include series that are open by other securities exchanges under their respective short term option rules; NYSE Arca may list these additional series that are listed by other exchanges. The thirty (30) series restriction shall apply to Wednesday SPY Expiration series as well. In addition, the Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by other exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission to list SPY options expiring on Wednesdays.

    6 The Exchange may open for trading on any Thursday or Friday that is a business day series of options on that class that expire on each of the next five Fridays that are business days and are not Fridays in which monthly options series or Quarterly Options Series expire (“Short Term Option Expiration Dates”). See Rule 6.4, Commentary .07.

    As is the case with current Short Term Option Series, the Wednesday SPY Expiration series will be P.M.-settled. The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Wednesday SPY Expirations. The Exchange currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire almost every Friday, which provide market participants a tool to hedge special events and to reduce the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange seeks to introduce Wednesday SPY Expirations to, among other things, expand hedging tools available to market participants and to continue the reduction of the premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Wednesday expirations, similar to Friday expirations, would allow market participants to purchase an option based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor their investment and hedging needs more effectively.

    The Exchange is also amending the definition of Short Term Option Series to make clear that it includes Wednesday expirations. Specifically, the Exchange is amending the definition to expand Short Term Option Series to those listed on any Tuesday or Wednesday and that expire on the Wednesday of the next business week. If a Tuesday or Wednesday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday or Wednesday. The Exchange is also revising portions of the definition that have not been updated to reflect changes in the Short Term Options rules. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to rename One Week options as Short Term options so that reference to the product is consistent across Rule 6.1(b)(41). The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 6.1(b)(41) to clarify that Short Term Options may be opened and may expire on a Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, in addition to Friday which was already a part of the rule. The proposed changes are non-substantive and are intended to add clarity to Exchange rules.

    The Exchange believes that the introduction of Wednesday SPY Expirations will provide investors with a flexible and valuable tool to manage risk exposure, minimize capital outlays, and be more responsive to the timing of events affecting the industry.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 7 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),8 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    In particular, the Exchange believes the Short Term Option Series Program has been successful to date and that Wednesday SPY Expirations simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur throughout the month in the same way that the Short Term Option Series Program has expanded the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Wednesday SPY Expirations should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility, and provide customers with the ability to more closely tailor their investment objectives. The Exchange believes that allowing Wednesday SPY Expirations and monthly SPY expirations in the same week will benefit investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Wednesday SPY Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive changes to Rule 6.1(b)(41) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system by providing greater clarity to the rule text regarding the listing and trading of Short Term Options on the Exchange.

    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in Wednesday SPY Expirations in the same way it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option Series. The Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new options series.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that having Wednesday expirations is not a novel proposal.9 The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as all market participants will be treated in the same manner. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to those that the Exchange is currently proposing.

    9See supra, notes 4 and 5.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    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, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 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 intention 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.

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 12 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission notes that it recently approved BOX's substantially similar proposal to list and trade Wednesday SPY Expirations.13 The Exchange has stated that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to list and trade Wednesday SPY Expirations as soon as possible, and therefore, promote competition among the option exchanges. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other exchanges. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal effective upon filing.14 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 necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or 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.

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    13See supra note 5.

    14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    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-NYSEArca-2016-127 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-NYSEArca-2016-127. 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-NYSEArca-2016-127 and should be submitted on or before October 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21911 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-78777; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-12] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30 To Require Disclosure of Mark-Ups and Mark-Downs to Retail Customers on Certain Principal Transactions and To Provide Guidance on Prevailing Market Price September 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act” or “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 2, 2016 the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB. 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 MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend MSRB Rule G-15, on confirmation, clearance, settlement and other uniform practice requirements with respect to customer transactions, and MSRB Rule G-30, on prices and commissions, (the “proposed rule change”) to require brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers”) to disclose mark-ups and mark-downs to retail customers on certain principal transactions and to provide dealers guidance on prevailing market price for the purpose of calculating mark-ups and mark-downs and other Rule G-30 determinations.

    If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the MSRB will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change no later than 90 days following Commission approval. The effective date will be no later than 365 days following Commission approval.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2016-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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 Proposed Amendments to Rule G-15

    The MSRB is proposing to amend Rule G-15 to require dealers to provide additional pricing information on customer confirmations in connection with specified municipal securities transactions with retail customers. Specifically, if a dealer trades as principal with a retail (i.e., non-institutional) customer in a municipal security, the dealer must disclose the dealer's mark-up or mark-down (collectively, “mark-up,” unless the context requires otherwise) from the prevailing market price for the security on the customer confirmation, if the dealer also executes one or more offsetting principal transaction(s) on the same trading day as the customer, on the same side of the market as the customer, in an aggregate size that meets or exceeds the size of the customer trade.

    Many dealers already are required to disclose additional pricing information to customers for certain types of transactions under certain circumstances. Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-10, dealers effecting equity transactions in which they act in a riskless principal capacity must disclose on the customer confirmation the difference between the price to the customer and the dealer's contemporaneous purchase or sale price.3 Pursuant to Rule G-15, dealers effecting municipal securities transactions in which they act in an agent capacity must disclose on the customer confirmation the amount of remuneration received from the customer in connection with the transaction (i.e., the commission).

    3See 17 CFR 240.10b-10. Under Rule 10b-10, where a broker or dealer is acting as principal for its own account and is not a market maker in an equity security, and receives a customer order in that equity security that it executes by means of a principal trade to offset the contemporaneous trade with the customer, the rule requires the broker or dealer to disclose the difference between the price to the customer and the dealer's contemporaneous purchase (for customer purchases) or sale price (for customer sales). See Rule 10b-10(a)(2)(ii)(A). Where the broker or dealer acts as principal for any other transaction in a defined National Market System stock, or an equity security that is listed on a national securities exchange and is subject to last sale reporting, the rule requires the broker or dealer to report the reported trade price, the price to the customer in the transaction, and the difference, if any, between the reported trade price and the price to the customer. See Rule 10b-10(a)(2)(ii)(B).

    The MSRB has conducted analyses of various data reported to its Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) system 4 in order to evaluate the potential need for the proposed mark-up disclosure rule. Over the period from July 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015 (Q3 2015),5 the average daily number of retail-size 6 customer transactions in the secondary market for municipal securities in which the dealer acted in a principal capacity was 15,538. The transactions were mainly concentrated among large firms. These trades were reported by approximately 700