Federal Register Vol. 81, No.185,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 185 (September 23, 2016)

Page Range65531-65852
FR Document

81_FR_185
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 65634 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Requirements for New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per CylinderPDF
81 FR 65676 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 65676 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 65644 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 65677 - Aerotest Operations, Inc.; Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor; Consideration of Approval of Indirect License Transfer and Conforming AmendmentPDF
81 FR 65709 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping RequirementsPDF
81 FR 65705 - NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-02: Safety-Related Defects and Automated Safety TechnologiesPDF
81 FR 65626 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 249-Pensacola, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; GE Renewables North America, LLC (Wind Turbine Nacelles and Hubs); Pensacola, FloridaPDF
81 FR 65667 - Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Seventeenth Regular Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating Positions for Agenda Items and Species Proposals Submitted by Foreign Governments and the CITES SecretariatPDF
81 FR 65626 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 177-Evansville, Indiana; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Best Chairs, Inc. d/b/a Best Home Furnishings (Upholstered Furniture); Ferdinand, Cannelton and Paoli, IndianaPDF
81 FR 65651 - Medicare Program; Medicare Appeals; Adjustment to the Amount in Controversy Threshold Amounts for Calendar Year 2017PDF
81 FR 65663 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Palliative Care: Conversations Matter® Phase Two Evaluation (National Institute of Nursing Research)PDF
81 FR 65698 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65716 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65703 - Request for Comment on “Federal Automated Vehicles Policy”PDF
81 FR 65673 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 65594 - Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports; Proposed RulePDF
81 FR 65683 - Geologic Trench Excavations for Paleoliquefaction Study at Dyer County, Tennessee SitePDF
81 FR 65692 - Genesee & Wyoming Inc.-Acquisition of Control Exemption-Providence and Worcester Railroad CompanyPDF
81 FR 65677 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures;PDF
81 FR 65676 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Apr 1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 65628 - Procurement List Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 65629 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 65691 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Renaissance and Reformation: German Art in the Age of Dürer and Cranach” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 65552 - Flupyradifurone; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 65633 - Proposed Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 65634 - Notice of Public Scoping, Request for Comment, and Announcement of Public Scoping Meeting for the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Assessment for Project Icebreaker (DOE/EA-2045)PDF
81 FR 65636 - Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for September 2016PDF
81 FR 65692 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Van Gogh: Into the Undergrowth” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 65691 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “The Shimmer of Gold: Giovanni di Paolo in Renaissance Siena” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 65637 - 2016 Fall Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility UnionPDF
81 FR 65653 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65627 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Visitor Centers SurveyPDF
81 FR 65625 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 65574 - Hours of Service of Drivers; Parts and Accessories: ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC, Application for ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 65696 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; CRST ExpeditedPDF
81 FR 65630 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 65651 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 65651 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 65642 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Reinstatement and Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0029)PDF
81 FR 65643 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0025, -0057, -0140 & -0176)PDF
81 FR 65693 - New England Transrail, LLC, D/B/A Wilmington & Woburn Terminal Railway-Construction, Acquisition and Operation Exemption-in Wilmington and Woburn, MassPDF
81 FR 65541 - Method of Accounting for Gains and Losses on Shares in Money Market Funds; Broker Returns With Respect to Sales of Shares in Money Market Funds; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 65692 - Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment FactorPDF
81 FR 65648 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65638 - Consumer Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 65541 - Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 65660 - Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 65702 - Agency Request for Regular Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 65701 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65699 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65672 - Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From China; Revised Schedule for Hearing in Final InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 65542 - Requirement To Notify the IRS of Intent To Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 65658 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BELVIQPDF
81 FR 65653 - Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees; Draft Guidance for the Public, Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Members, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 65656 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MYALEPTPDF
81 FR 65638 - Elimination of Certain System-Generated Paper Correspondence Notices as Initial Step Toward Providing Electronic Access to Correspondence NoticesPDF
81 FR 65655 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FYCOMPAPDF
81 FR 65645 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65622 - J.R. Simplot Company; Availability of Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact, Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Similarity Assessment, and Preliminary Determination for an Extension of a Determination of Nonregulated Status for X17 and Y9 Potato VarietiesPDF
81 FR 65632 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, PortsmouthPDF
81 FR 65716 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 65658 - Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 65624 - White River National Forest; Eagle County, CO; Berlaimont Estates Access Route EISPDF
81 FR 65568 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Windshield-Mounted TechnologiesPDF
81 FR 65661 - Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 65682 - Information Collection: Access AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 65549 - Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, ILPDF
81 FR 65669 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 65676 - Advisory Committee for Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 65548 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VAPDF
81 FR 65545 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New River, Fort Lauderdale, FLPDF
81 FR 65669 - Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service Office of Public Health Temporary Food Event Permit ProgramPDF
81 FR 65674 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65717 - Agency Information Collection (Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.211-73, Brand Name or Equal) Under OMB Review; Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 65615 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization ProgramPDF
81 FR 65694 - Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Highway and Light Rail Improvements in the Sr 32 Corridor Between Us 50 and Ir 275 in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, OhioPDF
81 FR 65536 - Evidence From Excluded Medical Sources of EvidencePDF
81 FR 65592 - Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area ReformPDF
81 FR 65684 - Altegris KKR Commitments Master Fund, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 65689 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the F&O Intraday Risk Management PolicyPDF
81 FR 65631 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 65542 - Payment of Premiums; Late Payment Penalty ReliefPDF
81 FR 65662 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 65661 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 65662 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 65662 - Prospective Grant of Start-Up Exclusive License: Therapeutics for Frontotemporal Dementia, Alzheimer's Disease Excluding Intranasal Delivery, Neuronal Injury (Stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Epilepsy), and Progressive Supranuclear PalsyPDF
81 FR 65664 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 65674 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 65675 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection RequestsPDF
81 FR 65583 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Iowa Towns; Algona, IA; Ankeny, IA; Atlantic, IA; Belle Plane, IA; Creston, IA; Estherville, IA; Grinnell, IA; Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein, IAPDF
81 FR 65595 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant DeteriorationPDF
81 FR 65693 - Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of WaterPDF
81 FR 65626 - Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016PDF
81 FR 65586 - Freedom of Information Act Policies and ProceduresPDF
81 FR 65664 - Revisions to the Public Assistance Program and Policy GuidePDF
81 FR 65558 - Minerals Management: Adjustment of Cost Recovery FeesPDF
81 FR 65668 - Notice of Public Meeting; Western Montana Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 65581 - Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 65623 - Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction EIS-Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Lewis and Clark County, MontanaPDF
81 FR 65531 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Indiana, PAPDF
81 FR 65532 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Falmouth, MAPDF
81 FR 65535 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Glasgow, KYPDF
81 FR 65533 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MDPDF
81 FR 65551 - Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 65695 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Interstate 495 (Long Island Expressway) Rest Area Upgrade Project Between Exits 51 & 52 (Eastbound) in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, New YorkPDF
81 FR 65665 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 65610 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Amendment to Mentor-Protégé Program (DFARS Case 2016-D011)PDF
81 FR 65606 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS Case 2015-D013)PDF
81 FR 65563 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 65567 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Designated Country-Moldova (DFARS Case 2016-D028)PDF
81 FR 65565 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data (DFARS Case 2016-D008)PDF
81 FR 65563 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of Contracting for Military Construction and Military Family Housing Projects (DFARS Case 2015-D040)PDF
81 FR 65719 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential FurnacesPDF
81 FR 65597 - Amendment To Improve Access to Private Land Mobile Radio SpectrumPDF
81 FR 65579 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 65577 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 185 Friday, September 23, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Determination of Nonregulated Status: J.R. Simplot Co., X17 and Y9 Potato Varieties, 65622-65623 2016-22928 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65653 2016-22967 Medicare Programs: Adjustment to the Amount in Controversy Threshold Amounts for Calendar Year 2017, 65651-65653 2016-23002 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Nevada State Advisory Committee, 65625-65626 2016-22965 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 65545-65548 2016-22915 North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA, 65548-65549 2016-22916 Safety Zones: South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL, 65549-65551 2016-22919 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 65628-65630 2016-22979 2016-22980 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65630-65631 2016-22957 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee, 65716 2016-22926 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: New Designated Country—Moldova, 65567-65568 2016-22571 Prohibition on Use of any Cost-Plus System of Contracting for Military Construction and Military Family Housing Projects, 65563-65565 2016-22569 Rights in Technical Data, 65565-65567 2016-22570 Technical Amendments, 65563 2016-22572 PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Mentor-Protégé Program, 65610-65615 2016-22574 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans, 65606-65610 2016-22573 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 65631-65632 2016-22903
Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Annual Information Return/Reports, 65594-65595 2016-22989 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Residential Furnaces, 65720-65852 2016-22080 NOTICES Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth, 65632-65633 2016-22927
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65633-65634 2016-22975 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Project Icebreaker, 65634 2016-22973 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Flupyradifurone, 65552-65557 2016-22976 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 65595-65597 2016-22883 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Information Requirements for New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder, 65634-65636 2016-23149 Certain New Chemicals: Statements of Findings for September 2016, 65636-65637 2016-22972 Meetings: Ozone Transport Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union, 65637-65638 2016-22969 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Falmouth, MA, 65532-65533 2016-22748 Hagerstown, MD, 65533-65535 2016-22744 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Glasgow, KY, 65535-65536 2016-22746 Indiana, PA, 65531-65532 2016-22749 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes, 65581-65583 2016-22831 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 65577-65581 2016-21396 2016-21397 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Algona; Ankeny; Atlantic; Belle Plane; Creston; Estherville; Grinnell; Guthrie Center; Oelwein, IA, 65583-65586 2016-22889 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Amendment to Improve Access to Private Land Mobile Radio Spectrum, 65597-65606 2016-21638 NOTICES Elimination of Certain System-Generated Paper Correspondence Notices as Initial Step toward Providing Electronic Access to Correspondence Notices, 65638-65642 2016-22934 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Committee, 65638 2016-22946 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65642-65644 2016-22953 2016-22954 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 65644-65645 2016-23050 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Revisions to the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, 65664-65665 2016-22859 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform, 65592-65593 2016-22907 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Highway and Light Rail Improvements in the SR 32 Corridor Between US 50 and IR 275 in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, OH, 65694-65695 2016-22910 Final Federal Agency Actions: Proposed Interstate 495 (Long Island Expressway) Rest Area Upgrade Project between Exits 51 and 52 (eastbound) in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, NY, 65695-65696 2016-22700 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65645-65651 2016-22930 2016-22947 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Hours of Service of Drivers; Parts and Accessories: ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC, Application for Exemptions, 65574-65576 2016-22963 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Windshield-Mounted Technologies, 65568-65574 2016-22923 NOTICES Commercial Driver's License Standards; Applications for Exemptions: CRST Expedited, 65696-65698 2016-22961 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65698-65703 2016-22941 2016-22942 2016-22943 2016-22995 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 65651 2016-22956 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies, 65651 2016-22955 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform, 65592-65593 2016-22907 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Meetings: Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 65667-65668 2016-23008 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees, 65653-65655 2016-22936 Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations, 65660-65661 2016-22944 Meetings: Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 65658 2016-22925 Patent Extension Regulatory Review Periods: BELVIQ, 65658-65660 2016-22937 FYCOMPA, 65655-65656 2016-22933 MYALEPT, 65656-65658 2016-22935 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Best Chairs, Inc. d/b/a Best Home Furnishings, Foreign-Trade Zone 177, Evansville, IN, 65626 2016-23005 GE Renewables North America, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 249, Pensacola, FL, 65626 2016-23009 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Lewis and Clark County, MT; Withdrawal, 65623-65624 2016-22780 White River National Forest; Eagle County, CO Berlaimont Estates Access Route, 65624-65625 2016-22924 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 65665-65667 2016-22584 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service, 65661 2016-22922 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property; Correction, 65541 2016-22945 Method of Accounting for Gains and Losses on Shares in Money Market Funds: Broker Returns with Respect to Sales of Shares in Money Market Funds; Correction, 65541-65542 2016-22950 Requirement To Notify the IRS of Intent To Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization; Correction, 65542 2016-22939 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China; Recission, 65626-65627 2016-22878 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same, 65673-65674 2016-22991 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from China, 65672 2016-22940 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Land Land Management Bureau RULES Minerals Management: Adjustment of Cost Recovery Fees, 65558-65563 2016-22841 NOTICES Meetings: Western Montana Resource Advisory Council, 65668 2016-22840 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Office of Government Information Services

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65674-65675 2016-22913 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, 65703-65705 2016-22993 Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements, 65709-65716 2016-23013 Guidance: Safety-Related Defects and Automated Safety Technologies, 65705-65709 2016-23010 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Palliative Care—Conversations Matter Phase Two Evaluation, 65663-65664 2016-22998 Meetings: National Cancer Institute, 65664 2016-22896 National Eye Institute, 65662 2016-22898 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 65661-65662 2016-22899 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 65662 2016-22900 Prospective Grant of Start-up Exclusive License: Therapeutics for Frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, 65662-65663 2016-22897 National Mediation National Mediation Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65675-65676 2016-22892 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program, 65615-65621 2016-22911 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Visitor Centers Survey, 65627-65628 2016-22966 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Park Service Office of Public Health Temporary Food Event Permit Program, 65669-65672 2016-22914 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 65669 2016-22918 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Engineering, 65676 2016-22917 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 65676 2016-23107 2016-23108 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65682-65683 2016-22920 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.:, 65683-65684 2016-22987 Indirect License Transfer and Conforming Amendment: Aerotest Operations, Inc.; Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor, 65677-65682 2016-23016 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 65677 2016-22984 OGIS Office of Government Information Services NOTICES Meetings: Freedom of Information Act Advisory Committee, 65674 2016-22893 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Payment of Premiums: Late Payment Penalty Relief, 65542-65545 2016-22901 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Altegris KKR Commitments Master Fund, et al., 65684-65689 2016-22905 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: ICE Clear Europe Ltd., 65689-65691 2016-22904 Social Social Security Administration RULES Evidence from Excluded Medical Sources of Evidence, 65536-65541 2016-22909 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Renaissance and Reformation—German Art in the Age of Durer and Cranach, 65691 2016-22977 The Shimmer of Gold—Giovanni di Paolo in Renaissance Siena, 65691-65692 2016-22970 Van Gogh—Into the Undergrowth, 65692 2016-22971 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Acquisition of Control Exemptions: Genesee and Wyoming Inc., 65692 2016-22985 Construction, Acquisitions and Operation Exemptions: New England Transrail, LLC, D/B/A Wilmington and Woburn Terminal Railway in Wilmington and Woburn, MA, 65693 2016-22952 Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor, 65692 2016-22949 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Projects Approved for Consumptive Uses of Water, 65693-65694 2016-22879 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States PROPOSED RULES Freedom of Information Act Policies and Procedures, 65586-65592 2016-22863 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65716-65717 2016-22994
Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Amendments, 65551-65552 2016-22732 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 65717-65718 2016-22912 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 65720-65852 2016-22080 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.

81 185 Friday, September 23, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6138; Airspace Docket No. 16-AEA-3] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Indiana, PA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E Airspace at Indiana, PA, to accommodate the new runway at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field). This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), Indiana, PA.

History

On June 24, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), Indiana, PA, (81 FR 41279) Docket No. FAA-2016-6138, to accommodate the new runway at the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile radius of Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), Indiana, PA, with a segment extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 13.6 miles east of the airport.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary to support the new runway, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA PA E5 Indiana, PA [Amended] Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), PA (Lat. 40°37′52″ N., long. 79°06′05″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.2-mile radius of Indiana County Airport (Jimmy Stewart Field), and within 2-miles each side of the 096° bearing of the airport, extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 13.6 miles east of the airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 7, 2016. Joey L. Medders, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-22749 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Falmouth, MA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, (formerly Otis ANGB), Falmouth, MA, as the Otis TACAN has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport in the existing Class D and E airspace areas, as well as Falmouth Airpark, Barnstable Municipal Airport-Boardman/Polando Field, Chatham Municipal Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, (formerly Martha's Vineyard Municipal Airport), and the BOGEY LOM.

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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On June 21, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA, (81 FR 40215) Docket No. FAA-2016-5444 as the Otis TACAN has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the geographic coordinates of the BOGEY LOM were incorrect. This action makes the correction.

Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA, realigning the segment extensions from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6 miles northeast, 6 miles southeast, 7 miles southwest, and 6 miles northwest of the airport. Additionally, this action notes adjustment of the geographic coordinates of the above airport, as well as Falmouth Airpark, Barnstable Municipal Airport-Boardman/Polando Field, Chatham Municipal Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, and corrects the BOGEY LOM navigation aid, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. Also, this action recognizes the name change of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, (formerly OTIS ANGB), and Martha's Vineyard Airport, (formerly Martha's Vineyard Municipal Airport).

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANE MA D Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.) Falmouth Airpark (Lat. 41°35′08″ N., long. 70°32′25″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Falmouth Airpark.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ANE MA E4 Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles each side of the 55° bearing from the Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 143° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 6 miles southeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 234° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 323° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 6 miles northwest of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE MA E5 Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.) Barnstable Municipal Airport Boardman/Polando Field (Lat. 41°40′10″ N., long. 70°16′49″ W.) Chatham Municipal Airport (Lat. 41°41′18″ N., long. 69°59′23″ W.) Martha's Vineyard Airport (Lat. 41°23′36″ N., long. 70°36′50″ W.) Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME (Lat. 41°23′46″ N., long. 70°36′46″ W.) BOGEY LOM (Lat. 41°42′58″ W., long. 70°12′11″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.2-mile radius of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Barnstable Municipal Airport, and within 3 miles each side of the BOGEY LOM 050° bearing extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of the BOGEY LOM, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Chatham Municipal Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Martha's Vineyard Airport, and within 5.1 miles on each side of the 052° radial of Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 14 miles northeast of Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 7, 2016. Joey L. Medders, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-22748 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4513; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-8] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MD AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status for Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD, for the safety and management of IFR operations. Also, this action recognizes the name change to Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, (formerly Washington County Regional Airport), Hagerstown, MD, and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport listed in Class D and E airspace.

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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On February 4, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area at Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD, (81 FR 5949) Docket No. FAA-2015-4513, by eliminating the NOTAM information, and changing the airport name and geographic coordinates. This action also amends the Class E Surface Area Airspace, previously omitted, for the airport. 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 and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E Airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area at Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD, by eliminating the NOTAM information from the regulatory text that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” This action also changes the airport name and ILS Localizer from Washington County Regional Airport to Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, and adjusts the geographic coordinates of the airport in existing Class D and Class E Airspace.

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. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA MD D Hagerstown, MD [Amended] Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, MD (Lat. 39°42′31″ N., long. 77°43′35″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,200 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA MD E2 Hagerstown, MD [Amended] Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, MD (Lat. 39°42′31″ N., long. 77°43′35″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times when the Class D airspace area, as published in the Chart Supplement, is not in effect.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA MD E4 Hagerstown, MD [Amended] Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, MD (Lat. 39°42′31″ N., long. 77°43′35″ W.) Hagerstown VOR (Lat. 39°41′52″ N., long. 77°51′21″ W.) Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A Henson Field ILS Runway 27 Localizer (Lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 237° radial and 057° radial extending from 7.4 miles southwest of the VOR to 1.8 miles northeast of the VOR, and within 2.7 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 082° radial extending from the 4.1-mile radius of Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A Henson Field to the VOR, and within 4 miles each side of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 localizer course extending from the localizer to 11.8 miles east of the localizer, excluding that portion within Prohibited Area P-40.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA MD E5 Hagerstown, MD [Amended] Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, MD (Lat. 39°42′31″ N., long. 77°43′35″ W.) Hagerstown VOR (Lat. 39°41′52″ N., long. 77°51′21″ W.) St. Thomas VORTAC (Lat. 39°56′00″ N., long. 77°57′03″ W.) Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 Localizer (Lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, and within 3.1 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 237° radial and 057° radial extending from 9.6 miles southwest of the VOR to 2.7 miles northeast of the VOR, and within 4.4 miles each side of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 localizer course extending from the localizer to 12.6 miles east of the localizer, and within 4.4 miles each side of the St. Thomas VORTAC 141° radial extending from the 6.6-mile radius to the St. Thomas VORTAC, excluding that portion within Prohibited Area P-40.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 7, 2016. Joey L. Medders, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-22744 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6134; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-8] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Glasgow, KY AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class E Airspace at Glasgow, KY as the Beaver Creek Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Glasgow Municipal Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the airport.

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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On June 21, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 40217) Docket No. FAA-2016-6134, to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Glasgow Municipal Airport, Glasgow, KY, as the Beaver Creek Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 7.4-mile radius of Glasgow Municipal Airport, Glasgow, KY, and removes the segment extending 7 miles west of the NDB. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Beaver Creek NDB, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Glasgow, KY [Amended] Glasgow Municipal Airport, KY (Lat. 37°01′54″ N., long. 85°57′13″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Glasgow Municipal Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 7, 2016. Joey L. Medders, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-22746 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2016-0015] RIN 0960-AH92 Evidence From Excluded Medical Sources of Evidence AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

ACTION:

Final rules.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with section 812 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA section 812), these rules explain how we will address evidence furnished by medical sources that meet one of BBA section 812's exclusionary categories (excluded medical sources of evidence) as described below. Under these new rules, we will not consider evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence unless we find good cause to do so. We identify five circumstances in which we may find good cause. In these rules, we also require excluded medical sources of evidence to notify us of their excluded status under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (Act), as amended, in writing each time they furnish evidence to us that relates to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. These rules will allow us to fulfill obligations that we have under BBA section 812.

DATES:

These final rules will be effective on November 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan O'Brien, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, (410) 597-1632. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 10, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which we proposed to implement BBA section 812 by adding new sections to our rules that would explain when we would not consider evidence from an excluded medical source of evidence under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended.1 We also identified five circumstances in which we proposed to find good cause to consider evidence that would otherwise be excluded. In addition, we proposed to require that excluded medical sources of evidence notify us of their excluded status under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, in writing, each time they furnish evidence to us in relation to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. We are adopting these proposed rules as final rules.

1 Public Law 114-74, sec. 812, 129 Stat. 584, 602; 81 FR 37557.

Congress enacted the BBA on November 2, 2015.2 BBA section 812 amended section 223(d)(5) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5), by adding a new paragraph “C.” Under this provision, when we make a disability determination or decision or when we conduct a continuing disability review (CDR) under titles II or XVI of the Act, we cannot consider evidence furnished by certain medical sources unless we have good cause.3 Under these new rules, we may find good cause to consider evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence in the following five situations:

2 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

3 Public Law 114-74, sec. 812, 129 Stat. 584, 602. The exclusion of evidence under BBA section 812 does not constitute an exclusion of a medical source from Social Security programs under section 1136 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1320b-6.

• The evidence furnished by the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source was convicted of a felony under section 208 or under section 1632 of the Act;

• the evidence furnished by the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred during a period in which the source was not excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act;

• the evidence furnished by the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source received a final decision imposing a civil monetary penalty (CMP), assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act;

• the sole basis for the medical source's exclusion under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, is that the source cannot participate in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act, but the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS' OIG) granted a waiver of the section 1128 exclusion; or

• the evidence is a laboratory finding about a physical impairment and there is no indication that the finding is unreliable.

We may find good cause to consider evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence in any of these five enumerated situations when we make a disability determination or decision or when we conduct a CDR.

As we stated in our NPRM, our long-term solution to the administration of BBA section 812 is to implement automated evidence matching within our case processing system(s) to identify excludable evidence. As part of our efforts to comply with BBA section 812's implementation deadline of November 2, 2016, we will require that excluded medical sources of evidence inform us in writing of the facts or event(s) triggering BBA section 812 each time they submit evidence to us that relates to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act.

Regarding the content of the written statement, excluded medical sources of evidence will be required to include a heading that states,

WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING SECTION 223(d)(5)(C) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT—DO NOT REMOVE. Immediately following this heading, sources will also need to include their name, title, and the applicable event(s) that triggered the application of BBA section 812. Sources convicted of a felony under section 208 or 1632 of the Act will also need to provide the date of their felony conviction. Similarly, sources that have been imposed with a CMP, an assessment, or both for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act will need to provide the date of the final imposition of the CMP, assessment, or both. Sources that cannot participate in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act will need to include the basis for the exclusion, its effective date and anticipated length, and whether HHS' OIG waived it.

Our reporting requirement will apply only to excluded medical sources of evidence that furnish evidence to us directly or indirectly through a representative, claimant, or other individual or entity. Further, we will require that no individual or entity be permitted to remove an excluded medical source of evidence's written statement prior to submitting the source's evidence to us. We also reserve the right to request that excluded medical sources of evidence provide additional information or clarify any information they submit regarding the circumstances or events that trigger section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended. If excluded medical sources of evidence do not inform us of their excluded status, we may refer them to our Office of the Inspector General for any action it deems appropriate, including investigation and CMP pursuit.

Additional information and discussion can be found in the preamble to our NPRM.4

4 81 FR 37557.

Public Comments and Discussion

On June 10, 2016, we published an NPRM in the Federal Register at 81 FR 37557 and provided a 60-day comment period. We received six timely submitted comments that addressed issues within the scope of our proposed rules. Below, we present all of the views received and address all of the relevant and significant issues raised by the commenters. We carefully considered the concerns expressed in these comments, but did not make any changes to our rules as a result of the comments.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern about our excluding evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence relating to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. The commenter asserted that such a procedure is inconsistent with the rules of evidence of most states and the Federal courts. Specifically, the commenter stated that “[t]ypically, the question is not whether the opinion is admissible, but what weight should be given to each opinion.”

Response: Our disability determination procedures are governed by the Act and the rules we issue under the authority mandated in the Act, rather than the rules of evidence in State or Federal court.5 Section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended by BBA section 812, mandates that, absent good cause, we may not consider evidence furnished by certain sources of evidence. Our new rules identify the five situations where we may find good cause to consider evidence furnished by excluded medical sources of evidence. The rules we are adopting here are required by, and are consistent with, section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act.

5 Section 205 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 405; 20 CFR 404.1501, et seq., 416.901, et seq. Under section 205(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(b)(1), the rules of evidence that apply in court proceedings do not apply to our determinations or decisions.

Comment: One commenter generally approved of our rules, but sought clarification about whether we would impose sanctions against an excluded medical source of evidence prior to the source's conviction.

Response: These rules do not impose sanctions on excludable medical sources of evidence prior to the source's conviction or other excludable event. These rules, however, do not in any way limit our ability to seek to impose sanctions under other authority granted by the Act or our rules. As required by section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, our new rules require us to exclude evidence furnished by excluded medical sources of evidence unless we find good cause to consider that evidence. They also require excluded medical sources of evidence to inform us in writing of their excluded status each time they submit evidence related to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act, prohibit any other individual or entity from removing that written statement prior to submitting the source's evidence to us, and permit us to seek clarification or additional information from the excluded medical source of evidence regarding that written statement. Additionally, nothing in these new rules affects our ability under sections 404.988(c)(1) and 416.1488(c) of our rules, 20 CFR 404.988(c)(1), 416.1488(c), to reopen at any time a determination or decision obtained by fraud or similar fault.

Comment: One commenter asked how we would handle evidence furnished by a medical source that later became an excluded medical source of evidence.

Response: Our good cause exceptions are relevant to this comment. We will consider evidence furnished by a medical source that later becomes an excluded medical source of evidence if that treatment occurred (1) before the source was convicted of a felony under sections 208 or 1632 of the Act, (2) outside the period the source was excluded from participating in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act, or (3) before the source received a final decision imposing a CMP, assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act. If a medical source later becomes an excluded medical source of evidence and furnishes additional evidence to us, the source will be required to include a written statement of excluded status with the additional furnished evidence.

Comment: One commenter sought clarification about whether we would notify a claimant of our exclusion of evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence where no good cause exception applied.

Response: We will use the appropriate determination or decisional notice to inform a claimant of our exclusion of evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence where no good cause exception applies.

Comment: Three commenters generally supported our rules, but they requested that we expand the scope of our fifth good cause exception, which permits us to consider laboratory findings about a physical impairment when there is no indication that the findings are unreliable. The commenters proposed that we expand the scope of this exception to include laboratory findings about a mental impairment and signs about physical or mental impairments.

Response: We are not adopting the requests that we expand the scope of our fifth good cause exception from laboratory findings about a physical impairment to laboratory findings about a physical or mental impairment and signs about a physical or mental impairment. We are not including signs in this exception because they require more subjective interpretation by an excluded medical source of evidence than do laboratory findings about physical impairments. Laboratory findings are based on the use of medically acceptable diagnostic techniques, including blood tests, biopsies, and x-rays. Signs, in contrast, are abnormalities that can be observed apart from a claimant's statements. They would include, for example, an excluded medical source of evidence's observation and report that a claimant walked with a limp, had decreased range of motion, or showed decreased strength. We believe that including these types of observations and reports in our fifth good cause exception would not be in keeping with section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended by BBA section 812. Generally, the events that trigger application of BBA section 812 (felony conviction under section 208 or 1632; exclusion under section 1128, or CMP for submitting false evidence under section 1129) can be viewed as implicating issues of honesty, integrity, and professional conduct and competence. For example, medical sources that fall under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, include sources (1) convicted of a felony under section 208 or 1632 of the Act for making a false statement of material fact used to determine a claimant's right to a disability payment, (2) excluded from participating in any Federal health care program under section 1128(a)(3) of the Act based on a felony conviction related to health care fraud, and (3) imposed with a CMP for submitting false evidence to us. Thus, because signs rely more heavily on what the excluded medical source of evidence observes and reports than laboratory findings do, we believe it would be inappropriate to include them in our fifth good cause exception.

We also note that we are not entirely barring signs furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence. If such evidence meets one or more of the other enumerated good cause exceptions, we may consider that evidence.

For similar reasons, we also believe it would be inappropriate to add laboratory findings about a mental impairment to the fifth good cause exception. As we previously stated, we created a good cause exception for laboratory findings about a physical impairment because we believe such findings to be objective, reliable, and reproducible tests that require the least amount of subjective interpretation by a medical source. In contrast, our rules explain that standardized psychological tests consist of “standardized sets of tasks or questions designed to elicit a range of responses.” 6 As such, we believe these tests do not have the same level of reproducibility as laboratory findings about a physical impairment because they require more subjective interpretation by the excluded medical source of evidence. Specifically, the excluded medical source of evidence has to ask the questions or direct the tasks, observe the responses, and accurately report those responses. Conversely, laboratory findings related to a physical impairment include tests such as blood tests, biopsies, and x-rays, which we believe to be more reproducible by medical sources not subject to section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, because they require little subjective interpretation. Thus, similar to signs, because standardized psychological tests may depend, at least in part, on what the excluded medical source of evidence observes and reports than do laboratory findings about a physical impairment, we believe they are less reproducible and should not be included in our fifth good cause exception.

6 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, app. 1, section 12.00D.5.b.

In addition, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that we would exclude a laboratory finding about a physical impairment in the evaluation of a mental impairment. Nothing in this good cause exception limits how or for what purpose we may consider evidence to which the exception applies. Absent any evidence of unreliability, we may use laboratory findings about a physical impairment as appropriate, including but not limited to, evaluating the severity of a claimant's mental impairment(s).

As is the case for signs, we are not entirely barring laboratory findings about a mental impairment furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence. If such evidence meets one or more of the other enumerated good cause exceptions, we may consider that evidence.

Finally, we note that even though we will be required to exclude evidence unless a good cause exception applies, section 223(d)(5)(C) of the Act, as amended by BBA section 812, does not limit our ability to purchase a consultative examination, if appropriate under our rules.7

7 20 CFR 404.1519a, 404.1519b, 416.919a, 416.919b.

Comment: Three commenters asked us to clarify several points related to our rules. They first sought clarification that we would automatically apply good cause exceptions when circumstances dictated, and that a claimant or representative would not need to request that we apply an exception.

Response: We will automatically apply the good cause exceptions. In our rules, we specifically state in subsection (a) that we will not consider evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence unless we find good cause. Likewise, in subsection (b), which sets forth the good cause exceptions, we again state that we may find good cause, and therefore apply the applicable exception.

Comment: Second, the commenters asked us to explain how we would notify claimants and representatives about our exclusion of evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence so that they could contest the exclusion.

Response: We will use the appropriate determination or decisional notice to inform a claimant and representative of our evaluation of evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence. A claimant or representative may raise in a request for reconsideration, hearing before an administrative law judge, or Appeals Council review, an issue regarding our evaluation of this evidence.

Comment: Third, the commenters requested that we clarify that we would hold claimants and representatives harmless if they submitted evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence that did not include the written statement required under our rules, even if it was later determined that such a statement should have been included.

Response: We generally agree with the commenters that we would not hold a claimant or representative responsible for submitting evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence that did not include the written statement required under our rules, even if it was later determined that such a statement should have been included. We reiterate, however, that no individual or entity may remove the written statement required under our rules prior to submitting evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence to us. We further make clear that should a claimant or representative violate this provision, we reserve the right to take any appropriate actions under any relevant statute, regulation, ruling, or procedural policy.

Comment: Two of the commenters asked that we create a public list of excluded medical sources of evidence that would also include treatment dates for each source that might be subject to a good cause exception. The commenters reasoned, “This will be of assistance to claimants who are deciding which providers to use or attempting to assess the viability of their claims.”

Response: We are not adopting the suggestion for several reasons. First, we are not the originating source of information about individuals or entities that are convicted of felonies under sections 208 or 1632 of the Act; excluded from participating in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act; and subject to CMPs, assessments, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act. BBA section 812 requires our OIG and HHS to transmit information to us related to excluded medical sources of evidence. Therefore, if we were to create such a list, there would be risk that we could not update it regularly or quickly enough to reflect additions or removals as they happen. Further, even if a provider is an excluded medical source of evidence, we may consider evidence from that source under our fifth good cause exception—laboratory findings about a physical impairment where there is no indication of unreliability. Creating a list of excluded sources could prove disadvantageous to claimants because it would not include information pertaining to this fifth good cause exception, which depends on a particular type of evidence, not when the evidence is dated. Hence, we are not adopting this suggestion.

Comment: One commenter suggested that we add a sixth, catch-all, good cause exception to be used at our discretion.

Response: We are not adopting the commenter's suggestion that we add a sixth, catch-all good cause exception to be used at our discretion. Section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended by BBA section 812, prohibits us from considering evidence furnished by an excluded medical source of evidence unless we find good cause to do so. We believe that a broad, catch-all exception would be inconsistent with section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended. Instead, we believe the five good cause exceptions that we have enumerated in our rules strike the appropriate balance between complying with section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, and permitting claimants to prove that they are disabled under our rules.

Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that these rules do not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB has not reviewed them.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that these rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only economic impact on small entities from these rules results from BBA section 812's requirement that we not consider evidence furnished by excluded medical sources of evidence. As described above and in our Paperwork Reduction Act statement, below, we will require excluded medical sources of evidence to provide us with a brief self-report containing basic information each time they furnish evidence related to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

Paperwork Reduction Act

On June 10, 2016, when SSA published an NPRM at 81 FR 37557 for the provisions we are now finalizing in this rule, we also solicited comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act for an associated Information Collection Request (ICR). In that solicitation, we asked for comment on the burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize the burden on respondents, including the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology. We did not receive any public comments in response to this solicitation, and we are not making any changes to the ICR. Accordingly, we are re-submitting the ICR to OMB, and are requesting approval for it under the Paperwork Reduction Act after publication of the Final Rule.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; and 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.

20 CFR Part 416

Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR part 404 subpart P and part 416 subpart I as set forth below:

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950-) Subpart P—Determining Disability and Blindness 1. The authority citation for subpart P of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a), (i), and (j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a), (i), and (j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

2. Add § 404.1503b to read as follows:
§ 404.1503b Evidence from excluded medical sources of evidence.

(a) General. We will not consider evidence from the following medical sources excluded under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (Act), as amended, unless we find good cause under paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Any medical source that has been convicted of a felony under section 208 or under section 1632 of the Act;

(2) Any medical source that has been excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act; or

(3) Any medical source that has received a final decision imposing a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act.

(b) Good cause. We may find good cause to consider evidence from an excluded medical source of evidence under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, if:

(1) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source was convicted of a felony under section 208 or under section 1632 of the Act;

(2) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred during a period in which the source was not excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act;

(3) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source received a final decision imposing a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act;

(4) The sole basis for the medical source's exclusion under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, is that the source cannot participate in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act, but the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services granted a waiver of the section 1128 exclusion; or

(5) The evidence is a laboratory finding about a physical impairment and there is no indication that the finding is unreliable.

(c) Reporting requirements for excluded medical sources of evidence. Excluded medical sources of evidence (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) must inform us in writing that they are excluded under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, each time they submit evidence related to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. This reporting requirement applies to evidence that excluded medical sources of evidence submit to us either directly or through a representative, claimant, or other individual or entity.

(1) Excluded medical sources of evidence must provide a written statement, which contains the following information:

(i) A heading stating: “WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING SECTION 223(d)(5)(C) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT—DO NOT REMOVE”

(ii) The name and title of the medical source;

(iii) The applicable excluding event(s) stated in paragraph (a)(1)-(a)(3) of this section;

(iv) The date of the medical source's felony conviction under sections 208 or 1632 of the Act, if applicable;

(v) The date of the imposition of a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for the submission of false evidence, under section 1129 of the Act, if applicable; and

(vi) The basis, effective date, anticipated length of the exclusion, and whether the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services waived the exclusion, if the excluding event was the medical source's exclusion from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act.

(2) The written statement provided by an excluded medical source of evidence may not be removed by any individual or entity prior to submitting evidence to us.

(3) We may request that the excluded medical source of evidence provide us with additional information or clarify any information submitted that bears on the medical source's exclusion(s) under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended.

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart I—Determining Disability and Blindness 3. The authority citation for subpart I of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 221(m), 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614, 1619, 1631(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 421(m), 902(a)(5), 1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), (d)(1), and (p), and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)-(e), 14(a), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801, 1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note, and 1382h note).

4. Add § 416.903b to read as follows:
§ 416.903b Evidence from excluded medical sources of evidence.

(a) General. We will not consider evidence from the following medical sources excluded under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (Act), as amended, unless we find good cause under paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Any medical source that has been convicted of a felony under section 208 or under section 1632 of the Act;

(2) Any medical source that has been excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act; or

(3) Any medical source that has received a final decision imposing a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act.

(b) Good cause. We may find good cause to consider evidence from an excluded medical source of evidence under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, if:

(1) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source was convicted of a felony under section 208 or under section 1632 of the Act;

(2) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred during a period in which the source was not excluded from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act;

(3) The evidence from the medical source consists of evidence of treatment that occurred before the date the source received a final decision imposing a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for submitting false evidence under section 1129 of the Act;

(4) The sole basis for the medical source's exclusion under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, is that the source cannot participate in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act, but the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services granted a waiver of the section 1128 exclusion; or

(5) The evidence is a laboratory finding about a physical impairment and there is no indication that the finding is unreliable.

(c) Reporting requirements for excluded medical sources of evidence. Excluded medical sources of evidence (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) must inform us in writing that they are excluded under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended, each time they submit evidence related to a claim for initial or continuing benefits under titles II or XVI of the Act. This reporting requirement applies to evidence that excluded medical sources of evidence submit to us either directly or through a representative, claimant, or other individual or entity.

(1) Excluded medical sources of evidence must provide a written statement, which contains the following information:

(i) A heading stating: “WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING SECTION 223(d)(5)(C) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT—DO NOT REMOVE”

(ii) The name and title of the medical source;

(iii) The applicable excluding event(s) stated in paragraph (a)(1)-(a)(3) of this section;

(iv) The date of the medical source's felony conviction under sections 208 or 1632 of the Act, if applicable;

(v) The date of the imposition of a civil monetary penalty or assessment, or both, for the submission of false evidence, under section 1129 of the Act, if applicable; and

(vi) The basis, effective date, anticipated length of the exclusion, and whether the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services waived the exclusion, if the excluding event was the medical source's exclusion from participation in any Federal health care program under section 1128 of the Act.

(2) The written statement provided by an excluded medical source of evidence may not be removed by any individual or entity prior to submitting evidence to us.

(3) We may request that the excluded medical source of evidence provide us with additional information or clarify any information submitted that bears on the medical source's exclusion(s) under section 223(d)(5)(C)(i) of the Act, as amended.

[FR Doc. 2016-22909 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9776] RIN 1545-BM74 Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Temporary regulations; correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to temporary regulations (TD 9776) that were published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47701). The temporary regulations provide guidance regarding the income inclusion rules under section 50(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that are applicable to a lessee of investment credit property when a lessor of such property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property.

DATES:

This correction is effective on September 23, 2016 and applicable on July 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Records at (202) 317-6853 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The temporary regulations (TD 9776) that are the subject of this correction are under section 50 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the temporary regulations (TD 9776) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

§ 1.50-1T [Amended]
Par. 2. In § 1.50-1T: 1. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) is amended by removing the language “ “Investment Credit”,” and adding “ “Investment Credit,” ” in its place. 2. Paragraph (e) Example 1. and 3. are amended by removing the language “July 1, 2016.” and adding “October 1, 2016.” in its place. 3. Paragraph (e) Example 2. is amended by removing the language “paragraph (e).” and adding “paragraph (e),” in its place. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2016-22945 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9774] RIN 1545-BM04 Method of Accounting for Gains and Losses on Shares in Money Market Funds; Broker Returns With Respect to Sales of Shares in Money Market Funds; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9774) that were published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44508). The final regulations provide a simplified method of accounting for gains and losses on shares in money market funds (MMFs). The final regulations also provide guidance regarding information reporting requirements for shares in MMFs.

DATES:

This correction is effective on September 23, 2016 and applicable on July 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Grace Cho at (202) 317-6895 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The final regulations (TD 9774) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 446, and 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations (TD 9774) contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9774), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2016-16149, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 44512, in the preamble, the first column, under the heading “7. Accounting Method Changes”, the ninth line of the second full paragraph, the language “Proc. 2016-39 (2016-30 IRB), which” is corrected to read “Proc. 2016-39 (2016-30 IRB 164), which”.

Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2016-22950 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 [TD 9775] RIN 1545-BN26 Requirement To Notify the IRS of Intent To Operate as a Section 501(c)(4) Organization; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final and temporary regulations; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to final and temporary regulations (TD 9775) that were published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45008). The final and temporary regulations are relating to the requirement, added by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, that organizations must notify the IRS of their intent to operate under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES:

This correction is effective on September 23, 2016 and applicable on July 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chelsea Rubin at (202) 317-5800 (not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final and temporary regulations (TD 9775) that are the subject of this correction are under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9775) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9775), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2016-16338, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 45010, in the preamble, the first column, the tenth line of the second full paragraph, the language “2016-41, 2016-30 IRB xxxx, which” is corrected to read “2016-41, 2016-30 IRB 165, which”.

2. On page 45010, in the preamble, the third column, under the paragraph heading “5. Separate Procedure by Which an Organization May Request an IRS Determination That It Qualifies for Section 501(c)(4) Exempt Status”, the twenty-first line of the first full paragraph, the language “prescribed in Revenue Procedure 2016-” is corrected to read “prescribed in Rev. Proc. 2016-”.

Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2016-22939 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4007 RIN 1212-AB32 Payment of Premiums; Late Payment Penalty Relief AGENCY:

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is lowering the rates of penalty charged for late payment of premiums by all plans, and providing a waiver of most of the penalty for plans with a demonstrated commitment to premium compliance.

DATES: 

Effective date: This rule is effective on October 24, 2016.

Applicability date: The changes made by this rule apply to late premium payments for plan years beginning after 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy, Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs ([email protected]), Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington DC 20005-4026; 202-326-4400 extension 3451. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400 extension 3451.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This final rule is needed to reduce the financial burden of PBGC's late premium penalties. The rulemaking reduces penalty rates for all plans and waives most of the penalty for plans that meet a standard for good compliance with premium requirements.

PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA, and section 4007 of ERISA, which gives PBGC authority to assess late payment penalties.

Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

The penalty for late payment of a premium is a percentage of the amount paid late multiplied by the number of full or partial months the amount is late, subject to a floor of $25 (or the amount of premium paid late, if less). There are two levels of penalty, which heretofore have been 1 percent per month (with a 50 percent cap) and 5 percent per month (capped at 100 percent). The lower rate applies to “self-correction”—that is, where the premium underpayment is corrected before PBGC gives notice that there is or may be an underpayment. This final rule cuts the rates and caps in half (to 1/2 percent with a 25 percent cap and 21/2 percent with a 50 percent cap, respectively) and eliminates the floor.

The rulemaking also creates a new penalty waiver that applies to underpayments by plans with good compliance histories if corrected promptly after notice from PBGC. PBGC will waive 80 percent of the penalty assessed for such a plan.

Background

PBGC administers the pension plan termination insurance program under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA sections 4006 and 4007, plans covered by title IV must pay premiums to PBGC. PBGC's premium regulations—on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) and on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007)—implement ERISA sections 4006 and 4007.

ERISA section 4007(b)(1) provides that if a premium is not paid when due, PBGC is authorized to assess a penalty up to 100 percent of the overdue amount. The statute does not condition exercise of this authority on a finding of bad faith or lack of due care; it is solely based on the failure to pay.1 However, the fact that assessment is authorized (rather than mandated)—and thus that PBGC could choose not to exercise the authority at all—indicates that PBGC has the flexibility to assess less than the full amount of penalty authorized and to reduce or eliminate a penalty.2

1 The statute provides a waiver of penalty for 60 days if PBGC finds that timely payment would cause substantial hardship, but PBGC may not grant the waiver if it appears that the plan will be unable to pay the premium within 60 days. PBGC has found no record that such a waiver has ever been granted during the agency's 40+ years of existence.

2 In contrast, the statute requires that interest on late premiums “shall be paid” at a specified rate for the overdue period.

PBGC has provided for the exercise of its authority to impose penalties in the premium payment regulation. Under § 4007.8 of the regulation, late payment penalties accrue at the rate of 1 percent or 5 percent per month (or portion of a month) of the unpaid amount, except that the smallest penalty assessed is the lesser of $25 or the amount of unpaid premium. Whether the 1-percent or 5-percent rate applies depends on whether the underpayment is “self-corrected” or not. Self-correction refers to payment of the delinquent amount before PBGC gives written notice of a possible delinquency. One-percent penalties are capped by the regulation at 50 percent and 5-percent penalties at 100 percent of the unpaid amount. Although penalties can be significant in some cases, they are generally assessed in amounts far less than the statutory maximum.

This two-tiered structure provides an incentive to self-correct and reflects PBGC's judgment that those that come forward voluntarily to correct underpayments deserve more forbearance than those that PBGC identifies through its premium enforcement programs.

The premium payment regulation and its appendix also authorize waivers of late premium payment penalties. For example, § 4007.8(f) provides an automatic waiver for cases where premiums are not more than seven days late. The regulation and appendix also provide for waivers based on facts and circumstances and give detailed guidance about some specific grounds for waivers, such as where there is reasonable cause for the late payment.3 PBGC may also waive penalties where it finds that there are other appropriate circumstances.4

3 Section 22(a) of the appendix to the premium payment regulation says that there is reasonable cause for failure to pay a premium timely if the failure arises from circumstances beyond the payer's control and the payer could not avoid the failure by the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence. Examples are provided in sections 24 and 25 of the appendix: Sudden and unexpected absence of a responsible individual, loss of records in a casualty or disaster, erroneous PBGC advice, and inability to get necessary information.

4 See section 21(b)(5) of the appendix to the premium payment regulation.

On April 28, 2016 (at 81 FR 25363), PBGC published a proposed rule to reduce penalty rates for late payment of annual (flat- and variable-rate) premiums and create a new automatic waiver of 80 percent of penalties at the higher rate for plans that demonstrate good compliance.5 PBGC sought public comment on its proposal. Four comments were received. Three commenters supported the proposal. The other commenter expressed opposition, citing the importance of plan funding and payment of premiums. PBGC believes, as discussed below, that the reduction of premium late-payment penalties it is implementing will not adversely affect premium payments; and by reducing the cost of maintaining a plan, the penalty reduction appears more likely to improve than impair plan funding.

5 The proposal would not affect penalties for late payment of the termination premium under § 4007.13 of the premium payment regulation.

One commenter that supported the proposal urged PBGC to go further and apply the new penalty rules to all unresolved premium penalty cases. PBGC is adhering to its proposal to apply the new rules to premiums for plan years beginning after 2015. Future applicability is a reasonable approach for all kinds of new rules, whether more lenient (as here) or stricter. And to apply the new rules to some but not all late premium payments for pre-2016 years could be seen as an inequitable approach. A plan that corrected promptly—and whose case was therefore closed—would not get the benefit of the new, lower penalties; whereas one that delayed would be subject to lower penalties if its case was still open.

However, PBGC has concluded that—in pending requests for reconsideration for pre-2016 years—it is appropriate to use its pre-existing discretionary authority to take account of good compliance and prompt correction, among other facts and circumstances. While such exercises of discretion cannot be expected to turn on the same factual analysis or provide the same result as this final rule, they represent a similar quality of consideration as that provision.

The same commenter also urged PBGC to consider similar relief on a case-by-case basis for cases that have already been resolved under pre-amendment rules. The comment focused particularly on penalties that were large and “disproportionate” (under the circumstances) and arose from “inadvertence.” PBGC is not persuaded to take this course.

Because larger penalties correlate with larger premiums, larger plans, and larger employers, relief focused on larger penalties would be focused away from smaller plans and employers—at odds with PBGC's goal of reducing burden for small entities. And since virtually every failure to pay premiums timely is inadvertent, inadvertence is neither a useful nor an appropriate criterion for granting penalty relief. Further, “disproportionality” is a subtle and subjective standard that could take time to apply consistently to a large number of cases. And significantly, the principle of finality is important in avoiding perpetual uncertainty about the outcomes of disputes. PBGC considers it inappropriate to reopen cases properly closed.

PBGC's Action

PBGC is adopting the penalty relief it proposed but is clarifying the operation of the 80-percent waiver for compliant plans, as discussed below.

Reduced Penalty Rates

Over the years—especially in recent years—Congress has significantly increased PBGC premium rates. Since late payment penalties are a percentage of unpaid premium, the penalties have gone up in proportion to the increase in premiums. While it is not unfair to impose larger penalties for late payment of larger amounts, PBGC is sensitive to the fact that a penalty assessed today may be several times what would have been assessed years ago for the same acts or omissions involving a plan with the same number of participants and the same unfunded vested benefits.

PBGC has good reason to believe that smaller penalties will provide an adequate incentive for compliance by premium payers. PBGC's experience has been that compliance with the premium payment requirements is influenced primarily by the consistency of PBGC's penalty assessment activities, and only secondarily by the size of penalties assessed. PBGC observes that in most cases, a late payment is inadvertent and that assessment of a penalty sparks improvement of a plan's compliance systems whether the penalty is large or small. This experience supports the conclusion that if PBGC continues its current consistent enforcement efforts, assessing significantly lower penalties will yield a satisfactory level of compliance.

Accordingly, PBGC is cutting penalty rates and caps in half, so that the lower (self-correction) rate will be 1/2 percent with a 25 percent cap, and the higher rate will be 21/2 percent with a 50 percent cap. PBGC is also eliminating the floor on penalty assessments, so that if the penalty assessment formula generates a penalty less than $25, it will not be automatically inflated to the floor amount.

Recognition of Good Premium Compliance

Applying a lower penalty rate to self-correction recognizes that it is desirable for a plan to catch and fix its own mistakes, whatever its compliance history may be. PBGC has given this matter further thought and concluded that a demonstrated commitment to premium compliance is also worthy of recognition, even if a plan corrects an underpayment (of which it is likely unaware) only after notice from PBGC. PBGC believes such a commitment is evidenced where a plan has a history of consistent compliance and acts promptly to correct an underpayment when notified by PBGC. PBGC will therefore automatically waive 80 percent of penalties assessed at the higher (21/2-percent) rate where the following two conditions are satisfied.

The first condition is that the plan have a five-year record of premium compliance. Generally, this means timely payment of all premiums for the five plan years preceding the year of the delinquency, as shown by the plan's premium filings. However, a late payment will not count against a plan if PBGC did not require payment of a penalty, such as where there was a waiver of the entire penalty. A plan that was not in existence as a covered plan for the full five years will be judged on its coverage years.

The second condition is prompt correction. Prompt correction, for this purpose, means that the premium shortfall for which a penalty is being assessed is made good no later than 30 days after PBGC notifies the plan in writing that there is or might be a problem. In other words, a plan that meets the first condition, and is assessed penalty at the 21/2-percent rate, will qualify for an automatic 80-percent reduction if the premium shortfall is paid within 30 days.

PBGC has made two clarifying changes to the proposed regulatory text describing the 80-percent waiver. The amount waived is now described as 80 percent of the amount “assessed,” rather than the amount “otherwise applicable.” And the amount that must have been paid by the end of the 30-day period is now described as the “total amount of premium” for the year, rather than the “amount of unpaid premium.” PBGC feels that the new formulations are clearer and more definite.

Effect of Changes

PBGC typically discovers the most common premium payment errors fairly quickly—errors like failing to pay, sending payment that doesn't match the information filed, and so forth—and generally notifies plans of their delinquencies within a month or two after the due date. Thus, a plan that corrects an underpayment before or promptly after notice from PBGC typically owes no more than a few months' penalty.

For example, if a plan paid a $1 million premium two months late (after notice from PBGC), the penalty under the regulation as it existed before this amendment would be $100,000 (two months times 5 percent times $1 million). Under the revised regulation, the penalty would be $50,000 (two months times 21/2 percent times $1 million). If the plan qualified for the compliant plan partial waiver, the penalty would be reduced by 80 percent, from $50,000 to $10,000.

In a typical case, the changes in this final rule will in effect make the penalty rate for compliant plans the same as the “self-correction” penalty rate. In clarification of the preamble to the proposed rule, however, this will not be true in the unusual case where a penalty cap comes into play. For while the penalty rates for self-correctors and others are in the ratio of one to five, the caps are in the ratio of one to two.

The effect of the changes is summarized in the following table on the assumption that the penalty caps do not come into play.

Good compliance history? Monthly penalty rate if shortfall is corrected— At or before date of PBGC notice Within 30 days after PBGC notice More than 30 days after PBGC notice No 1/2 percent 21/2 percent 21/2 percent. Yes 1/2 percent 1/2 percent (after waiver) 21/2 percent. Compliance With Regulatory Requirements Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

PBGC has determined, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

PBGC does not expect this final rule to cause a significant change in premium compliance patterns. As noted above, PBGC's experience is that prompt assessment, rather than amount, is the key to using penalties as a compliance tool. A reduction in the penalty cost of late payment is unlikely to reduce the incidence of late payment, but is also unlikely to encourage late payment: no penalty is better than a low penalty. Thus, the primary effect of the rule will be to save money for delinquent plans and reduce PBGC's penalty receipts. But PBGC assesses penalties not to generate income but to encourage compliance and sanction non-compliance. If PBGC can achieve the same level of timely payment while assessing lower penalties, higher penalties are inappropriate. And lower penalties may tend to encourage the continuation and adoption of defined benefit plans, a favorable outcome for plan participants.

PBGC estimates that this rule will reduce penalty assessments for late payment of premiums by $2 million per year.

This final rule is associated with retrospective review and analysis in PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review issued in accordance with Executive Order 13563.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present a final regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the final rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and steps taken to minimize the impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this final rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is substantially the same criterion PBGC uses in other regulations 6 and is consistent with certain requirements in title I of ERISA 7 and the Internal Revenue Code,8 as well as the definition of a small entity that the Department of Labor (DOL) has used for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.9 Using this proposed definition, about 64 percent (16,700 of 26,100) of plans covered by title IV of ERISA in 2010 were small plans.10

6 See e.g., special rules for small plans under part 4007 (Payment of Premiums).

7 See, e.g., ERISA section 104(a)(2), which permits the Secretary of Labor to prescribe simplified annual reports for pension plans that cover fewer than 100 participants.

8 See, e.g., Code section 430(g)(2)(B), which permits plans with 100 or fewer participants to use valuation dates other than the first day of the plan year.

9 See, e.g., DOL's final rule on Prohibited Transaction Exemption Procedures, 76 FR 66637, 66644 (Oct. 27, 2011).

10 See PBGC 2010 pension insurance data tableS-31, http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/pension-insurance-data-tables-2010.pdf.

Further, while some large employers may have small plans, in general most small plans are maintained by small employers. Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the final rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. PBGC therefore requested comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. PBGC received no comments on this point.

PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the amendments in this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604 do not apply. This certification is based on the fact that small plans generally pay small premiums and thus small penalties for late payment of premiums. The average late premium penalty paid by a small plan for the 2014 plan year was about $160. This proposed rule would cut penalty payments in half, and thus create an average annual net economic benefit for each small plan of about $80. This is not a significant impact.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4007

Employee benefit plans, Penalties, Pension insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR part 4007 as follows:

PART 4007—PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS 1. The authority citation for part 4007 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 1302(b)(3), 1303(A), 1306, 1307.

2. In § 4007.8: a. Paragraph (a) introductory text is amended by removing the words “paragraphs (b) through (g)” and adding in their place the words “paragraphs (b) through (h)”; and by removing the words “and is subject to a floor of $25 (or, if less, the amount of the unpaid premium)”; b. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the words “a written notice” and adding in their place the words “the first written notice”; by removing the words “1 percent” and adding in their place the words “1/2 percent”; and by removing the words “50 percent” and adding in their place the words “25 percent”. c. Paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the words “5 percent” and adding in their place the words “21/2 percent”; and by removing the words “100 percent” and adding in their place the words “50 percent”. d. Paragraph (h) is added.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 4007.8 Late payment penalty charges.

(h) Demonstrated compliance. PBGC will waive 80 percent of the premium payment penalty assessed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section if the criteria in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section are met.

(1) For each plan year within the last five plan years of coverage preceding the plan year for which the penalty rate is being determined,—

(i) Any required premium filing for the plan has been made; and

(ii) PBGC has not required payment of a penalty for the plan under this section.

(2) For the plan year for which the penalty rate is being determined, the total amount of premium is paid no later than 30 days after PBGC issues the first written notice as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

Issued in Washington, DC, by

W. Thomas Reeder, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2016-22901 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0271] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Railroad Bridge across the New River, mile 2.5, at Fort Lauderdale, FL. This rule implements requirements for the operator to ensure that adequate notice of bridge closure times are available to the waterway traffic. It also changes the schedule from requiring openings “on demand” to an operating regulation requiring the bridge to be open no fewer than 60 minutes in every 2 hour period. Changing the bridge operating schedule will allow the bridge owner to operate the Bridge remotely with assistance from the onsite bridge tender.

DATES:

This rule is effective October 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0271 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-6989, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

From May 18 through October 16, 2015, a test deviation assessing the viability of the schedule implemented in this rule was in effect for the New River Bridge (80 FR 28184). The comment period ended on August 17, 2015. There were eight comments received in response to the test deviation. The comments from the test deviation were addressed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

On November 3, 2015, we published a NPRM entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New River, Fort Lauderdale, FL in the Federal Register (80 FR 67677). We received 234 submissions on the proposed rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499.

The FEC Railroad Bridge across the New River, mile 2.5, at Fort Lauderdale, FL is a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 4 feet at mean high water in the closed position. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the FEC Railroad Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels. Traffic on the waterway includes both commercial and recreational vessels.

Prior to implementing a test deviation on May 18, 2015, the Bridge operated without a tender or monitor. An automated system closed the Bridge when a train approached and reopened the Bridge when a train cleared. The Coast Guard received multiple complaints from mariners because there was no means of obtaining notice of bridge closure times or potential closure duration. The new regulation balances the reasonable needs of waterway traffic on the New River with train traffic moving through condensed population areas in Ft. Lauderdale.

This regulation was developed to accommodate the unique needs of rail transportation in South Florida while balancing the reasonable needs of maritime transportation on the New River. Train schedules at the crossings cannot be precisely scheduled due to unpredictable delays caused by train car loading and vehicular traffic crossing the track. Also, train bridges must be in the down position well in advance of the train's arrival to ensure that it can safely cross the bridge or stop if there are problems with the Bridge.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

Two hundred thirty-four submissions were received resulting in a total of 319 comments concerning the proposed rule. The total number of comments exceeds the number of submissions because some submissions expressed more than one point in their comment. Of these comments, 39 were in favor of the proposed rule. Forty-nine of the comments expressed opposition to a future rail project, which is not the focus of this regulation, and were not relevant.

Sixty-six comments expressed opposition to the regulation of Bridges other than the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Railroad Bridge. This regulation only pertains to the FEC Railroad Bridge over the New River in Fort Lauderdale.

Eleven comments opposed the proposed modification and recommended the Bridge owner provide a train schedule with specified opening times. In respect to a schedule the on-site bridge tender will provide a 12-hour forecast schedule to waterway users upon request. However, scheduling bridge openings is not viable because trains typically experience loading and traffic delays that interfere with the operator's ability to precisely identify an exact time when the train will cross the waterway.

Eighteen comments stated the modification would create unsafe vessel congestion near the Bridge. This regulation allows mariners to communicate with a bridge tender and receive updates on the Bridge's status; thereby relieving congestion that exists with the current schedule.

Sixty-four comments opposed the Bridge being closed 50 percent of the time or 60 minutes at a time. These comments also recommended various minimum time limits for bridge openings. This regulation does not require closing the Bridge 50 percent of the time or for 60 minutes at one time. It sets a maximum time for the Bridge's closure within a two hour period. This regulation authorizes a total combined closure time for any given 120 minute period that will not exceed 60 minutes. Moreover, if a train is not crossing or approaching, the Bridge will remain open. Based on input from the bridge owner and input gathered at Coast Guard public meetings, the Coast Guard determined that it is not a viable option to require minimum time limits for the bridge to be open at one time because trains would have considerable difficulty coordinating passage across the bridge with this schedule. Therefore, this regulation does not adopt alternatives to set minimum time limits for Bridge openings. Vessels can transit at all times that trains are not crossing.

Thirteen comments expressed concern that the modification would hinder emergency vessels from responding. This regulation requires the Bridge to open immediately for emergency vessels to pass.

Twenty-six comments expressed safety concerns for vehicle traffic in the area and emergency vehicle response times being delayed. This regulation seeks to balance the needs of rail and maritime navigation by allowing the Bridge to close for the passage of trains. By doing so, it seeks to ensure passing trains are not delayed by the Bridge schedule, therefore, it should alleviate surrounding vehicular traffic.

There were 26 comments that addressed concern that the modification would decrease property values and hurt business in the area. The Coast Guard does not have evidence that this regulation will result in a decrease in property values or that it will adversely affect businesses in the area.

Five commenters requested bridge modifications that would replace and raise the vertical height of the bridge, and to require mooring stations for waiting vessels, which is outside of the scope of this rule because this rule only amends the opening schedule for the Bridge by creating protocols that will make it easier for vessel traffic to schedule transits during times the Bridge is open.

Two of the 234 commenters requested a public meeting. A public meeting was held on 12 November 2014 (USCG-2014-0937), and the proposed schedule modification was developed from the input received from the public meeting.

The Coast Guard also received complaints about the high noise levels of the horn blast prior to a bridge closure. The prescribed sound signal has typically been required on all unmanned automated rail road bridges. We are removing the requirement for the horn blast from the regulation since the bridge is no longer unmanned. Other than the removal of horn blasts, 33 CFR 117.313 is modified as was proposed in the NPRM.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is made because vessels can still transit the waterway at times identified by the tender 12 hours in advance of the scheduled transit. Also, vessels can transit at all times that trains are not crossing or if they do not require a bridge opening to transit.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge when the Bridge is closed for train crossings. This change in operating schedule will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into account other modes of transportation. Vessels transiting the New River at mile 2.5 may do so at times scheduled up to 12 hours prior to transit. Also, vessels can transit at all times that trains are not crossing.

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. In § 117.313, revise paragraph (c), add reserved paragraph (d), and add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 117.313 New River.

(c) The following requirements apply to the Florida East Coast Railway Railroad Bridge across the New River, mile 2.5, at Fort Lauderdale, FL:

(1) The bridge shall be constantly tended.

(2) The bridge tender will utilize a VHF-FM radio to communicate on channels 9 and 16 and may be contacted by telephone at 305-889-5572.

(3) Signs will be posted displaying VHF radio contact information and telephone numbers for the bridge tender and dispatch. A countdown clock giving notice of time remaining before bridge closure shall remain at the bridge site and must be visible for maritime traffic.

(4) A bridge log will be maintained including, at a minimum, bridge opening and closing times.

(5) When the draw is in the fully open position, green lights will be displayed to indicate that vessels may pass.

(6) When a train approaches, the lights go to flashing red then the draw lowers and locks.

(7) After the train has cleared the bridge, the draw opens and the lights return to green.

(8) The bridge shall not be closed more than 60 minutes combined for any 120 minute time period beginning at 12:01 a.m. each day.

(9) The bridge shall remain open to maritime traffic when trains are not crossing.

(d) [Reserved]

(e) The draw of the Marshal (Seventh Avenue) bridge, mile 2.7 at Fort Lauderdale shall open on signal; except that, from 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open. Public vessels of the United States, tugs with tows, and vessels in distress shall be passed at any time.

Dated: August 22, 2016. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-22915 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0181] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation; modification.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S165 (North Landing Road) Bridge across the North Landing River, mile 20.2, at Chesapeake, VA. This modified deviation is necessary to perform emergency bridge repairs and provide for safe navigation. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 p.m. on September 30, 2016, through 4 p.m. on October 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0181] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 11, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA” in the Federal Register (81 FR 12824); on April 8, 2016, the Coast Guard published a modified temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA” in the Federal Register (81 FR 20529); and on June 29, 2016, the Coast Guard published a modified temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; North Landing River, Chesapeake, VA” in the Federal Register (81 FR 42248). These documents were necessary to authorize a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to perform repairs to the south swing span of the bridge due to damage sustained as a result of a vessel allision with the bridge that occurred on March 1, 2016. The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Office, who owns and operates the S165 (North Landing Road) Bridge, has requested a modified temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform repairs to the south swing span of the bridge, following receipt of replacement parts scheduled to arrive in the first week of October 2016. The modified temporary deviation request is necessary to receive the replacement parts in the first week of October 2016 and allow for sufficient time to complete repairs to the bridge.

The current operating scheduled is set out in 33 CFR 117.1021. Under this modified temporary deviation, the north span of the bridge will open-to-navigation on the hour and half hour, upon request, from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m., and on demand from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The north and south spans of the bridge will open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, upon request, for: (1) Scheduled openings at 9:30 a.m. for vessels transiting southeast, (2) 10:30 a.m. for vessels transiting northwest, and (3) at noon and 2 p.m. for two-way vessel traffic through the bridge, Monday through Friday, from Friday, September 30, 2016, through Monday, October 10, 2016. The north and south spans of the bridge will open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, upon request, for: (1) Scheduled openings at 9:30 a.m. for vessels transiting southeast and (2) 10:30 a.m. for vessels transiting northwest, Saturday and Sunday, from Saturday, October 1, 2016, through Sunday, October 9, 2016. The north and south spans of the bridge will open to navigation concurrently, with the south span only opening partially due to damage, for additional on demand openings from October 4, 2016, through October 10, 2016, if 48 hours notice is given. The south span of the bridge will be closed-to-navigation during bridge repair from 9 a.m., October 11, 2016, through 4 p.m., October 14, 2016. The horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span closed-to-navigation is 38 feet and the horizontal clearance of the bridge with the south span partially open-to-navigation is 70 feet. The modified temporary deviation is necessary to relieve vessel congestion and provide for safe navigation on the waterway. The bridge is a double swing draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet above mean high water.

The North Landing River is used by a variety of vessels including small U. S. government and public vessels, small commercial vessels, tug and barge, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

During the closure times there will be limited opportunity for vessels which are able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position to do so. Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so, after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The north span of the bridge will be able to open for emergencies. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the modified temporary deviation.

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

Dated: September 19, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-22916 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0451] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary Final Rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. This action is necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with the Tough Cup event on these navigable waters in Chicago, IL, on September 24, 2016. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0451 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On December 27, 2015, the Coast Guard received an Application for Marine Event for the Tough Cup event that will be held from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24, 2016, on the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the Illinois Northern Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway Bridge. In response, on July 1, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL” (81 FR 43178). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended July 31, 2016, we received two comments.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. To provide an opportunity for comment, as opposed to not issuing an NPRM, we issued the NPRM knowing it would be impracticable not to make a final rule effective less than 30 days after it is published. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with a race involving personal watercraft to take place on September 24, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that the potential hazards associated with vessels transiting through a narrow and congested section of the river during the Tough Cup event will pose concerns for all vessels navigating in the area. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of spectators, vessels participating in the event and all vessels operating in the vicinity of the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published July 1, 2016. One comment stated concerns with the notification to the public being sufficient for the proposed rule. The Coast Guard has provided notice required by the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) and will also provide notification by issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16. To further address the concern of sufficient notification, the Coast Guard will include a notification in the Local Notice to Mariners publication. The second comment received was supportive of the event and related waterway restriction. There is one change in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM to include the additional notification in the Local Notice to Mariners publication. This rule establishes a safety zone from 6:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on September 24, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the Illinois Northern Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway Bridge in Chicago, IL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled Tough Cup event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a short duration on the one day this rule will be in effect to ensure safety of spectators and participants at this scheduled event. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, a notification in the Local Notice to Mariners publication, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order13132.

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T09-0451 to read as follows:
§ 165.T09-0451 Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL.

(a) Location. All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the Illinois Northern Bridge and the Loomis Street Highway Bridge.

(b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective from 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2016 and will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2016.

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

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

Dated: September 19, 2016. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2016-22919 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Parts 36 and 42 RIN 2900-AP78 Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Amendments AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, sets forth a formula increasing the maximum statutory amounts for civil monetary penalties and requires federal agencies to give notice of the new maximum amounts by regulation. This final rule of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts without change VA's interim final rule, which increased maximum civil monetary penalties from $10,000 to $21,563 for false loan guaranty certifications and from $5,500 to $10,781 for fraudulent claims or fraudulent statements in any VA program.

DATES:

Effective Date: Effective September 23, 2016, the interim final rule published June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40523) is adopted as final.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Martin, Program Manager, Office of Regulation and Policy Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-4918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On June 22, 2016, VA published in the Federal Register an interim final rule adjusting the amounts of civil monetary penalties that VA may assess against participants who make certain false certifications or who engage in fraudulent activity. See 81 FR 40523. The interim final rule increased maximum civil monetary penalties from $10,000 to $21,563 for false loan guaranty certifications and from $5,500 to $10,781 for fraudulent claims or fraudulent statements in any VA program.

VA published the interim final rule to implement the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74), which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act) (Pub. L. 101-410), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. In calculating the adjusted amounts, VA relied on guidance from The Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget (OMB), published on February 24, 2016, advising the heads of federal agencies how to implement the 2015 Act. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.

VA received one comment in response to the interim final rule. The comment was a photograph that was not relevant to the rulemaking. The photograph was not posted to www.regulations.gov. VA is adopting the interim final rule without change.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined that it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Unfunded Mandates

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Accordingly, no proposed rulemaking was required in connection with the adoption of this final rule. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.114, Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and Insured Loans.

Signing Authority

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 16, 2016, for publication.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Parts 36 and 42

Condominiums, Housing, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs-housing and community development, Loan programs-veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.

PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY PART 42—STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT Accordingly, the interim rule amending 38 CFR parts 36 and 42 which was published at 81 FR 40523 on June 22, 2016, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: September 16, 2016. Michael Shores Acting Director, Regulation Policy & Management Office of the Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs
[FR Doc. 2016-22732 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0226; FRL-9951-68] Flupyradifurone; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of flupyradifurone in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Bayer CropScience LP requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective September 23, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 22, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0226, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0226 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 22, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0226, by one of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL-9942-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F8404) by Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide, flupyradifurone, in or on abiu at 0.6 parts per million (ppm); akee apple at 0.6 ppm; avocado at 0.6 ppm; bacury at 0.6 ppm; banana at 0.6 ppm; binjai at 0.6 ppm; caneberry, subgroup 13-07A at 5 ppm; canistel at 0.6 ppm; cilantro, fresh leaves at 30 ppm; cupuacú at 0.6 ppm; etambe at 0.6 ppm; jatobá at 0.6 ppm; kava, fresh leaves at 40 ppm; kava, roots at 0.9 ppm; kei apple at 0.6 ppm; langstat at 0.6 ppm; lanjut at 0.6 ppm; lucuma at 0.6 ppm; mabolo at 0.6 ppm; mango at 0.6 ppm; mangosteen at 0.6 ppm; paho at 0.6 ppm; papaya at 0.6 ppm; pawpaw, common at 0.6 ppm; pelipisan at 0.6 ppm; pequi at 0.6 ppm; pequia at 0.6 ppm; persimmon, american at 0.6 ppm; plantain at 0.6 ppm; pomegranate at 0.6 ppm; poshte at 0.6 ppm; quandong at 0.6 ppm; quinoa at 3 ppm; sapote at 0.6 ppm; sataw at 0.6 ppm; screw-pine at 0.6 ppm; star apple at 0.6 ppm; stone fruit, stone group 12-12 at 1.5 ppm; tamarind-of-the-Indies at 0.6 ppm; and wild loquat at 0.6 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LP, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified some of the commodity definitions that were proposed. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for flupyradifurone including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with flupyradifurone follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The most sensitive effects seen in the flupyradifurone database were skeletal muscle atrophy/degeneration in dogs. With repeated dosing, reductions in body weight and food consumption were commonly seen in various studies and in all species of test animals (rats, mice, dogs, and rabbits). The liver and thyroid were shown to be the common findings of flupyradifurone toxicity. The database appears to suggest that dogs are more sensitive to the effects of flupyradifurone; however, with body weight adjustments (based on a 3/4 scaling factor), the dog and rat are almost equally as sensitive in response to flupyradifurone toxicity. The skeletal muscle atrophy/degeneration seen in the 90-day and 1-year dog studies formed the basis for chronic dietary exposure toxicity endpoints.

The developmental toxicity study in rats demonstrated no evidence of susceptibility in developing animals. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, there was an increase in the incidence of fetal death at 80 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) (the highest dose tested), a dose that did not produce adverse effects in the maternal animals.

Therefore, a quantitative increase in susceptibility was demonstrated in the rabbit developmental toxicity study. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, decreased parental body weights (≥10%) were seen at the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 137 mg/kg/day (parental no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) = 37.8 mg/kg/day). In contrast, body weight decreases that were considered adverse were seen in F2 pups at 37.8 mg/kg/day (the parental NOAEL and the offspring LOAEL; offspring NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg/day). These findings suggest quantitative susceptibility for developing young animals.

The acute neurotoxicity study (dosing by gavage) showed that at the time of peak-effect, flupyradifurone caused increases in the incidence of piloerection and dilated pupils at 50 mg/kg. At the next higher dose level (200 mg/kg) and above, it produced a large host of clinical signs, which were related to neurotoxicity. The clinical signs included dilated pupils, lower muscle tone, low arousal, tremors, myoclonic jerks, chewing, repetitive licking of lips, gait incoordination, flattened or hunched posture, and impaired righting reflex. In the 90-day neurotoxicity study, no neurotoxicity or other adverse effects were seen at dose levels as high as 174 mg/kg/day. The developmental neurotoxicity study at 102 mg/kg/day yielded an increased incidence of increased amplitude in startle response.

Flupyradifurone is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice did not yield a compound-related increase in tumor incidence, and the genotoxicity battery did not show flupyradifurone to produce any genotoxicity. Flupyradifurone did not demonstrate any immunotoxic effects.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by flupyradifurone as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Flupyradifurone (122304) Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Uses on Kava, Cilantro, Stone Fruit, Group 12-12, Caneberry, Subgroup 13-07A, Quinoa, and Tropical Fruits; Amended Use Requests for Soil Applications to Leafy Vegetables, Group 4 and Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Group 5; Use on Greenhouse Grown Tomato, Pepper, Cucumber, and Lettuce; Label Amendment to Add Commodities of Tree Nuts, Group 14-12 to label; and Label Amendment to Add Use Directions for Clover Grown for Forage, Fodder, Seed, Straw, and Hay” on page 49 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0226.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flupyradifurone used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Flupyradifurone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for
  • risk assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 35 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10 ×
  • UFH = 10 ×
  • FQPA SF = 1 ×
  • Acute RfD = 0.35 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 0.35 mg/kg/day
  • Acute neurotoxicity study—rat
  • LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on increased incidences of piloerection in both sexes and pupil dilation in females on Day 1. At the next higher dose level (200 mg/kg) or above, lower muscle tone, rapid respiration, low arousal, tremors, myoclonic jerks, chewing, repetitive licking of lips, gait incoordination, flattened or hunched posture, dilated pupils, impaired (uncoordinated or slow) righting reflex, impaired flexor and tail pinch responses and reduced rectal temperature. Automated measures of motor activity were also reduced in both sexes, compared to controls.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL= 7.8 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10 ×
  • UFH = 10 ×
  • FQPA SF = 1 ×
  • Chronic RfD = 0.078 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.078 mg/kg/day
  • Oral toxicity study—dog (1-year)
  • LOAEL = 28 mg/kg/day based on minimal to slight, focal to multifocal areas of skeletal muscle degeneration in gastrocnemius and/or biceps femoris muscle.
  • Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days) Dermal (or oral) study NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day (dermal absorption rate = 7.42%
  • UFA = 10 ×
  • UFH = 10 ×
  • FQPA SF = 1 ×
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Oral toxicity study—dog (90-day)
  • LOAEL = 33 mg/kg/day based skeletal muscle atrophy/degeneration.
  • 2-Generation reproduction study—rat (co-critical study)
  • NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg/day.
  • Offspring LOAEL = 38.7 mg/kg/day based on pup body weight decrease.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) Oral study NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
  • UFA = 10 ×
  • UFH = 10 ×
  • FQPA SF = 1 ×
  • LOC for MOE = 100 Oral toxicity study—dog (90-day)
  • LOAEL = 33 mg/kg/day based on skeletal muscle atrophy/degeneration.
  • 2-Generation reproduction study—rat (co-critical study)
  • NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg/day.
  • Offspring LOAEL = 38.7 mg/kg/day based on pup body weight decrease.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans—based on data showing no treatment-related increase in tumors incidence in rat and mouse carcinogenicity studies. No mutagenic concern was reported in the genotoxicity studies. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to flupyradifurone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing flupyradifurone tolerances in 40 CFR 180.679. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flupyradifurone in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

    Such effects were identified for flupyradifurone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% crop treated (PCT), tolerance level residues and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 PCT, tolerance level residues and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that flupyradifurone does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for flupyradifurone. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for flupyradifurone in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of flupyradifurone. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) model, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flupyradifurone for acute exposures are estimated to be 112 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 352 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 112 ppb for surface water and 307 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 352 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 307 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Currently there are no registered uses for flupyradifurone that could result in residential exposures. However, there is a proposal to register uses that could result in residential exposures for application to ornamental plants (gardens, trees, shrubs, flowers). Therefore, the EPA considered the proposed residential uses and assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, short-term dermal and inhalation exposures were assessed for adults mixing, loading and applying liquids and ready to use formulations to gardens and trees using a variety of application equipment. For post-application exposure, short-term dermal exposures to adults and children (6 to <11 years old) to gardens, trees, and retail plants and indoor plants was evaluated. Only short-term residential exposures are expected. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found flupyradifurone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and flupyradifurone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that flupyradifurone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence that flupyradifurone produces increased susceptibility in in the rat developmental study. There is quantitative increase in susceptibility in the rabbit developmental and rat reproduction studies. In the rabbit developmental study, no maternal effect was seen at the highest tested dose (80 mg/kg/day), while there was an increase in fetal death and decrease fetal body weight at the same dose level. In the rat reproduction study, maternal effect, decrease in body weight, was seen at 137 mg/kg/day, whereas decreases in pup body weight was seen at the next lower dose, 38.7 mg/kg/day or above. However, the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the quantitative susceptibility seen in the rabbit fetuses and rat pups.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for flupyradifurone is complete.

    ii. Although there is evidence that flupyradifurone has neurotoxic effects, EPA has a complete set of neurotoxicity studies (acute, subchronic, and developmental). The effects of those studies are well-characterized and indicate neurotoxic effects that occur at levels above the chronic POD that was selected for risk assessment. The NOAEL for the acute neurotoxicity study is being used for the acute POD. Therefore, there is no need to retain the 10X FQPA SF to account for any uncertainty concerning these effects.

    iii. There is no evidence that flupyradifurone results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats. There is quantitative increase in susceptibility in the rabbit developmental and rat reproduction studies. However, the PODs selected for risk assessment are protective of the quantitative susceptibility seen in the rabbit fetuses and rat pups.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to flupyradifurone in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess the proposed residential post-application exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flupyradifurone.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to flupyradifurone will occupy 37% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to flupyradifurone from food and water will utilize 86% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of flupyradifurone is not expected.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). For flupyradifurone there are uses pending which the Agency has included in this action that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to flupyradifurone.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and proposed residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 170 for adults and 190 for children (6 to <11 years old). Because EPA's level of concern for flupyradifurone is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, flupyradifurone is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for flupyradifurone.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, flupyradifurone is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to flupyradifurone residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate analytical method (Method RV-001-P10-03) which uses high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS) to quantitate residues of flupyradifurone and difluoroacetic acid (DFA) in various crops is available for enforcement.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established any MRLs for flupyradifurone.

    C. Response to Comments

    EPA received two comments to the Notice of Filing. The first stated, in part, that EPA should deny this petition because it is a harmful and toxic chemical. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    The second comment was from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and was in support of the petition.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Bayer CropScience LP petitioned for tolerances on abiu, akee apple, avocado, bacury, banana, binjai, canistel, cupuacú, etambe, jatobá, kei apple, langstat, lanjut, lucuma, mabolo, mango, mangosteen, paho, papaya, common pawpaw, pelipisan, pequi, pequia, American persimmon, plantain, pomegranate, poshte, quandong, sapote, sataw, screw-pine, star apple, tamarind-of-the-Indies, and wild loquat. These commodities are all listed in the newly established crop subgroup 24B for tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, with a smooth, inedible peel. Subgroup 24B further breaks out the different types of avocado (to include Guatemalan, Mexican, and West Indian avocado), mango (to include horse and Saipan mango), and sapote (to include black, green, and white sapote). Although the petitioner did not specify any particular kind of avocado, mango, and sapote, the Agency considers the request for avocado, mango, and sapote to be general in nature and include all varieties of those commodities. As a result, the requested commodities align with the commodities contained in the new subgroup 24B.

    In the Federal Register of May 3, 2016 (81 FR 26471) (FRL-9944-87) establishing that crop group, EPA indicated that, for existing petitions for which a Notice of Filing had been published, the Agency would attempt to conform these petitions to the rule. Therefore, consistent with this rule, EPA is establishing tolerances on crop subgroup 24B, the tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel subgroup, rather than all the commodities individually. EPA's dietary and aggregate risk assessments are based on data from the required representative commodities and account for flupyradifurone exposure from all of the subgroup 24B commodities.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flupyradifurone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 5.0 ppm; cilantro, fresh leaves at 30 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 1.5 ppm; kava, fresh leaves at 40 ppm; kava, roots at 0.90 ppm; quinoa, grain at 3.0 ppm; and the tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel subgroup 24B at 0.60 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 14, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.679, add alphabetically the commodities “Caneberry subgroup 13-07A”; “Cilantro, fresh leaves”; “Fruit, stone, group 12-12”; “Kava, fresh leaves”; “Kava, roots”; “Quinoa, grain”; and “Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel subgroup 24B” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 180.679 Flupyradifurone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Caneberry subgroup 13-07A 5.0 *    *    *    *    * Cilantro, fresh leaves 30 *    *    *    *    * Fruit, stone, group 12-12 1.5 *    *    *    *    * Kava, fresh leaves 40 Kava, roots 0.90 *    *    *    *    * Quinoa, grain 3.0 *    *    *    *    * Tropical and subtropical, medium to large fruit, smooth, inedible peel subgroup 24B 0.60 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-22976 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3000 [16X.LLWO310000.L13100000.PP0000] RIN 1004-AE47 Minerals Management: Adjustment of Cost Recovery Fees AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule updates the fees set forth in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) mineral resources regulations for the processing of certain minerals program-related actions. It also adjusts certain filing fees for minerals-related documents. These updated fees include those for actions such as lease renewals and mineral patent adjudications.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send inquiries or suggestions to Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, 2134LM, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240; Attention: RIN 1004-AE47.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Wells, Chief, Division of Fluid Minerals, 202-912-7143; Mitchell Leverette, Chief, Division of Solid Minerals, 202-912-7113; or Mark Purdy, Regulatory Affairs, 202-912-7635. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may leave a message for these individuals with the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The BLM has specific authority to charge fees for processing applications and other documents relating to public lands under section 304 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1734. In 2005, the BLM's minerals program published a final cost recovery rule (70 FR 58854) establishing or revising fees and service charges imposed in connection with the processing of certain minerals program-related actions (2005 Cost Recovery Rule). In addition to establishing the fees and charges, the 2005 Cost Recovery Rule also established the method the BLM would use to adjust those fees and service charges on an annual basis.

    At 43 CFR 3000.12(a), the regulations provide that the BLM will annually adjust fees established in Subchapter C (43 CFR parts 3000-3900) according to changes in the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP), which is published quarterly by the U.S. Department of Commerce. See also 43 CFR 3000.10. This final rule updates those fees and service charges consistent with that direction. The fee adjustments in this rule are based on the mathematical formula set forth in the 2005 Cost Recovery Rule. The public had an opportunity to comment on that adjustment procedure as part of the 2005 rulemaking. Accordingly, the Department of the Interior for good cause finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary and that the fee adjustments in this rule may be effective less than 30 days after publication. See 43 CFR 3000.10(c).

    II. Discussion of Final Rule

    The BLM's minerals program publishes a fee update rule each year, which becomes effective on October 1. As set forth in the 2005 Cost Recovery Rule, the fee updates are based on the change in the IPD-GDP from the 4th Quarter of one calendar year to the 4th Quarter of the following calendar year. In this case, the fee update rule is based on the change in the IPD-GDP from the 4th Quarter of 2014 to the 4th Quarter of 2015 and reflects the rate of inflation over four calendar quarters.

    The fee is calculated by applying the IPD-GDP to the base value from the previous year's rule, also known as the “existing value.” This calculation results in an updated base value. The updated base value is then rounded to the closest multiple of $5 for fees equal to or greater than $1, or to the nearest cent for fees under $1, to establish the new fee.

    Under this rule, 30 fees will remain the same and 18 fees will increase. Of the 18 fees that are being increased by this rule, 15 of the increases are equal to $5 each. The largest increase, $35, will be applied to the fee for adjudicating a mineral patent application containing more than 10 claims, which will increase from $3,075 to $3,110. The fee for adjudicating a patent application containing 10 or fewer claims will increase by $20, from $1,535 to $1,555. The “plus per acre nomination fee” for geothermal development will increase from $0.11 to $0.12.

    The calculations that resulted in the new fees are included in the table below:

    Fixed Cost Recovery Fees FY17 Document/action Existing
  • fee 1
  • Existing value 2 IPD-GDP
  • increase 3
  • New value 4 New fee 5
    Oil & Gas (parts 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150) Noncompetitive lease application $410 $408.656 $4.5770 $413.2334 $415 Competitive lease application 160 158.591 1.7762 160.3668 160 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights 90 91.486 1.0246 92.5106 95 Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production 10 12.196 0.1366 12.3326 10 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee 215 213.467 2.3908 215.8580 215 Lease consolidation 450 451.337 5.0550 456.3921 455 Lease renewal or exchange 410 408.656 4.5770 413.2334 415 Lease reinstatement, Class I 80 79.279 0.8879 80.1672 80 Leasing under right-of-way 410 408.656 4.5770 413.2334 415 Geophysical exploration permit application—Alaska 6 25 25 Renewal of exploration permit—Alaska 7 25 25 Geothermal (part 3200) Noncompetitive lease application 410 408.6565 4.5770 413.2334 415 Competitive lease application 160 158.5906 1.7762 160.3668 160 Assignment and transfer of record title or operating right 90 91.4859 1.0246 92.5106 95 Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee 215 213.4672 2.3908 215.8580 215 Lease consolidation 450 451.3371 5.0550 456.3921 455 Lease reinstatement 80 79.2793 0.8879 80.1672 80 Nomination of lands 115 114.1784 1.2788 115.4572 115 Plus per acre nomination fee 0.11 0.11418 0.0013 0.1155 0.12 Site license application 60 60.9906 0.6831 61.6737 60 Assignment or transfer of site license 60 60.9906 0.6831 61.6737 60 Coal (parts 3400, 3470) License to mine application 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 10 Exploration license application 335 335.4592 3.7571 339.2163 340 Lease or lease interest transfer 65 67.1047 0.7516 67.8562 70 Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (parts 3500, 3580) Applications other than those listed below 35 36.5987 0.4099 37.0086 35 Prospecting permit amendment 65 67.1047 0.7516 67.8562 70 Extension of prospecting permit 110 109.7853 1.2296 111.0149 110 Lease modification or fringe acreage lease 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Lease renewal 525 524.5451 5.8749 530.4200 530 Assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Transfer of overriding royalty 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Use permit 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Shasta and Trinity hardrock mineral lease 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Renewal of existing sand and gravel lease in Nevada 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Multiple Use; Mining (Group 3700) Notice of protest of placer mining operations 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 15 Mining Law Administration (parts 3800, 3810, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870) Application to open lands to location 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 10 Notice of Location 20 18.2886 0.2048 18.4935 20 Amendment of location 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 10 Transfer of mining claim/site 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 10 Recording an annual FLPMA filing 10 12.1960 0.1366 12.3326 10 Deferment of assessment work 110 109.7853 1.2296 111.0149 110 Recording a notice of intent to locate mining claims on Stockraising Homestead Act lands 30 30.5060 0.3417 30.8477 30 Mineral Patent adjudication (more than ten claims) 3,075 3,074.0626 34.4295 3108.4921 3,110 (ten or fewer claims) 1,535 1,537.0153 17.2146 1,554.2298 1,555 Adverse claim 110 109.7853 1.2296 111.0149 110 Protest 65 67.1047 0.7516 67.8562 70 Oil Shale Management (parts 3900, 3910, 3930) Exploration License Application 320 321.7561 3.6037 325.3597 325 Assignment or sublease of record title or overriding royalty 65 65.4479 0.7330 66.1809 65 Source for Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product data: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (March 25, 2016).
    III. How Fees Are Adjusted

    1 The Existing Fee was established by the 2015 (Fiscal Year 2016) cost recovery fee update rule published September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58625), effective October 1, 2015.

    2 The Existing Value is the figure from the New Value column in the previous year's rule.

    3 From 4th Quarter 2014 (109.067) to 4th Quarter 2015 (110.286), the IPD-GDP increased by 1.12 percent. The value in the IPD-GDP Increase column is 1.12 percent of the Existing Value.

    4 The sum of the Existing Value and the IPD-GDP Increase is the New Value.

    5 The New Fee for Fiscal Year 2016 is the New Value rounded to the nearest $5 for values equal to or greater than $1, or to the nearest penny for values under $1.

    6 Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) directed in subsection (i) that “the Secretary shall not implement a rulemaking that would enable an increase in fees to recover additional costs related to processing drilling-related permit applications and use authorizations.” In the 2005 cost recovery rule, the BLM interpreted this prohibition to apply to geophysical exploration permits. 70 FR 58854-58855. While the $25 fees for geophysical exploration permit applications for Alaska and renewals of exploration permits for Alaska pre-dated the 2005 cost recovery rule and were not affected by the Energy Policy Act prohibition, the BLM interprets the Energy Policy Act provision as prohibiting it from increasing this $25 fee.

    7 The BLM interprets the Energy Policy Act prohibition discussed in footnote 6, above, as prohibiting it from increasing this $25 fee, as well.

    The figures in the Existing Fee column in the table above represent the base value of the existing fee (shown in the Existing Value column) rounded to the closest multiple of $5 for fees equal to or greater than $1, or to the nearest cent for fees under $1. In calculating the annual adjustment to the fee, however, the BLM begins with the unrounded base fee, represented in the Existing Value column. The Existing Value is the figure from the New Value column in the previous year's rule. In the case of fees that were not in the table the previous year, or that had no figure in the New Value column the previous year, the Existing Value is the same as the Existing Fee. Because the new fees are derived from rounding the new values to the closest multiple of $5 for fees equal to or greater than $1, or to the nearest cent for fees under $1, adjustments based on the figures in the Existing Fee column would lead to significantly over- or under-valued fees over time. Accordingly, fee adjustments are made by multiplying the annual change in the IPD-GDP by the figure in the Existing Value column. This calculation defines the New Value for this year, which is then rounded to the nearest $5 for fees equal to or greater than $1, or the nearest penny for fees under $1, to establish the New Fee.

    IV. Procedural Matters Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This document is not a significant rule, and the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.

    The BLM has determined that the rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The changes in today's rule are much smaller than those in the 2005 final rule, which did not approach the threshold in Executive Order 12866. For instructions on how to view a copy of the analysis prepared in conjunction with the 2005 final rule, please contact one of the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    This rule will not create inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. This rule does not change the relationships of the onshore minerals programs with other agencies' actions. These relationships are included in agreements and memoranda of understanding that will not change with this rule.

    In addition, this final rule does not materially affect the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. This rule applies an inflationary adjustment factor to existing user fees for processing certain actions associated with the onshore minerals programs. However, most of these fee increases are less than 2 percent, and none of the increases materially affects the budgetary impact of any of the affected fees or charges.

    Finally, this rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. As explained above, this rule simply implements an annual process to account for inflation that was adopted by and explained in the 2005 Cost Recovery Rule.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). As a result a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. The Small Business Administration defines small entities as individual, limited partnerships, or small companies considered to be at arm's length from the control of any parent companies if they meet the following size requirements as established for each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code:

    • Iron ore mining (NAICS code 212210): 750 or fewer employees • Gold ore mining (NAICS code 212221): 1,500 or fewer employees • Silver ore mining (NAICS code 212222): 250 or fewer employees • Lead ore mining (NAICS code 212231): 750 or fewer employees • Copper ore mining (NAICS code 212234): 1,500 or fewer employees • Uranium-Radium-Vanadium ore mining (NAICS code 212291): 250 or fewer employees • All Other Metal ore mining (NAICS code 212299): 750 or fewer employees • Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining (NAICS code 212111)—1,250 or fewer employees • Bituminous Coal Underground Mining (NAICS code 212112)—1,500 or fewer employees • Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS code 211111)—1,250 or fewer employees • Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS code 211112)—750 or fewer employees • All Other Non-Metallic Mineral Mining (NAICS code 212399)—500 or fewer employees

    The SBA standards were adjusted as of February 26, 2016, per 13 CFR 121.104. The SBA would consider many, if not most, of the operators with whom the BLM works in the onshore minerals programs to be small entities. The BLM notes that this final rule does not affect service industries, for which the SBA has a different definition of “small entity.”

    The final rule may affect a large number of small entities because 18 fees for activities on public lands will be increased. However, most of the fee increases will be less than 2 percent. The adjustments result in no increase in the fees for processing 30 actions relating to the BLM's minerals programs. The highest adjustment, in dollar terms, is for adjudications of mineral patent applications involving more than 10 mining claims; that fee will increase by $35. Accordingly, the BLM has concluded that the economic effect of the rule's changes will not be significant, even for small entities. For the 2005 Cost Recovery Rule, the BLM completed a Regulatory Flexibility Act threshold analysis, which is available for public review in the administrative record for that rule. For instructions on how to view a copy of that analysis, please contact one of the persons listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. The analysis for the 2005 rule concluded that the fees would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The fee increases implemented in today's rule are substantially smaller than those provided for in the 2005 rule.

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will not have an annual effect on the economy greater than $100 million; it will not result in major cost or price increases for consumers, industries, government agencies, or regions; and it will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM therefore finds that the final rule does not have federalism implications, and a federalism assessment is not required.

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require a control number from the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). After the effective date of this rule, the new fees may affect the non-hour burdens associated with the following control numbers:

    Oil and Gas (1) 1004-0034 which expires July 31, 2018; (2) 1004-0137 which expires January 31, 2018; (3) 1004-0162 which expires October 31, 2018; (4) 1004-0185 which expires March 31, 2019; Geothermal (5) 1004-0132 which expires December 31, 2016; Coal (6) 1004-0073 which expires August 31, 2016; 8

    8 A request for renewal is pending with the Office of Management and Budget.

    Mining Claims (7) 1004-0025 which expires March 31, 2019; (8) 1004-0114 which expires October 31, 2016; and Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Oil Shale (9) 1004-0121 which expires August 31, 2016.8 Takings Implication Assessment (Executive Order 12630)

    As required by Executive Order 12630, the BLM has determined that this rule will not cause a taking of private property. No private property rights will be affected by a rule that merely updates fees. The BLM therefore certifies that this final rule does not represent a governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property rights.

    Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the BLM finds that this final rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The BLM has determined that this final rule qualifies as a routine financial transaction and a regulation of an administrative, financial, legal, or procedural nature that is categorically excluded from environmental review under NEPA pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210(c) and (i). The final rule does not meet any of the 12 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusions listed at 43 CFR 46.215. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required in connection with the rule (40 CFR 1508.4).

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The BLM has determined that this final rule is not significant under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., because it will not result in State, local, private sector, or tribal government expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year, 2 U.S.C. 1532. This rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

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

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has determined that this final rule does not include policies that have tribal implications. Specifically, the rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes. Consequently, the BLM did not utilize the consultation process set forth in Section 5 of the Executive Order.

    Information Quality Act

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

    Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13211, the BLM has determined that this final rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It merely adjusts certain administrative cost recovery fees to account for inflation.

    Author

    The principal author of this rule is Mark Purdy of the Division of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Land Management.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3000

    Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amanda C. Leiter, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    For reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management amends 43 CFR part 3000 as follows:

    PART 3000—MINERALS MANAGEMENT: GENERAL 1. The authority citation for part 3000 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., 301-306, 351-359, and 601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; and Pub. L. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357.

    Subpart 3000—General 2. Amend § 3000.12 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 3000.12 What is the fee schedule for fixed fees?

    (a) The table in this section shows the fixed fees that you must pay to the BLM for the services listed for Fiscal Year 2017. These fees are nonrefundable and must be included with documents you file under this chapter. Fees will be adjusted annually according to the change in the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Domestic Product (IPD-GDP) by way of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register and will subsequently be posted on the BLM Web site (http://www.blm.gov) before October 1 each year. Revised fees are effective each year on October 1.

    FY 2017 Processing and Filing Fee Table Document/action FY 2017 fee Oil & Gas (parts 3100, 3110, 3120, 3130, 3150) Noncompetitive lease application $415. Competitive lease application $160. Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights $95. Overriding royalty transfer, payment out of production $10. Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee $215. Lease consolidation $455. Lease renewal or exchange $415. Lease reinstatement, Class I $80. Leasing under right-of-way $415. Geophysical exploration permit application—Alaska $25. Renewal of exploration permit—Alaska $25. Geothermal (part 3200) Noncompetitive lease application $415. Competitive lease application $160. Assignment and transfer of record title or operating rights $95. Name change, corporate merger or transfer to heir/devisee $215. Lease consolidation $455. Lease reinstatement $80. Nomination of lands $115. plus per acre nomination fee $0.12. Site license application $60. Assignment or transfer of site license $60. Coal (parts 3400, 3470) License to mine application $10. Exploration license application $340. Lease or lease interest transfer $70. Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than Coal and Oil Shale (parts 3500, 3580) Applications other than those listed below $35. Prospecting permit application amendment $70. Extension of prospecting permit $110. Lease modification or fringe acreage lease $30. Lease renewal $530. Assignment, sublease, or transfer of operating rights $30. Transfer of overriding royalty $30. Use permit $30. Shasta and Trinity hardrock mineral lease $30. Renewal of existing sand and gravel lease in Nevada $30. Public Law 359; Mining in Powersite Withdrawals: General (part 3730) Notice of protest of placer mining operations $15. Mining Law Administration (parts 3800, 3810, 3830, 3850, 3860, 3870) Application to open lands to location $10. Notice of location* $20. Amendment of location $10. Transfer of mining claim/site $10. Recording an annual FLPMA filing $10. Deferment of assessment work $110. Recording a notice of intent to locate mining claims on Stockraising Homestead Act lands $30. Mineral patent adjudication $3,110 (more than 10 claims).
  • $1,555 (10 or fewer claims).
  • Adverse claim $110. Protest $70. Oil Shale Management (parts 3900, 3910, 3930) Exploration license application $325. Application for assignment or sublease of record title or overriding royalty $65. * To record a mining claim or site location, you must pay this processing fee along with the initial maintenance fee and the one-time location fee required by statute. 43 CFR part 3833.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22841 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 210, 212, 213, and 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0023] Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide needed editorial changes.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer L. Hawes, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 571-372-6115; facsimile 571-372-6094.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule amends the DFARS as follows—

    1. Provides direction to contracting officers at DFARS 210.002 to follow the procedures at DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 210.002(e)(iii) regarding market research file documentation;

    2. Add DFARS 212.102(a)(ii) to reflect that contracting officers should follow the procedures and guidance at PGI 212.102(a) regarding file documentation;

    3. Revises DFARS 213.7001 to update cross references to DFARS PGI;

    4. Provides an updated internet link at DFARS 252.219-7000 to the Procurement Technical Assistance Center locations; and

    5. Provides an updated internet link at DFARS 252.245-7004(b) to the Plant Clearance Automated Reutilization Screening System.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR 210, 212, 213, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 210, 212, 213, and 252 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 210, 212, 213, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 210—MARKET RESEARCH 2. Amend section 210.002 by adding paragraph (e)(iii) to read as follows:
    210.002 Procedures.

    (e) * * *

    (iii) Follow the procedures at PGI 210.002(e)(iii) regarding contract file documentation.

    PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS 3. Add section 212.102(a)(ii) to read as follows:
    212.102 Applicability.

    (a) * * *

    (ii) Follow the procedures at PGI 212.102(a).

    PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
    213.7001 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 213.7001 by— a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing “219.804-2(2)” and adding “PGI 219.804-2(2)” in its place; b. In paragraph (a)(2), removing “Subpart 219.8” and adding “PGI 219.8” in its place, and removing “219.804-2(2)” and adding “PGI 219.804-2(2)” in its place; and c. In paragraph (b), removing “Subpart 19.8” and adding “subpart 19.8” in its place. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    252.219-7000 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 252.219-7000 by— a. Removing the clause date “(MAY 2015)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; and b. In paragraph (c), removing “www.dla.mil/SmallBusiness/Pages/ptac.aspx” and adding “http://www.dla.mil/HQ/SmallBusiness/PTAC.aspx” in its place.
    252.245-7004 [Amended]
    6. Amend section 252.245-7004 by— a. Removing the clause date “(MAR 2015)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; and b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing “http://www.dcma.mil/ITCSO/CBT/PCARSS/index.cfm” and adding “http://www.dcma.mil/DCMAIT/cbt/PCARSS/index.cfm” in its place.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22572 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 216 and 236 [Docket DARS-2016-0006] RIN 0750-AI87 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Prohibition on Use of Any Cost-Plus System of Contracting for Military Construction and Military Family Housing Projects (DFARS Case 2015-D040) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that amended title 10 of the United States Code by prohibiting any form of cost-plus contracting for military construction projects or military family housing projects.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Tom Ruckdaschel, telephone 571-372-6088.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 17050 on March 25, 2016. This final rule implements section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81). Section 2801 amends 10 U.S.C. 2306 by prohibiting any form of cost-plus contracting for military construction projects or military family housing projects. Three respondents submitted public comments in response to the proposed rule.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided, as follows:

    A. Summary of Significant Changes from the Proposed Rule

    There are minor changes to the DFARS text from the proposed rule based on the public comments. A list of the specific cost-reimbursement contract types prohibited has been included at DFARS 216.301-3, Limitations. At DFARS 236.215 the terminology was expanded to state “contracts in connection with a military construction project or military family housing project” in lieu of “contracts for construction.” Additionally, at DFARS 236.271, the reference to 236.271 to the prohibition on use of “cost-plus” contracts was revised to refer to “cost-reimbursement” contracts.

    B. Analysis of Public Comments 1. Support for the Rule

    Comment: One respondent expressed support for the proposed rule, indicating that a blanket prohibition on cost-plus contracting in military construction and family housing projects is in the best interest of all parties, including small businesses and taxpayers.

    Response: Noted.

    2. Opposition to the Rule

    Comment: One respondent opposed a blanket prohibition of cost-plus contracts stating that the rule excludes advances and innovations in the marketplace by prohibiting the selection of this form of contracting for construction projects.

    Response: DoD does not have discretion in this rule as the prohibition is statutory and required by 10 U.S.C. 2306(c).

    3. Term “Cost-plus Contract”

    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that the term “cost-plus contract,” as used in the proposed rule is nonstandard within title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulation, and as such should be further defined.

    Response: In the context of the proposed DFARS revisions, “cost-plus” was interpreted as meaning those “cost-reimbursement” contract types defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 16.304, 16.305, and 16.306. Further delineation, however, is added to DFARS 216.301-3 to list the specific contract types prohibited: Cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, and cost-plus-incentive-fee. Additionally, the reference in DFARS 236.271 to use of any cost-plus contract is revised to refer to the list of cost-reimbursement contracts at DFARS 216.301-3.

    4. Cross Reference to Statute

    Comment: One respondent proposed that DoD remove the cross reference to 10 U.S.C. 2306(c) as the prohibition should remain notwithstanding any future changes that might be made to 10 U.S.C. 2306(c).

    Response: It is a DFARS drafting convention to indicate in the regulations if they are based on a statute. This is helpful when considering future amendments to, or deviations from, the regulations. If the statute changes, appropriate changes to the regulations may be required.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The FRFA is summarized as follows:

    The purpose of this rule is to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, which amends 10 U.S.C. 2306, to prohibit any form of cost-plus contracting for military construction projects or military family housing projects.

    No comments were received from the public regarding the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    There is minimal impact anticipated on small entities as a result of the proposed rule. Based on data available in the Federal Procurement Data System, there were only 19 cost-reimbursement type construction contracts awarded in fiscal year 2015, two of which were awarded to small businesses. There is already a general prohibition at DFARS 216.306 on certain cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts funded by a military construction appropriations act. The proposed rule expands this prohibition to all cost-plus contract types in connection with a military construction project or a military family housing project.

    There are no new projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule.

    There are no known significant alternatives to the rule that would meet the requirements of the statute.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 216 and 236

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 216 and 236 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 216 and 236 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 216—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 2. Add section 216.301-3 to read as follows:
    216.301-3 Limitations.

    For contracts in connection with a military construction project or a military family housing project, contracting officers shall not use cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, or cost-plus-incentive-fee contract types (10 U.S.C. 2306(c)). This applies notwithstanding a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency under section 201 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1621) that includes the use of the Armed Forces.

    3. Amend section 216.306 by adding introductory text to paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    216.306 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.

    (c) Limitations. For contracts in connection with a military construction project or military family housing project, see the prohibition at 216.301-3.

    PART 236—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 4. Add section 236.215 to read as follows:
    236.215 Special procedures for cost-reimbursement contracts for construction.

    For contracts in connection with a military construction project or military family housing project, see the prohibition at 216.301-3.

    5. Revise section 236.271 to read as follows:
    236.271 Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts.

    Annual military construction appropriations acts restrict the use of cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts (see 216.306(c)). See also 216.301-3 regarding the prohibition on the use of certain cost-reimbursement contracts in connection with a military construction project or military family housing project.

    [FR Doc. 2016-22569 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 227 and 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0010] RIN 0750-AI91 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Rights in Technical Data (DFARS Case 2016-D008) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 that addresses rights in technical data relating to major weapon systems, expanding application of the presumption that a commercial item has been developed entirely at private expense.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 28812 on May 10, 2016, to implement section 813(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Section 813(a) modifies 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) to address rights in technical data relating to major weapon systems.

    Until now, except for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, a contracting officer's challenge to asserted restrictions on technical data relating to a major system was sustained unless the contractor or subcontractor submitted information demonstrating that the item was developed exclusively at private expense.

    Section 813(a) revised 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) in two primary ways: (1) The major systems rule was narrowed to apply only to major weapon systems; and (2) the exception to the major systems rule for commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items was expanded to include three additional exceptions. More specifically, the formerly COTS-only exception was expanded to include (i) COTS items with modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace or minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements; (ii) commercial subsystems or components of a major weapon system, if the major weapon system was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2379(a); and (iii) components of a subsystem, if the subsystem was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2379(b).

    There were no public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. There are no significant changes from the proposed rule made in the final rule.

    Although there were no comments received on the substance of the proposed rule, DoD did receive a request to suspend the rulemaking process on any case (including this case) relating to rights in technical data until such time as the final report of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel (the Panel), established in accordance with section 813(b) of the NDAA for FY 2016, has been submitted to Congress. After consultation with the Chair of the Panel, DoD determined to proceed with publication of the final rule on this case. This case implements section 813(a) of the NDAA for FY 2016, the same section that set up the Panel, with no indication that DoD should delay implementation. Furthermore, the law is very prescriptive and the proposed rule is a nearly verbatim implementation of the statutory language, so there could be no substantive change to this rule without a corresponding statutory change to 10 U.S.C. 2321. The statute was effective upon implementation, and is expected to be beneficial to industry, including small businesses.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    In order to implement the statutory changes for validation of asserted restrictions on technical data, and apply the revised requirements and procedures to validation of asserted restrictions on computer software, this final rule amends—

    • DFARS 227.7103-13, Government right to review, verify, challenge, and validate asserted restrictions;

    • DFARS 227.7203-13, Government right to review, verify, challenge, and validate asserted restrictions;

    • DFARS 252.227-7019, Validation of Asserted Restrictions—Computer Software; and

    • DFARS 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items

    This final rule does not add any new provisions or clauses or add new requirements to existing provision or clauses. Rather, when acquiring major weapon systems, it expands the circumstances relating to commerciality in which the contracting officer shall presume that development was exclusively at private expense.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The FRFA is summarized as follows:

    This rule was initiated to implement section 813(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). The objective of this rule is to reduce the requirement to respond to Government challenges of restricted rights, by expanding the applicability of the presumption regarding development exclusively at private expense in accordance with section 813(a) of the NDAA for FY 2016.

    There were no public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

    DoD cannot accurately determine the number of small entities that will be affected by this change in the regulations, because DoD does not have sufficient information about subcontract awards of subsystems and components of major weapon systems. However, DoD estimates an annual reduction of 50 prechallenge requests for information and 2 challenges of asserted technical data restrictions. DoD further estimates, based on data from the DoD FY 2014 Small Business Procurement Scorecard, that this reduction in challenges will affect about 17 small businesses (52 × 0.33).

    The final rule reduces the requirement to respond to Government challenge of restricted rights. Under current regulations, the presumption regarding development exclusively at private expense does not apply to major systems or subsystems or components thereof, except for commercially available off-the-shelf items. This rule expands applicability of the presumption regarding development exclusively at private expense with regard to a major weapon system, or a subsystem or component thereof, to cover—

    • A commercial subsystem or component of a major weapon system, if the major weapon system was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with DFARS subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(a));

    • A component of a subsystem, if the subsystem was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with DFARS subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(b)); and

    • Commercially available off-the-shelf items with modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace or minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements.

    The classes of small entities that will be affected by this reduction are small businesses that provide any items in the above categories that are not challenged due to the new statute.

    This rule reduces the burden on small entities to the maximum extent permitted by the statute.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains information collection requirements that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This information collection requirement has been assigned OMB Control Number 0704-0369, entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 227.71, Rights in Technical Data, and Subpart 227.72, Rights in Computer Software and Computer Software Documentation, and related provisions and clauses.”

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 227 and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 227 and 252 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 227 and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 227—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS 2. Amend section 227.7103-13 by— a. Revising the section heading; b. In paragraph (c)(1), removing “commercial item, component, or process” and adding “commercial item” in its place and removing “the item, component or process” and adding “that item” in its place; and c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    227.7103-13 Government right to review, verify, challenge, and validate asserted restrictions.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Commercial items. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, contracting officers shall presume that a commercial item was developed exclusively at private expense whether or not a contractor or subcontractor submits a justification in response to a challenge notice. When a challenge is warranted, a contractor's or subcontractor's failure to respond to the challenge notice cannot be the sole basis for issuing a final decision denying the validity of an asserted restriction.

    (ii) Major weapon systems. When the contracting officer challenges an asserted restriction regarding technical data for a major weapon system or a subsystem or component thereof on the basis that the technology was not developed exclusively at private expense—

    (A) The presumption in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section applies to—

    (1) A commercial subsystem or component of a major weapon system, if the major weapon system was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(a));

    (2) A component of a subsystem, if the subsystem was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(b)); and

    (3) Any other component, if the component is a commercially available off-the-shelf item or a commercially available off-the-shelf item with modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace or minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements; and

    (B) In all other cases, the contracting officer shall sustain the challenge unless information provided by the contractor or subcontractor demonstrates that the item was developed exclusively at private expense.

    227.7203-13 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 227.7203-13 by— a. In the section heading, adding a comma after “challenge”; b. Removing paragraph (d); and c. Redesignating paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), respectively. PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 4. Amend section 252.227-7019 by— a. Removing the clause date “(SEP 2011)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; b. Removing paragraph (f); c. Redesignating paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) as paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i), respectively; d. In newly redesignated paragraph (f)(5)— i. Removing “(g)(1)” and adding “(f)(1)” in its place; ii. Removing “Officer will” and adding “Officer shall” in its place; and iii. Removing “paragraph (f) of this clause and”; f. In newly redesignated paragraph (f)(6) introductory text, removing “the written explanation furnished pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this clause, or any other” and adding “any” in its place; g. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1) introductory text, removing “(h)(3)” and adding “(g)(3)” in its place; and h. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(3), removing “(h)(1)” and adding “(g)(1)” in its place. 5. Amend section 252.227-7037 by— a. Removing the clause date “(JUN 2013)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; and b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2).

    The revisions read as follows:

    252.227-7037 Validation of restrictive markings on technical data.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Commercial items. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this clause, the Contracting Officer will presume that the Contractor's or a subcontractor's asserted use or release restrictions with respect to a commercial item is justified on the basis that the item was developed exclusively at private expense.

    (ii) The Contracting Officer will not challenge such assertions unless the Contracting Officer has information that demonstrates that the commercial item was not developed exclusively at private expense.

    (2) Major weapon systems. In the case of a challenge to a use or release restriction that is asserted with respect to data of the Contractor or a subcontractor for a major weapon system or a subsystem or component thereof on the basis that the major weapon system, subsystem, or component was developed exclusively at private expense—

    (i) The presumption in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause applies to—

    (A) A commercial subsystem or component of a major weapon system, if the major weapon system was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with DFARS subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(a));

    (B) A component of a subsystem, if the subsystem was acquired as a commercial item in accordance with DFARS subpart 234.70 (10 U.S.C. 2379(b)); and

    (C) Any other component, if the component is a commercially available off-the-shelf item or a commercially available off-the-shelf item with modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace or minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements; and

    (ii) In all other cases, the challenge to the use or release restriction will be sustained unless information provided by the Contractor or a subcontractor demonstrates that the item or process was developed exclusively at private expense.

    [FR Doc. 2016-22570 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0032] RIN 0750-AJ07 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: New Designated Country—Moldova (DFARS Case 2016-D028) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is issuing a final rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add Moldova as a new designated country under the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Amy Williams, telephone 571-372-6176.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 29, 2016, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Government Procurement approved the accession of Moldova to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). This rule adds Moldova to the list of WTO GPA countries wherever it appears in the DFARS, as part of the definition of “designated country”.

    II. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule only updates the list of designated countries in the DFARS by adding the newly designated country of Moldova. The definition of “designated country” is updated in each of the following clauses; however, this revision does not impact the clause prescriptions for use, or applicability at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, or applicability to commercial items. The clauses are: DFARS 252.225-7017, Photovoltaic Devices; DFARS 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements; and DFARS 252.225-7045, Balance of Payments Program—Construction Material Under Trade Agreements.

    III. Publication of This Final Rule for Public Comment Is Not Required by Statute

    The statute that applies to the publication of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is 41 U.S.C. 1707 entitled “Publication of Proposed Regulations.” Paragraph (a)(1) of the statute requires that a procurement policy, regulation, procedure, or form (including an amendment or modification thereof) must be published for public comment if it relates to the expenditure of appropriated funds, and has either a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency issuing the policy, regulation, procedure, or form, or has a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors. This final rule is not required to be published for public comment, because it is just updating the lists of designated countries in order to reflect that Moldova is now a member of the WTO GPA. These requirements affect only the internal operating procedures of the Government.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because this final rule does not constitute a significant DFARS revision within the meaning of FAR 1.501-1, and 41 U.S.C. 1707 does not require publication for public comment.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule affects the information collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225-7018, Photovoltaic Devices—Certificate, and 252.225-7020, Trade Agreements Certificate, currently approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0229, entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Part 225, Foreign Acquisition, and related clauses,” in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). The impact, however, is negligible, because the rule only affects the response of an offeror that is offering a product of Moldova in an acquisition that exceeds $191,000. In 252.225-7018, the offeror of a product from Moldova must now check a box at (d)(6)(i) of the provision. However, the offeror no longer needs to list a product from Moldova under “other end products” at 252.225-7020(c)(2), because Moldova is now a designated country.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    252.225-7017 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 252.225-7017 by— a. Removing the clause date of “(AUG 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; and b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”.
    252.225-7021 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 252.225-7021 by— a. In the basic clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(AUG 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”; b. In the Alternate II clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(AUG 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; and ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”.
    252.225-7045 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 252.225-7045 by— a. In the basic clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(JUN 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”; b. In the Alternate I clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(JUN 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”; c. In the Alternate II clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(JUN 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”; and d. In the Alternate III clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(JUN 2016)” and adding “(SEP 2016)” in its place; ii. In paragraph (a), in the definition of “designated country” in paragraph (i), adding, in alphabetical order, the country of “Moldova”.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22571 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 393 [Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0234] RIN 2126-AB94 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Windshield-Mounted Technologies AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to allow the voluntary mounting of certain devices on the interior of the windshields of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), including placement within the area that is swept by the windshield wipers. Section 5301 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act directs the Agency to amend the FMCSRs to allow devices to be mounted on the windshield that utilize “vehicle safety technology,” as defined in the Act. In addition, the section 5301 states that all windshield mounted devices/technologies with a limited 2-year exemption in effect on the date of enactment, shall be considered to meet the equivalent-or-greater safety standard required for the initial exemption. Promulgation of this final rule is a nondiscretionary, ministerial action that does not require prior notice and public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective October 24, 2016.

    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than October 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this final rule, call or email Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone: 202-366-0676; [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone 202-366-0676.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Final Rule is organized as follows:

    I. Executive Summary II. Abbreviations III. Legal Basis IV. Background V. FAST Act—Windshield Technology VI. Discussion of Final Rule VII. International Impacts VIII. Section-by-Section IX. Regulatory Analyses A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities) C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information) F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property) J. Privacy K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards) O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice) I. Executive Summary

    Section 5301 of the FAST Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, but made effective on October 1, 2015, pursuant to section 1003, directs the Secretary to revise 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 393.60(e) relating to the prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view, to provide an exception for the voluntary mounting on a windshield of “vehicle safety technology” likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved without the exception. Section 5301(c) provides that any windshield-mounted technology for which FMCSA had granted a limited exemption under 49 CFR part 381 that was in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act (October 1, 2015) shall be considered as meeting the equivalent-or-better level of safety. For this reason, FMCSA amends 49 CFR 393.60(e) to allow the use of all the devices for which limited exemptions had previously been granted, with restrictions on placement that are consistent with the restrictions that were included in the limited 2-year exemptions.

    Specifically, the Agency replaces current § 393.60(e)(1) with (1) § 393.60(e)(1)(i), which requires antennas and similar devices to be mounted not more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals; and (2) § 393.60(e)(1)(ii), which provides an exception to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to allow devices that utilize certain vehicle safety technologies (including, but not limited to video event recorders, lane departure warning systems, collision mitigation or warning systems, transponders, and sensors that are part of a hands-free driver aid equipment package) to be mounted on the interior of the windshield and within the area swept by the windshield wipers. The Agency adds a definition of “vehicle safety technology” in § 393.5, specifically as it relates to § 393.60(e). The Agency believes the potential economic impact of these changes is negligible. The amendments do not impose new or more stringent requirements, but simply codify the temporary exemptions granted pursuant to 49 CFR part 381 that allow the use of the above-mentioned devices/technologies in locations that would have previously been a violation of § 393.60(e)(1). More importantly, the amendments do not mandate the use of any devices/technologies, but simply permit the voluntary use of the devices/technologies while mounted in a location that maximizes their effectiveness without impairing operational safety.

    II. Abbreviations Full name Abbreviation
  • or acronym
  • Clean Air Act CAA Categorical Exclusion CE Code of Federal Regulations CFR Commercial Motor Vehicles CMVs Executive Order EO Federal Highway Administration FHWA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations FMCSRs Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act FAST Act Motor Carrier Act, 1935 1935 Act Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 1984 Act National Environmental Policy Act NEPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NPRM Office of Management and Budget OMB United States Code U.S.C.
    III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935 [1935 Act], the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act], and the FAST Act of 2015.

    The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours-of-service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” [49 U.S.C. 31502(b)].

    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that—(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely . . .; (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) an operator of a commercial motor vehicle is not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a commercial motor vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title.” [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].

    Section 5301 of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to exempt voluntary mounting of a vehicle safety technology on a windshield if that technology is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, Dec. 4, 2015]. Section 5301(c) also specifies that any regulatory exemption for windshield-mounted technologies in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act “shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent an exemption . . .” It must be noted, however, that section 1003 of the FAST Act makes this provision effective on October 1, 2015, not on the date the act was signed.

    The requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136 (a)(1), (2) and (4) are applicable to this rulemaking action. The rulemaking amends 49 CFR part 393 to allow certain safety equipment to be mounted within the area of the windshield swept by the windshield wipers. The Agency has concluded that this modification will not impair operational safety. Because the amendments in this final rule are primarily technical changes that make permanent certain variances already allowed by regulatory exemptions, FMCSA believes that they will be welcomed by motor carriers and drivers alike and that coercion to violate these variances, which is prohibited by § 31136(a)(5), will not be an issue. FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal before promulgating regulations [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 31502(d)].

    Adoption of this rule is a nondiscretionary ministerial action. Because prior notice and opportunity for comment could not affect the substance of this rule, FMCSA finds good cause under 49 U.S.C. 553(b) to make the rule immediately final. For the same reason, the Agency finds good cause to make the rule effective upon publication, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 553(d).

    IV. Background

    The fundamental purpose of 49 CFR part 393, “Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation,” is to ensure that an employer does not operate a CMV or cause or permit it to be operated, unless it is equipped in accordance with the requirements and specifications of that part. However, nothing contained in part 393 should be construed to prohibit the use of additional equipment and accessories, as long as it is not inconsistent with or prohibited by the FMCSRs, provided that such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the CMV on which they are used (§ 393.3).

    Prior to 1998, § 393.60(c) (“Use of vision-reducing matter”) prohibited the operation of any CMV “with any label, sticker, decalcomania, or other vision-reducing matter covering any portion of its windshield or windows at either side of the driver's compartment, except that stickers required by law may be affixed at the bottom of the windshield, provided that no portion of any label, sticker, decalcomania, or other vision-reducing matter may extend upward more than 4 1/2 inches from the bottom of such windshield.” On March 6, 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) granted a petition from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate, Inc. for a waiver of the requirements of § 393.60(c) to allow mounting of an automatic vehicle identification transponder at the upper border of the windshield of CMVs. After reviewing automotive engineering recommended practices, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, research regarding driver's field of view, and CMV cab designs related to placement of interior mirrors and sun visors, FHWA concluded that mounting a transponder at the approximate center of the top of the windshield would be extremely unlikely to create a situation inconsistent with the safe operation of a CMV, and was unlikely to have any effect on a driver's ability to observe nearby objects, such as pedestrians.

    On April 14, 1997, FHWA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in which the Agency proposed general amendments to part 393 of the FMCSRs, including numerous revisions to § 393.60 regarding glazing materials, windshields and windows (62 FR 18170). Among other things, FHWA proposed revising § 393.60(c) concerning the restrictions on the use of vision-reducing matter on windshields to allow the installation of antennas, transponders, and similar devices in the upper margin of windshields. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to replace § 393.60(c) with a new § 393.60(e), “Prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view,” that would (1) require antennas, transponders, and similar devices to be located not more than 6 inches below the upper edge of the windshield, outside the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs or signals, and (2) retain the general requirement that inspection decals and stickers required under Federal or State laws must be mounted not more than 41/2 inches from the bottom of the windshield, outside the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs or signals. The proposed revisions were intended to eliminate the need for motor carriers to petition FHWA for waivers to allow the use of windshield-mounted transponders and similar devices, such as the March 1995 waiver. The NPRM stated that “The proposed amendment would codify the March 6, 1995, waiver and help to promote the use of advanced technologies to improve the efficiency and safety of operation of commercial motor vehicles.”

    On January 9, 1998, FHWA published a final rule adopting the amendments as proposed in the April 1997 NPRM (63 FR 1383). In adopting the amendments, FHWA stated that “revising § 393.60 to allow the use of windshield-mounted transponders and similar devices will help to promote increased efficiency and safety of motor carrier operations.” FHWA reviewed accident reports concerning the transponder-equipped CMVs operating under the terms of the 1995 waiver, and determined that there had been no crashes that could be attributed to the mounting of such devices in the uppermost area of the center of the windshields of the CMVs. Based on this, FHWA concluded that “the real-world experience of the motor carriers operating approximately 10,000 transponder-equipped CMVs indicates that allowing other CMVs to be similarly equipped is consistent with the public interest and the safe operation of CMVs.” The amendments adopted in the January 1998 final rule, establishing § 393.60(e), have remained unchanged over the past 18 years.

    In the past several years, FMCSA has granted numerous temporary exemptions from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) for a variety of devices and safety technologies that require a clear forward-facing visual field to function most effectively. In conditions of rain or other inclement weather, these devices must be located partially or entirely in the area of the windshield swept by wipers. Many of these devices/safety technologies, such as video event recorders, lane departure warning system sensors, and forward collision warning and mitigation systems, did not exist when the requirements of § 393.60(e) were first established in 1998.

    V. FAST Act—Windshield Technology

    Section 5301(a) of the FAST Act directs FMCSA to amend § 393.60(e) of the FMCSRs to “exempt from that section the voluntary mounting on a windshield of vehicle safety technology likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent the exemption.” “Vehicle safety technology” is defined in Section 5301(b) to include (1) a fleet-related incident management system, (2) performance or behavior management system, (3) speed management system, (4) lane departure warning system, (5) forward collision warning or mitigation system, (6) active cruise control system, and (7) any other technology that the Secretary considers applicable.

    Section 5301(c) also states that “any windshield mounted technology with a short term exemption under part 381 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, on the date of enactment of this Act, shall be considered likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent an exemption.” The following is a list of temporary exemptions from § 393.60(e) that were in effect on October 1, 2015, the effective date of the FAST Act pursuant to section 1003:

    • On March 13, 2015 (80 FR 13460), FMCSA granted a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) to Volvo/Prevost, LLC motorcoaches for a lane departure system mounted not more than 7 inches above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The lane departure warning system alerts drivers who unintentionally drift out of their lane of travel, thus promoting improved safety performance.

    • On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14222), FMCSA granted Mobileye, Inc., a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for CMVs utilizing a camera-based collision avoidance system mounted not more than 4 inches below the upper edge, or above the lower edge, of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The collision avoidance system warns drivers of potential hazards by detecting other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on the road, and lane markings and traffic signs.

    • On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14231), FMCSA granted Lytx Inc. (formerly DriveCam, Inc.), a renewal of a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for CMV utilizing video event recorders mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and located outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Use of the video event recorders increases safety through (1) identification and remediation of risky driving behaviors such as distracted driving and drowsiness, (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger behavior for CMVs in passenger service, and (3) enhanced collision review and analysis. This exemption was initially granted on April 15, 2009, and was renewed for successive 2-year periods in 2011, 2013, and 2015.

    • On April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17818), FMCSA granted Greyhound Lines, Inc. a renewal of a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for its buses utilizing video event recorders mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and located outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Use of the video event recorders increases safety through (1) identification and remediation of risky driving behaviors such as distracted driving and drowsiness, (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger behavior for CMVs in passenger service, and (3) enhanced collision review and analysis. This exemption was initially granted on March 19, 2009, and was renewed for successive 2-year periods in 2011, 2013, and 2015.

    • On May 20, 2015 (80 FR 29151), FMCSA granted the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e) to allow certain motor carriers operating up to 150 CMVs that are part of a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) research program on the reliability of collision avoidance systems to mount camera-based data acquisition systems within and/or below 3 inches of the bottom of the driver side windshield wiper sweep, and out of the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The data acquisition system provides an external view of the road and an internal view of the driver, scanning the facial features of the driver for detection of impaired driving.

    • On June 22, 2015 (80 FR 35697), FMCSA granted Help, Inc. a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for motor carriers using Help, Inc. transponders mounted 2 inches right of the center of the windshield, and 2-3 inches above the dashboard. If however, because of the design and mounting of the windshield wipers on a particular CMV, use of the mounting location identified above did not result in the transponder being located within the swept area of the wipers, where it could function optimally, the transponder could be positioned: (1) To the right of the center of the windshield; and (2) as low as possible in the swept area of the wipers. The transponders transmit and receive data that is used to help determine a vehicle's compliance with safety, weight, and credential requirements while traveling at highway speeds, saving motor carriers time, fuel, and money, reducing congestion around inspection facilities, and improving inspection efficiency and effectiveness by enabling officials to focus their resources on vehicles with safety and size and weight infractions.

    • On November 18, 2013, FMCSA renewed (and published on November 25, 2013, 78 FR 70396) for 2 years an exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for motor carriers using lane departure warning systems and collision mitigation systems mounted not more than 50 mm (2 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. The lane departure warning system alerts drivers who unintentionally drift out of their lane of travel, thus promoting improved safety performance. This exemption was initially granted in 2011, renewed (through November 25, 2015) in 2013, and again (through November 17, 2017) on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76061). The 2011 exemption was in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act.

    Less than one month after enactment of the FAST Act, FMCSA granted one additional temporary exemption from § 393.60(e) that is currently in effect:

    • On December 21, 2015 (80 FR 794112), FMCSA granted Volvo Trucks of North America a 2-year exemption from § 393.60(e)(1) for motor carriers operating Volvo CMVs to use a rain and ambient light detection sensor mounted in the lower part of the passenger side of the windshield within the bottom 7 inches of the area swept by the windshield wipers, outside the driver's sight lines to all mirrors, highway signs, signals, and view of the road ahead. The sensors are part of a hands-free driver aid equipment package intended to improve driver safety.

    Video event recorders (Lytx, Greyhound), lane departure warning systems (Bendix, Volvo/Prevost), and collision avoidance systems (Mobileye) were specifically identified in the definition of “vehicle safety technology” in section 5301(b) of the FAST Act. FMCSA considers both the VTTI data acquisition system, which scans a driver's facial features for the detection of impaired driving, and the Volvo rain and ambient light sensor, which is part of a hands-free driver aid equipment package, to be “performance or behavior management systems” under the definition in the Act. While transponders do not fall into any of the specific categories included in the definition of “vehicle safety technology” in the Act, these devices have been permitted to be mounted in the windshield of CMVs since the granting of the 1995 waiver, and will be included in the amendments made via this rule as the HELP, Inc., temporary exemption was in effect at the time the Act was published.

    VI. Discussion of Final Rule

    As directed by the Act, this final rule amends § 393.60(e) to allow certain vehicle safety technologies to be mounted on the interior of the windshield of a CMV, within a defined portion of the swept area of the windshield. FMCSA adds a definition of “vehicle safety technology” in § 393.5 of the FMCSRs, to include all of the technologies that had been granted temporary exemptions from § 393.60(e) that were in effect at the time the FAST Act was enacted. Consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in the various temporary exemptions currently in effect, the amended rules require devices that must be mounted within the area swept by the windshield wipers to be located (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge, and (2) not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept. Additionally, and consistent with the existing regulation and the terms and conditions of the temporary exemptions, the devices must be located outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.

    Similar to the 1995 waiver and the 1998 amendments to § 393.60, this rule updates the FMCSRs in response to the development and proliferation of devices that utilize new and innovative vehicle safety technologies that did not exist at the time the previous requirements were adopted. These devices/technologies have been proven to improve safety and vehicle operations. As the first temporary exemption from 393.60(e)(1) was granted in March 2009, FMCSA has over 7 years of real-world experience of motor carriers operating CMVs using devices mounted on the interior of the windshield and marginally within the area swept by the windshield wipers. During that time, FMCSA is unaware of any crashes that have been attributed to the location of such devices.

    Section 5301(b) of the Act directs the Agency to permit specific vehicle safety technologies (i.e., fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, and active cruise control system) to be mounted lower in the windshield than currently allowed, and “any other technology that the Secretary considers applicable.” At this time, the Agency is unaware of any other existing technologies that should be included in the amendments made via this rule.

    VII. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the regulatory differences amongst nations.

    VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Under this final rule, the requirements of 49 CFR 393.60 are revised to allow for the utilization of specific vehicle safety technologies that would be mounted on the interior of the windshield of a CMV, and within the area swept by the windshield wipers. FMCSA also adds a definition for “vehicle safety technology” in 49 CFR 393.5

    IX. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563)

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); is not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980, 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The Agency estimates that the economic benefits and costs of the voluntary use of vehicle safety technologies will be less than $100 million. Carriers will not incur costs associated with adopting any technologies identified in this final rule because all such technologies are purely optional. Manufacturers of technologies currently exempted will experience a minor cost savings through the elimination of the biennial burden to renew existing exemptions. Manufacturers not currently named in exemptions that wish to develop and market such technologies will have new business opportunities. Carriers that choose to purchase and install currently exempt technologies may be more confident in doing so since there will be no question as to whether an expiring exemption will be renewed.

    Furthermore, the net impact of this rule, although small, should be beneficial to the motoring public. When FMCSA previously granted each exemption involved here, it found that doing so would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption. Based on the technical information available, there is no indication that the rain and ambient light detection sensors, lane departure warning system sensors, collision mitigation or avoidance system sensors, video event recorders or transponders would obstruct drivers' views of the roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic. Generally, trucks and buses have an elevated seating position that greatly improves the forward visual field of the driver; and the location within the top four inches of the area swept by the windshield wipers and out of the driver's sightline or within the bottom 7 inches of the area swept by the windshield wipers and out of the driver's sightline will be reasonable and enforceable at roadside. Moreover, no exemption has been rescinded due to: (1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles failing to comply with the terms and conditions of an exemption; (2) A lower level of safety than that prior to the granting of an exemption; or (3) Inconsistency between continuation of an exemption with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b). For the reasons stated above, the Agency estimates that the net impact of this rule will be positive.

    The economic impact of this final rule is expected to be small because it merely makes permanent certain temporary exemptions to the windshield-obstruction rule, and none of its provisions involve new or more stringent requirements than those already allowed by current exemptions. This final rule does not approach the $100 million annual threshold of economic significance with respect to costs; in fact, it adds no new costs. With respect to benefits, this final rule will marginally increase the usage of vehicle safety technologies as defined in Section 5301(b) of the FAST Act, thereby producing safety benefits that the Agency lacks data to quantify. However, as the vehicle safety technologies permanently exempted in this rule are already commercially available and used by many carriers, the Agency expects their usage to increase only slightly faster than without this rule. The Agency therefore expects the benefits of this final rule will not rise to the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance. Moreover, the Agency does not expect the rule to generate substantial congressional or public interest.

    The FMCSA has determined that it has good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) to adopt this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment. The Agency finds that notice and comment are “unnecessary” because section 5301(a) of the FAST Act required FMCSA to revise § 393.60(e) within 180 days of the date of enactment, essentially to codify as permanent regulations those exemptions to the windshield-obstruction rule that have been issued in recent years. Section 5301(c) specified that any exemption from § 393.60(e) in effect on the date of enactment of the FAST Act must be considered to meet the statutory test for an exemption in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), i.e., “likely [to] achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” Because section 5301 gives FMCSA no discretion in amending the regulations to allow vehicle safety technology, the Agency has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA determined that it has good cause to adopt the rule without notice and comment.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA personnel listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the final rule.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et seq.), that results in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 2014 after adjusting for inflation) or more in any 1 year.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of Information)

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). FMCSA has determined that no new information collection requirements are associated with this rule under OMB control number 2126-0003, “Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.”

    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has Federalism implications if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on the States. FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13132 and determined that it does not have Federalism implications.

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The Agency determined that this final rule will not create an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

    J. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This final rule does not require the collection of any personally identifiable information.

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. FMCSA has determined this final rule will not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

    K. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    M. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

    N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requires Federal agencies proposing to adopt technical standards to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. If the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a separate statement to OMB. Because FMCSA does not intend to adopt its own technical standards, there is no need to submit a separate statement to OMB on this matter.

    O. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004) that this action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore, this final rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, Appendix 2, paragraph 6.bb. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.bb. addresses regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards (e.g., regulations requiring: Certain motor carriers to use approved equipment which is required to be installed such as an ignition cut-off switch, or carried on board, such as a fire extinguisher, and/or stricter blood alcohol concentration (BAC) standards for drivers, etc.), equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements (e.g. fire extinguishers and flares). A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov.

    FMCSA also analyzed this final rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this final rule in accordance with the Executive Order, and has determined that it has none, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:

    PART 393—PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION 1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5301 and 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1543, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Amend § 393.5 by adding a definition for “Vehicle safety technology” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 393.5 Definitions.

    Vehicle safety technology. Vehicle safety technology includes a fleet-related incident management system, performance or behavior management system, speed management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and transponder.

    3. Amend § 393.60 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
    § 393.60 Glazing in specified openings.

    (e) Prohibition on obstructions to the driver's field of view—(1) Devices mounted on the interior of the windshield. (i) Antennas, and similar devices must not be mounted more than 152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield. These devices must be located outside the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.

    (ii) Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section does not apply to vehicle safety technologies, as defined in § 393.5, that are mounted on the interior of a windshield. Devices with vehicle safety technologies must be mounted:

    (A) Not more than 100 mm (4 inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers;

    (B) Not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers; and

    (C) Outside the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87 on: September 12, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22923 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 393 and 395 [Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0050] Hours of Service of Drivers; Parts and Accessories: ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC, Application for Exemptions AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemptions.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces its decision to grant ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor, LLC (ArcelorMittal) exemptions from the hours of service (HOS) and parts and accessories rules. One exemption will allow ArcelorMittal's employee-drivers with commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) who transport steel coils between their production and shipping locations on public roads to work up to 16 hours per day and return to work with less than the mandatory 10 consecutive hours off duty. The other exemption will allow ArcelorMittal to use coil carriers that do not meet the “heavy hauler trailer” definition, height of rear side marker lights restrictions, tire loading restrictions, and the coil securement requirements.

    DATES:

    These exemptions are effective from September 23, 2016 through September 23, 2021.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; Telephone: (614) 942-6477. Email: [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, “FMCSA-2016-0050” in the “Keyword” box and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.

    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 5 years), and explain its terms and conditions. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

    Section 5206(a)(3) of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act,” (FAST Act) [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537, Dec. 4, 2015], amended 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) by adding a new paragraph (2) which permits exemptions for no longer than 5 years from their dates of inception, instead of the previous 2 years. This statutory provision was codified in 49 CFR 381.300, effective July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47714).

    III. Request for Exemptions

    ArcelorMittal (USDOT 1098829) operates a steel plant in East Chicago, Indiana, its principal place of business. Several public roadways run through the plant area. Steel coils produced in one portion of the plant must be transported over two short segments of public highway to another section of the plant for further processing or shipment to customers. Both points where the vehicles cross are controlled intersections, having either traffic lights or a combination of traffic lights and signs. The first public road the CMVs cross is Riley Road. The crossing is controlled by a 4-way traffic signal. The distance traveled is 80 feet. The average number of crossings at this intersection is 24 per day. The second crossing is at Dickey Road and 129th Street. The distance traveled here is .2 miles. The trucks cross 129th Street 24 times per day.

    The trailers are specially designed with cradles to hold steel coils in place. The trailers have a bed height and width of 68 and 114 inches, respectively, and a maximum height of 14 feet.

    Unloaded, these tractor-trailer combinations have a gross weight of 77,000 pounds. When fully loaded their gross weight is 263,171 pounds. The trailers have off-road tires to distribute this weight and avoid damaging roads, both inside and outside the plant. The tractors' maximum speed is 30-35 mph, but only 15 mph when moving a fully loaded trailer. These vehicles have many of the same features of a typical tractor and trailer, but do not meet all of the parts and accessories requirements in 49 CFR part 393.

    All employee-drivers are required to hold CDLs and adhere to the regulations that apply to CMV drivers. When employee-drivers move these vehicles, they are fully marked as an “oversize load” and have flags on the front of the tractor. Driving these vehicles amounts to 10 percent of the employee-drivers' total work day. ArcelorMittal contends that these employee-drivers do not work more than 16 hours per day and advises that a 16-hour work day is the exception, not the rule.

    According to ArcelorMittal, the current hours-of-service (HOS) regulations create problems as employee-drivers typically work an 8-hour shift plus overtime while employees in the production and shipping areas work 12-hour shifts. Employee-drivers must go home under the current arrangement, leaving a 4-hour gap between production and the driver's schedule, creating a possible shortage of coils for shipping or processing. ArcelorMittal asserts that the limited number of employees who drive the CMVs make it difficult to schedule moves. ArcelorMittal anticipates that only 3 of the 24 crossings at each noted intersection would occur after the 14th hour on-duty.

    ArcelorMittal requested a complete exemption from 49 CFR part 395 for its “internal logistics” drivers to enable them to follow the same schedule as the employees in the production and shipping areas. The applicant could then minimize the chances of possible shortages of coils for shipping or processing. ArcelorMittal advised that it would ensure that all employee-drivers would not work more than 16 hours per shift, would receive 8 hours off duty between shifts, and would not be allowed to drive more than 10 percent of their total work day.

    As previously noted, the vehicles used to transport steel coils have many of the same features as a typical tractor and trailer, but do not meet all of the requirements for parts and accessories in 49 CFR part 393. ArcelorMittal therefore requested exemptions for its coil-carrier trailers from the heavy hauler trailer definition in § 393.5; the required height of rear side marker lights in § 393.11 Table 1—Footnote 4; the tire loading restrictions in § 393.75(f); and the coil securement requirements in § 393.120.

    According to ArcelorMittal, its equipment was designed for in-facility use and very limited road use. Public roadways are crossed only when necessary, and oversize-overweight permits are obtained from local authorities when required. The applicant advises that it has never had an issue with its equipment or drivers at the crossings mentioned above. The coils are well-secured in the trailers due to the design of the cradles. The time needed to secure the coils in compliance with part 393 would be longer than the transit time from one part of the plant to another.

    IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    ArcelorMittal asserted that it has taken additional precautions to use public roadways for the shortest possible distances and only at controlled intersections. The applicant ensures that all lights are properly working on both the tractor and trailer. It also flags and marks the vehicles as “oversize” loads. Trailers have conspicuity tape down the entire side to make them more visible to other traffic. The applicant believes that its additional precautions ensure a level of safety that is equivalent to or exceeds the level of safety achieved by following the regulations.

    ArcelorMittal acknowledged in its application that these “internal logistics” drivers would remain subject to all of the other applicable Federal regulations. This includes qualification of drivers, controlled substance and alcohol testing and inspection, and maintenance and repair of vehicles.

    Included in ArcelorMittal's application are illustrations of the plant's location, public roads crossed, and pictures of the tractors and trailers used to transport the steel coils. A copy of ArcelorMittal's application for the exemptions is available for review in the docket for this notice.

    V. Public Comments

    On March 22, 2016, FMCSA published notice of this application and requested public comment (81 FR 15217). Four comments were submitted.

    Mr. Keith Case wrote, “There are other options to handle this situation that do not include having a special exemption for one company. The company can hire additional drivers/workers to do this.” Ms. Ingrid Harris commented, “I do not think that it's ok to give any company waivers to have drivers work longer hours. At the end of the day the driver still has to drive home and is tired. This will just cause more issues.” Mr. Scott Olson stated, “I do not support any exemptions for anybody for any reason. If we make a rule, everybody needs to abide by it. If we don't like the rule, get rid of it.”

    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that “ArcelorMittal's request for an exemption from the HOS regulations should be denied as granting such an exemption would result in a substantial reduction in the level of safety currently provided by the regulations. In addition, there is practical and common sense alternative readily available to the company other than the exemption. Finally, while Advocates does not oppose ArcelorMittal's request for an exemption for its vehicles from certain sections of 49 CFR part 393, FMCSA must be explicit that such an exemption is strictly limited in its scope to those vehicles and roadways described in the application.”

    VI. FMCSA Response and Decision

    Prior to publishing the Federal Register notice announcing the receipt of ArcelorMittal's exemptions request, FMCSA ensured that the motor carrier possessed an active USDOT registration, minimum required levels of insurance, and was not subject to any “imminent hazard” or other out-of-service orders. The Agency conducted a comprehensive investigation of the safety performance history of the motor carrier during the review process. As part of this process, FMCSA reviewed its Motor Carrier Management Information System safety records, including inspection and accident reports submitted to FMCSA by State agencies.

    The FMCSA has evaluated ArcelorMittal's application for exemptions and the public comments. The Agency believes that ArcelorMittal's overall safety performance, as well as a number of other factors discussed below, will enable it to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemptions (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

    These exemptions are being granted under extremely narrow conditions. One exemption is restricted to ArcelorMittal's employee-drivers to enable them to work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary. This is somewhat comparable to current HOS regulations that allow certain “short-haul” drivers a 16-hour driving “window” once a week (49 CFR 395.1(o)) and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two 16-hour duty periods per week (49 CFR 395.1(e)(2)), provided specified conditions are met. However, current regulations require a minimum of 10 hours off duty between duty periods.

    Section 381.305(a) specifies that motor carriers “. . . may apply for an exemption if one or more Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations prevents you from implementing more efficient or effective operations that would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the exemption.”

    The other exemption is restricted to ArcelorMittal's coil carriers as described in its application. The exemption enables ArcelorMittal's CMVs that do not meet the parts and accessories requirements in part 393 to use two short segments of public highway to move coils from one part of the plant to another for shipment to its customers. The CMVs operated by ArcelorMittal's drivers will be exposed to other traffic for very brief periods. The CMVs cross Riley Road, where they travel 80 feet. The length of the crossing at Dickey Road and 129th Street is .2 mile. The CMVs cross both points 24 times per day.

    Terms of the Exemptions Period of the Exemption

    The exemptions from the requirements of 49 CFR part 395 and certain sections in 49 CFR part 393 (§§ 393.5; 393.11 Table 1—Footnote 4; 393.75(f); and 393.120) are granted for the period from September 23, 2016through September 23, 2021, for drivers employed by ArcelorMittal and certain CMVs used by ArcelorMittal to transport coils.

    Extent of the Exemptions

    The exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR part 395 is restricted to ArcelorMittal's internal logistics drivers. Drivers utilizing the exemption may work up to 16 consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours off duty when necessary.

    The exemption from certain sections in 49 CFR part 393 (§§ 393.5; 393.11 Table 1—Footnote 4; 393.75(f); and 393.120) is restricted to ArcelorMittal's CMVs that transport coils. The CMVs must only cross on Riley Road, where they travel 80 feet and Dickey Road and 129th Street where they travel .2 miles to move coils from one part of the plant to another for shipment to its customers. All drivers must have CDLs and drivers and vehicles must comply with all other applicable provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. ArcelorMittal must maintain any oversize-overweight permits required by local authorities.

    Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period these exemptions are in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with these exemptions with respect to a firm or person operating under these exemptions.

    Notification to FMCSA

    ArcelorMittal must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of these exemptions. The notification must be by email to [email protected], and include the following information:

    a. Exemption Identifier: “ArcelorMittal” b. Name and USDOT number of the motor carrier, c. Date of the accident, d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or which is closest to the scene of the accident, e. Driver's name and driver's license number, f. Vehicle number and State license number, g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury, h. Number of fatalities, i. The police-reported cause of the accident, j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws, or motor carrier safety regulations, and k. The total driving time and the total on-duty time of the CMV driver at the time of the accident. Termination

    The FMCSA does not believe the motor carrier, the drivers, and CMVs covered by the exemptions will experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemptions. The FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemptions for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: September 15, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22963 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 185 Friday, September 23, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9073; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-062-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require modifying the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. We are proposing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7, 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.

    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-2016-9073; 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:

    Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; 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-2016-9073; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-062-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

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Model 707/720 FQIS Design

    The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for a latent FQIS electrical fault condition inside the fuel tank combined with an electrical hot short condition connecting a high power source to the FQIS wiring to cause an ignition source in a fuel tank.

    Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf), the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the center wing tank on Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes created an unsafe condition for the center fuel tank. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main and reserve (wing) tanks of these airplanes.

    Related Rulemaking

    On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

    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 modifying the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions. It is likely that operators or modifiers would develop transient suppression devices to be installed in the FQIS circuitry at the fuel tank entry point rather than physically separating FQIS wiring throughout the airplane. If this occurs the costs would be significantly lower than the estimate below.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. This estimate includes 2 cargo/tanker airplanes and 1 non-air-carrier passenger airplane, and 1 experimental airplane. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs: Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Modification 600 work-hours × $85 per hour = $51,000 $150,000 $201,000 $804,000
    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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9073; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-062-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 707 100 long body, 200, 100B long body, 100B short body, 300, 300B, 300C, and 400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category; excluding airplanes equipped with a flammability reduction means (FRM) approved by the FAA as compliant with the requirements of 14 CFR 25.981(b), as amended on September 19, 2008, or 14 CFR 26.33(c)(1), as amended on September 19, 2008.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the center fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the FQIS to prevent development of an ignition source inside the center fuel tank due to electrical fault conditions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21396 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9072; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-110-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This proposed AD would require modifying the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative to the modification, this proposed AD would allow deactivating the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks. We are proposing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7, 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.

    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-2016-9072; 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:

    Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; 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-2016-9072; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-110-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

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).

    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.

    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.

    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

    Model 727 FQIS Design

    The design of the in-tank FQIS components and wiring has the potential for a latent FQIS electrical fault condition inside the fuel tank combined with an electrical hot short condition connecting a high power source to the FQIS wiring to cause an ignition source in a fuel tank.

    Under the policy contained in FAA Policy Memo PS-ANM100-2003-112-15, SFAR 88—Mandatory Action Decision Criteria, dated February 25, 2003 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/dc94c3a46396950386256d5e006aed11/$FILE/Feb2503.pdf), the FAA determined that this ignition source risk combined with the fleet average flammability for the optional auxiliary fuel tanks on those Model 727 airplanes created an unsafe condition for those tanks. Applying that same policy, the FAA determined that due to a lower fleet average flammability, that same unsafe condition does not exist in the main tanks of Model 727 airplanes.

    Related Rulemaking

    On March 21, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-07, Amendment 39-18452 (81 FR 19472, April 5, 2016), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-07 requires similar actions to those proposed in this NPRM. AD 2016-07-07 addressed the numerous public comments that were submitted on the proposal.

    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 the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require modifying the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks due to electrical fault conditions. As an alternative to the modification, this proposed AD would allow deactivating the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks.

    Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for Model 727 airplanes is shorter than other FQIS AD actions because it is expected that the operators of the relatively small number of affected airplanes will choose to deactivate the body-mounted auxiliary tanks, either permanently or during an interim period prior to reactivating the tanks with approved corrective actions.

    Costs of Compliance

    We cannot estimate the number of airplanes of U.S. registry that would be affected by this proposed AD. Boeing originally built about 272 airplanes of the affected design, but cannot provide information on whether any are still in service. Boeing expects that most of the affected airplanes are out of service or have already had their auxiliary fuel tanks removed.

    For any affected airplane, we estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs: Required Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Modification 300 work-hours × $85 per hour = $25,500 $100,000 $125,500
    Estimated Costs: Alternative Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Tank deactivation 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 $0 $850
    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): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-9072; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-110-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727-100, 727C, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with Boeing body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent ignition sources inside the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Modification

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (1) Modify the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) to prevent development of an ignition source inside the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks due to electrical fault conditions.

    (2) Deactivate the body-mounted auxiliary fuel tanks.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jon Regimbal, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6506; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-21397 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-022-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN-2T-4R, BN-2T, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3 (all models on Type Certificate Data Sheets A17EU and A29EU) airplanes that would supersde AD 2016-06-01. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to change the model applicability due to errors found in AD 2016-06-01.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    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-2016-9160; 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 (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4159; fax: (816) 329-3047; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-022-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://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

    On March 7, 2016, we issued AD 2016-06-01, Amendment 39-18432 (81 FR 13717; March 15, 2016). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on B-N Group Ltd. Model B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3 (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes. AD 2016-06-01 was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    In 2005, occurrences were reported of finding cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads, Part Number (P/N) DU130-24.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, B-N Group issued Service Bulletin (SB) 310 to provide inspection and test instructions. Consequently, CAA UK issued AD G-2005-0034 (EASA approval 2005-6447) to require repetitive inspections and leak tests and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Subsequently, B-N Group published SB 310 issue 2, prompting EASA to issue AD 2006-0143 making reference to SB 310 at issue 2, while the publication of BNA SB 310 issue 3 prompted EASA AD 2006-0143R1, introducing BNA modification (mod) NB-M-1728 (new pitot/static pressure head not affected by the AD requirements) as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections and leak tests.

    Since that AD was issued, operators have reported a number of premature failures of the affected P/N DU130-24 pitot-static probes.

    Prompted by these reports, BNA issued SB 310 issue 4 to reduce the interval for the inspections and leak tests.

    Since we issued AD 2016-06-01, errors were discovered in the model applicability after issuance. This proposed AD adds Models BN-2T and BN-2T-4R, removes nonexistent Model BN2B, and removes duplicate listings of BN2A and BN2A MK.III.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    B-N Group Ltd. has issued Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections, and if necessary, replacement of the pitot/static pressure head. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 93 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $7,905, or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    The cost impact of this AD is the same as that presented in AD 2016-06-01.

    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 removing Amendment 39-18432 (81 FR 13717; March 15, 2016), and adding the following new AD: B-N Group Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9160; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-022-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 7, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-06-01, Amendment 39-18432 (81 FR 13717; March 15, 2016).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN-2T-4R, BN-2T, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3 (all models on Type Certificate Data Sheets A17EU and A29EU) airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this proposed AD to change the model applicability due to errors found in AD 2016-06-01.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this AD:

    (1) For all airplanes that are equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24, except Models BN-2T and BN-2T-4R: Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 19, 2016 (the effective date retained from AD 2016-06-01) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the pitot/static pressure head for cracks and/or separation and perform a leak test following the procedures in the action section of Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015.

    (2) For Models BN-2T and BN-2T-4R that are equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: Within 50 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the pitot/static pressure head for cracks and/or separation and perform a leak test following the procedures in the action section of Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015.

    (3) For all airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: If, during an inspection or test required in paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this AD discrepancies are found, before further flight, replace the pitot/static pressure head with an airworthy part.

    (4) For all airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: Corrections performed on airplanes as required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required in paragraph (f)(1) or (2) of this AD.

    (5) For all airplanes not equipped with a pitot/static pressure head P/N DU130-24 on the effective date of this AD: After April 19, 2016 (the effective date retained from AD 2016-06-01), do not install a pitot/static pressure head P/N DU130-24.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4159; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0184, dated September 1, 2015; for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9160. For service information related to this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 16, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22831 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8833; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-8] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Iowa Towns; Algona, IA; Ankeny, IA; Atlantic, IA; Belle Plane, IA; Creston, IA; Estherville, IA; Grinnell, IA; Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein, IA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E surface area at Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Algona Municipal Airport, Algona, IA; Ankeny Regional Airport; Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA; Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA; Creston Municipal Airport, Creston, IA; Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA; Grinnell Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA; Guthrie County Regional Airport, Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA. Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Algona Municipal Airport, Atlantic Municipal Airport, and Grinnell Regional Airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The name of Belle Plaine, IA, would also be adjusted to correct a misspelling in the legal description.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-8833; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E surface area at Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Algona Municipal Airport, Algona, IA; Ankeny Regional Airport; Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA; Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA; Creston Municipal Airport, Creston, IA; Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA; Grinnell Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA; Guthrie County Regional Airport, Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA.

    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 and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8833/Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the 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 Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying:

    Class E surface area airspace within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from the 4-mile radius) of Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA;

    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:

    By removing the 10-mile extension northwest of Algona Municipal Airport, Algona, IA, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.1-mile radius) of Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA, and removing the extensions 9.3 miles northeast and 11.1 miles north of the airport;

    Within a 7.2-mile radius (increased from the 6.8-mile radius) of Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA, with an extension to the northeast from the 7.2-mile radius to 9.2 miles, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.5-mile radius) of Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA, and correcting city designation from Belle Plane to Belle Plaine;

    By removing the 11-mile extension south of Creston Municipal Airport, Creston, IA;

    By removing the 7.4-mile extensions south and northwest of Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA;

    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.6-mile radius) of Grinnell Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA, and updating the geographical coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

    By adding an extension to the north from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8 miles of Guthrie County Regional Airport, Guthrie Center, IA;

    And within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.3-mile radius) of Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA.

    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations 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

    This proposal will be subject 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 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ACE IA E2 Ankeny, IA [Amended] Ankeny Regional Airport, IA (Lat. 41°41′29″ N., long. 93°33′59″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, excluding that portion within the Des Moines Class C airspace area.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ACE IA E5 Algona, IA [Amended] Algona Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 43°04′41″ N., long. 94°16′19″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Algona Municipal Airport.

    ACE IA E5 Ankeny, IA [Amended] Ankeny Regional Airport, IA (Lat. 41°41′29″ N., long. 93°33′59″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, excluding that portion within the Des Moines Class C airspace area.

    ACE IA E5 Atlantic, IA [Amended] Atlantic Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 41°24′14″ N., long. 95°02′56″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Atlantic Municipal Airport and within 1.8 miles each side of the 022° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 9.2 miles northeast of the airport.

    ACE IA E5 Belle Plaine, IA [Amended] Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 41°52′44″ N., long. 92°17′04″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, excluding that portion which overlies the Cedar Rapids, IA, Class E airspace area.

    ACE IA E5 Creston, IA [Amended] Creston Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 41°01′17″ N., long. 94°21′48″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Creston Municipal Airport.

    ACE IA E5 Estherville, IA [Amended] Estherville Municipal Airport, LA (Lat. 43°24'27″ N., long. 94°44'47″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Estherville Municipal Airport.

    ACE IA E5 Grinnell, IA [Amended] Grinnell Regional Airport, IA (Lat. 41°42′36″ N., long. 92°44′10″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Grinnell Regional Airport.

    ACE IA E5 Guthrie Center, IA [Amended] Guthrie County Regional Airport, IA (Lat. 41°41′13″ N., long. 93°26′06″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Guthrie County Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 360° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8 miles north of the airport.

    ACE IA E5 Oelwein, IA [Amended] Oelwein Municipal Airport, IA (Lat. 42°40′51″ N., long. 91°58′28″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Oelwein Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 14, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22889 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 15 CFR Part 2004 [Docket Number USTR-2016-0015] RIN 0350-AA08 Freedom of Information Act Policies and Procedures AGENCY:

    Office of the United States Trade Representative.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a comprehensive review of agency practices related to the disclosure of records and information, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is updating its implementing rule under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The proposed rule, which is modeled after a template provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, describes how to make a FOIA request to USTR and how the FOIA Office, which includes the USTR officials who are authorized to work on FOIA requests, processes requests for records. We are in the process of renaming and reorganizing part 2004 to include all of the rules governing disclosure of USTR records and information, and with this proposed rule, we are moving the FOIA rule into a new subpart B to part 2004.

    DATES:

    We must receive your written comments on or before November 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You should submit written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number for this rulemaking is USTR-2016-0015. USTR invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule, and will revise the language as appropriate after taking all timely submitted comments into consideration. Copies of all comments will be available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov upon completion of processing. You can view a submission by entering the docket number USTR-2016-0015 in the search field at http://www.regulations.gov. We will post comments without change and will include any personal information you provide, such as your name, mailing address, email address, and telephone number.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janice Kaye, Monique Ricker or Melissa Keppel, Office of General Counsel, United States Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250 Murray Lane SW., Washington, DC 20509, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected], or the USTR FOIA Public Liaison at [email protected] or 202-395-3419.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    USTR has undertaken a comprehensive review of agency practices related to the collection, use, protection and disclosure of USTR records and information. As a result of that review, USTR is updating it FOIA implementing rule. The FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, provides a right of access to certain records and information Federal agencies maintain and control. The FOIA requires each Federal agency to publish regulations describing how to submit a FOIA request and how the FOIA Office will process these requests. USTR's current FOIA rule, codified at 15 CFR part 2004, was last revised in in 2008. See 73 FR 35063, June 20, 2008. Due to the passage of time and amendments to the FOIA, we are completely rewriting and updating the rule. USTR's proposed rule is modeled after a template provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, and incorporates the practical experience of the FOIA staff. This rulemaking would move the FOIA rule to a new subpart B to part 2004, which we have proposed renaming and reorganizing to include all of the rules governing disclosure of USTR records and information.

    II. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 2004.1—Purpose and scope: This section describes the purpose of the regulation, which is to implement the FOIA, and explains general policies and procedures for requesters seeking access to records and information, and for processing requests by the USTR FOIA Office.

    Section 2004.2—Proactive disclosures: This section describes USTR information the public can access without filing a FOIA request.

    Section 2004.3—How to make a FOIA request: This section explains what an individual must do to submit a valid FOIA request to USTR and where a request should be sent. It also describes the information a requester must provide so USTR can identify the records sought and process their request.

    Section 2004.4—Confidential commercial information: This section explains when and how a person or entity that submits information to USTR must identify confidential commercial information. It also describes how USTR staff will handle such information.

    Section 2004.5—The USTR staff that processes FOIA requests: The USTR FOIA Office handles all FOIA requests. The section explains when the FOIA staff will consult with or refer a request to another Federal agency.

    Section 2004.6—When we will respond to your request: This section describes the period of time within which USTR will respond to requests, i.e., ordinarily within twenty working days after the date the request is perfected. It provides for an extension if there are unusual circumstances and explains the requirements for expedited processing. The section also describes our multitrack processing system.

    Section 2004.7—What our response will include: This section explains that we will respond to your request in writing either with the requested records or a detailed explanation of the reasons why all of the requested records were not disclosed. We also will provide information about the right of appeal and the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration.

    Section 2004.8—What you can do if you are dissatisfied with our response: This section describes when and how a requester may appeal a determination on a FOIA request and how and within what period of time USTR will make a determination on an appeal.

    Section 2004.9—Fees: This section describes the different categories of requesters and the types and amounts of fees we may assess to process and respond to a FOIA request.

    III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    USTR has considered the impact of the proposed rule and determined that if adopted as a final rule it is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities because it is applicable only to USTR's internal operations and legal obligations. See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirement that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 2004

    Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Disclosure, Exemptions, Freedom of information, Government employees, Privacy, Records, Subpoenas, Testimony.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of the United States Trade Representative is proposing to amend chapter XX of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 2004—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. Add the subpart B authority citation to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552; 19 U.S.C. 2171(e)(3); Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines, 52 FR 10012, Mar. 27, 1987.

    Subpart B—Freedom of Information Act Policies and Procedures 2. Add §§ 2004.1 through 2004.9 to subpart B to read as follows: Sec. 2004.1 Purpose and scope. 2004.2 Proactive disclosures. 2004.3 How do I make a request for records under the FOIA? 2004.4 How will we handle confidential commercial information? 2004.5 Who is responsible for responding to your FOIA request? 2004.6 When will we respond to your FOIA request? 2004.7 What will our response to your FOIA request include? 2004.8 What can I do if I am dissatisfied with USTR's response to my FOIA request? 2004.9 Fees.
    § 2004.1 Purpose and scope.

    (a) This subpart contains the rules we follow when processing requests for records under the FOIA, a Federal law that provides a right of access to certain records and information Federal agencies maintain and control. You should read this subpart in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Act Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Guidelines). Additionally, our FOIA Reference Guide, which is available on our Web site at http://www.ustr.gov, contains information about the specific procedures for making FOIA requests and descriptions of the types of records we maintain.

    (b) To maximize the amount of information we can provide to you, we may process requests you make for records about yourself under both this subpart and subpart C to part 2004, our rules implementing the Privacy Act.

    (c) We administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness. This means that as a matter of policy, we make discretionary disclosures of records or information exempt from disclosure under the FOIA whenever disclosure would not foreseeably harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption. This policy does not create any right enforceable in court and you should not construe anything in this subpart as an entitlement to any service or to the disclosure of any record you are not entitled to under the FOIA.

    § 2004.2 Proactive disclosures.

    You can access records that the FOIA requires us to make available for public inspection and copying through our Web site: http://www.ustr.gov. You also can find press releases, links to Federal Register notices and comments, fact sheets, speeches and remarks, reports, information about current initiatives, and historical information about U.S. trade issues. If you need assistance to locate a particular record, you can contact the Office of Public and Media Affairs at [email protected] or the FOIA Office at [email protected]

    § 2004.3 How do I make a request for records under the FOIA?

    (a) General information—(1) Where do I send my written request? To make a request for records, you should write directly to the FOIA Office. Heightened security delays mail delivery. To avoid mail delivery delays, we strongly suggest that you email your request to [email protected] Our mailing address is: FOIA Office, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250 Murray Lane SW., Washington, DC 20509. To ensure that the FOIA Office receives your request without delay, you should include the notation “FOIA Request” in the subject line of your email or on the front of your envelope and also at the beginning of your request.

    (2) Security concerns. To protect our computer systems, we will not open attachments to emailed requests—you must include your request within the body of the email. We will not process email attachments.

    (3) Verifying your identity. (i) If you are making a request for records about yourself or about another individual, you may receive greater access by submitting a notarized signature—yours if the records are about you, or the other individual's if the records are about them. You can fulfill this requirement by having the signature on your request letter witnessed by a notary.

    (ii) Alternatively, you can provide an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury. You can fulfill this requirement by including the following statement just before the signature on your request letter:

    I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on [date].

    (iii) If the other individual is deceased, you should submit proof of death such as a copy of a death certificate or an obituary. As an exercise of administrative discretion, we may require that you provide additional information if necessary in order to verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure.

    (b) How do I describe the records I want? (1) You must describe the records you seek in sufficient detail to enable USTR personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. To satisfy this requirement, you should be as detailed as possible when describing the records you seek. To the extent possible, you should include specific information that may help us identify the requested records, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, subject matter of the record, case number, file designation, or reference number. For example, we cannot process a request for all records related to a particular trade negotiation or agreement or a request for all communications between USTR and a particular third party. Your request must include a date limitation, particular topics, and if asking for correspondence, the subject matter and the relevant parties with contact information such as their email addresses.

    (2) If a request does not provide sufficient specific descriptive information for the FOIA Office reasonably to ascertain exactly which records you are requesting and to locate them, our response may be delayed or we may not be able to respond. Please note that in response to a FOIA request, we are not required to create records, conduct research for you, analyze data, answer written questions, or parse your narrative to try and determine the specific records you are seeking. You can contact the FOIA Office before you submit your request for assistance in describing the records you are seeking. If we determine that your request does not reasonably describe the records sought, we will explain why we cannot process your request and ask for additional information. For example, we might ask you to narrow your request if you ask for all documents in a certain date range but do not include a specific subject matter, topic or personnel. We can help you reformulate or modify your request.

    (3) We generally withhold predecisional, deliberative documents and classified trade negotiating and policy documents under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1) and (5).

    (c) Form or format of responsive records. You can specify the preferred form or format (including electronic formats) for the records you seek. We will try to accommodate your request if the record is readily reproducible in that form or format.

    (d) Contact information. You must provide contact information, such as your phone number, email address, and mailing address, so we will be able to communicate with you about your request and provide released records. If we cannot contact you, or you do not respond within thirty calendar days to our requests for clarification, we will close your request.

    § 2004.4 How will we handle confidential commercial information?

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (1) Confidential commercial information means commercial or financial information that we obtain from a submitter that may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

    (2) Submitter means any person or entity, including a corporation or a State or foreign government, but not including another Federal Government entity, which provides information, either directly or indirectly to the Federal Government.

    (b) How does a submitter designate confidential commercial information? At the time of submission, the submitter of confidential commercial information must use good faith efforts to designate by appropriate markings any portion of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). These designations expire ten years after the date of the submission unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.

    (c) When will we notify a submitter? (1) We promptly will notify the submitter of confidential commercial information in writing whenever we receive a FOIA request or appeal for records containing such information if we determine that we may have to disclose the records, provided:

    (i) The requested information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); or

    (ii) We have reason to believe that the requested information may be protected from disclosure exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), but have not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable FOIA exemption.

    (2) Our notice either will describe the commercial information requested or include a copy of the requested records or portions of records containing the information. In cases involving a voluminous number of submitters, we may post or publish a notice in a place or manner reasonably likely to inform the submitters of the proposed disclosure without publicly disclosing the records, instead of sending individual notifications.

    (3) We promptly will notify the submitter whenever a requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel the disclosure of the submitter's confidential commercial information.

    (d) Exceptions to submitter notice requirements. The notice requirements of this section do not apply if:

    (1) We determine that the information is exempt under the FOIA, and therefore will not be disclosed;

    (2) The information has been lawfully published or has officially been made available to the public;

    (3) Disclosure of the information is required by a statute other than the FOIA or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 of June 23, 1987, Predisclosure notification procedures for confidential commercial information; or

    (4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous. In such case, we will give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information and a reasonable time period within which to object to disclosure under paragraph (e) of this section.

    (e) How can a submitter object to disclosure? (1) If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide to us within the period listed in the notice a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular information under any FOIA exemption. In order to rely on exemption 4 as a basis for nondisclosure, the submitter must explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is confidential.

    (2) A submitter who does not respond within the time period specified in the notice will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. We will not consider any information we receive after the date of any disclosure decision. Any information provided by the submitter under this section may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

    (f) Analysis of objections. We will consider the submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure in deciding whether to disclose the requested information.

    (g) Notice of intent to disclose. We will notify the submitter whenever we decide to disclose information over the submitter's objection. Our written notice will include:

    (1) A statement of the reasons why we did not sustain each of the submitter's disclosure objections;

    (2) A description of the information to be disclosed or copies of the records as we intend to release them; and

    (3) A specified disclosure date, which will be a reasonable time after the notice.

    (h) When will we notify a requester? We will notify the requester whenever we provide the submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure; whenever we notify the submitter of our intent to disclose the requested information; and whenever the submitter files a lawsuit to prevent the disclosure of the information.

    § 2004.5 Who is responsible for responding to your FOIA request?

    (a) In general. The FOIA Office is authorized to grant or to deny any requests for records that USTR maintains and controls. In determining which records are responsive to a request, we ordinarily will include only records in our possession and control as of the date that we begin our search. We will notify you if we use any other date.

    (b) Consultation, referral and coordination. If we believe that another Federal agency is better able to determine whether a record we locate in response to your request is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and, if so, whether it should be released as a matter of discretion, then we will proceed in one of the following ways:

    (1) Consultation. When records originated with USTR but contain within them information of significance to another Federal agency or office, we typically consult with that other entity prior to making a release determination.

    (2) Referral. If we believe that a different Federal agency is best able to determine whether to disclose the record, we typically refer responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to that agency. Ordinarily, the agency that originated the record is presumed to be the best agency to make the disclosure determination. Whenever we refer any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, we will notify you of the referral, including the name of the agency and that agency's FOIA contact information.

    (3) Coordination. The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the Federal agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. For example, if a non-law enforcement agency responding to a request for records on a living third party locates within its files records originating with a law enforcement agency, and if the existence of that law enforcement interest in the third party was not publicly known, then to disclose that law enforcement interest could cause an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the third party. Similarly, if an agency locates within its files material originating with an Intelligence Community agency, and the involvement of that agency in the matter is classified and not publicly acknowledged, then to disclose or give attribution to the involvement of that Intelligence Community agency could cause national security harms. In such instances, in order to avoid harm to an interest protected by an applicable exemption, we will coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on disclosure of the record. We then will notify you of the release determination for the record that is the subject of the coordination.

    (c) Classified information. On receipt of any request involving classified information, we will determine whether the information is currently and properly classified. Whenever a request involves a record containing information that has been classified or may be appropriate for classification by another Federal agency, we will refer responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the agency that classified the information, or that should consider the information for classification. Whenever an agency's record contains information that has been derivatively classified (for example, when it contains information classified by another agency), we will refer responsibility for responding to that portion of the request to the agency that classified the underlying information.

    (d) Timing of responses to consultations and referrals. We will handle all consultations and referrals we receive according to the date that the first agency received the perfected FOIA request.

    (e) Agreements regarding consultations and referrals. We may establish agreements with other agencies to eliminate the need for consultations or referrals with respect to particular types of records.

    § 2004.6 When will we respond to your FOIA request?

    (a) In general. We ordinarily will respond to a request within twenty days based on the order in which we receive the request. We may toll the twenty-day period if we need additional information from you in order to process the request or need to clarify fee assessment issues.

    (b) Multitrack processing. We use a multitrack processing system that distinguishes between simple and more complex requests based on the estimated amount of work or time we need to process the request. Among the factors we consider are the number of records requested, the number of pages involved in processing the request, and the need for consultations or referrals. We will tell you if we place your request into other than the simple track, and if appropriate, we will offer you an opportunity to narrow or modify your request so that it can be placed in a different processing track.

    (c) Unusual circumstances—(1) What is an unusual circumstance? We will notify you if we extend the twenty-day period for processing your request. The notice will include the unusual circumstances, such as the need to search for and collect the requested records from separate offices or facilities, a request that involves a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records, or the need for consultation, and the date by which we estimate we will complete processing your request. If the extension exceeds ten days, we will give you the opportunity to modify your request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request.

    (2) Aggregating requests. We may aggregate requests if it reasonably appears that multiple requests submitted either by a single requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, involve related matters and constitute a single request that otherwise would involve unusual circumstances. For example, we may aggregate multiple requests for similar information filed within a short period of time.

    (d) Expedited processing—(1) How do I request expedited processing? When you submit your request or appeal, you can ask us to expedite processing. If you seek expedited processing, you must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for your expedited processing request.

    (2) When will we grant expedited processing? We will process requests and appeals on an expedited basis if we determine that:

    (i) Failure to obtain the records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual;

    (ii) With respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, there is an urgency to inform the public about the specific government activity that is the subject of the request or appeal that extends beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally;

    (iii) An individual will suffer the loss of substantial due process rights; or

    (iv) the subject is of widespread and exceptional media interest and the information sought involves possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.

    (3) When will we respond to your request for expedited processing? We will notify you within ten calendar days of the receipt of a request for expedited processing of our decision whether to grant or deny expedited processing. If we grant your request, we will give your request or appeal priority, place it in the processing track for expedited requests, and process it as soon as practicable. If we deny your request, we will process any appeal of that decision expeditiously.

    § 2004.7 What will our response to your FOIA request include?

    (a) In general. We will notify you in writing of our determination regarding your request. To the extent practicable, we will communicate with you electronically.

    (b) Acknowledgement of requests. We will acknowledge your request in writing, including a brief description of the records you are seeking, and assign an individualized tracking number. If we think that we will be unable to make a determination on your request within twenty days, we will send an acknowledgment within ten days and we may ask you to limit the scope of your request or arrange for a longer period for processing.

    (c) Granting requests. If we decide to grant your request in full or in part, our response will include the records we are disclosing unless we have assessed fees under § 2004.9. If your request involves a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations, we may provide interim responses, releasing the records on a rolling basis. If we assessed fees, we will disclose the records promptly upon payment.

    (d) Adverse determinations of requests—(1) What is an adverse determination? Adverse determinations, or denials of requests, include decisions that: The requested record is exempt in whole or in part; the request does not reasonably describe the records sought; the information requested is not a record subject to the FOIA; the requested record does not exist, cannot be located, or has been destroyed; or the requested record is not readily reproducible in the form or format sought by the requester. Adverse determinations also include denials involving fees or fee waiver matters or denials of requests for expedited processing.

    (2) Our response. If we make an adverse determination denying your request in any respect, our response will include:

    (i) The name and title or position of the person responsible for the determination;

    (ii) A brief statement of the reasons for the denial, including any FOIA exemption(s) we applied;

    (iii) An estimate of the volume of any records or information we withheld, such as the number of pages or some other reasonable form of estimation, although such an estimate is not required if the volume is otherwise indicated by deletions marked on records that are disclosed in part or if providing an estimate would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption;

    (iv) Information about the mediation services provided by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration; and

    (iv) Your right to appeal our decision under § 2004.8.

    (3) Markings on released documents. If technically feasible, we will clearly mark records that we are disclosing in part to indicate the location and show the amount of information deleted and the exemption under which the deletion was made unless doing so would harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption.

    § 2004.8 What can I do if I am dissatisfied with USTR's response to my FOIA request?

    (a) How do I make an appeal?—(1) What can I appeal? You can appeal any adverse determination in writing to our FOIA Appeals Committee within ninety calendar days after the date of our response. Examples of adverse determinations are provided in § 2004.7(d). You should specify the records that are the subject of your appeal and explain why the Committee should sustain the appeal.

    (2) Where do I send my appeal? To avoid mail delivery delays caused by heighted security, we strongly suggest that you email any appeal to [email protected]. Our mailing address is: FOIA Office, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250 Murray Lane SW., Washington, DC 20509. To make sure that the FOIA Office receives your appeal without delay, you should include the notation “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” and the individualized tracking number in the subject line of your email or on the front of your envelope and also at the beginning of your appeal.

    (b) Who will decide your appeal? (1) The FOIA Appeals Committee or designee will act on all appeals under this section.

    (2) We ordinarily will not adjudicate an appeal if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.

    (3) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the FOIA Appeals Committee must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.

    (c) Decisions on appeals. The FOIA Appeals Committee will notify you of its appeal decision in writing within twenty days from the date it receives the appeal. A decision that upholds the FOIA Office's determination in whole or in part will identify the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied, and notify you of your statutory right to seek judicial review. The notice also will inform you of the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the FOIA Appeals Committee remands or modifies the original response, the FOIA Office will further process the request in accordance with the appeal determination and will respond directly to you.

    (d) When appeal is required. Before seeking review by a court of an adverse determination, you generally first must submit a timely administrative appeal under this section.

    § 2004.9 Fees.

    (a) In general. We will assess a fee to process your FOIA request in accordance with the provisions of this section and the OMB Guidelines. For purposes of assessing fees, the FOIA establishes three categories of requesters: Commercial use requesters, non-commercial scientific or educational institutions or news media requesters, and all other requesters. Different fees are assessed depending on the category. You can seek a fee waiver, which we will consider in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (h) of this section. We will contact you to resolve any fee issues that arise under this section. We will conduct searches, review and duplication in the most efficient and least expensive manner. We ordinarily will collect all applicable fees before sending copies of records to you. You must pay fees by check or money order made payable to the Treasury of the United States.

    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (1) Commercial use request is a request that asks for information for a use or a purpose that furthers a commercial, trade or profit interest, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. Our decision to place you in the commercial use category will be made on a case-by-case basis based on your intended use of the information. We will notify you of your placement in this category.

    (2) Direct costs are the expenses we incur in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to your FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. Direct costs do not include overhead expenses such as the costs of space and of heating or lighting a facility.

    (3) Duplication is reproducing a copy of a record, or the information contained in it, necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Copies can take the form of paper, audiovisual materials or electronic records, among others.

    (4) Educational institution is any school that operates a program of scholarly research. You must show that your FOIA request is authorized by, and is made under the auspices of, an educational institution and that you are seeking the records to further scholarly research and not for a commercial use. To fall within this fee category, your request must serve the scholarly research goals of the institution rather than an individual research goal. We will advise you of your placement in this category.

    Example 1. We would presume that a request from a professor of economics for records relating to the economic effects of a trade agreement, written on letterhead of the university's department of economics, is a request from an educational institution.

    Example 2. We would not presume that a request from the same professor of economics seeking drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a murder mystery he is writing is a request from an educational institution, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationery.

    Example 3. We would presume that a request from a student in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction is carrying out an individual research goal, rather than a scholarly research goal of the educational institution, and would not qualify as part of this fee category.

    (5) Noncommercial scientific institution is an institution that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry and not on a commercial basis, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. To fall within this fee category, you must show that the request is authorized by and is made under the auspices of a qualifying institution and that the records you seek are to further scientific research and not for a commercial use. We will advise you of your placement in this category.

    (6) Representative of the news media is any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations that broadcast news to the public at large and publishers of periodicals that disseminate news and make their products available through a variety of means to the general public, including news organizations that disseminate solely on the Internet. We will not consider a request for records supporting a news-dissemination function to be for a commercial use. We will consider freelance journalists who demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through a news media entity as a representative of the news media. A publishing contract would provide the clearest evidence that publication is expected; however, we also may consider your past publication record in making this determination. We will advise you of your placement in this category.

    (7) Review is the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine if any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure, such as doing all that is necessary to prepare the record for disclosure, including redacting the record and marking the appropriate exemptions. Review costs are properly charged even if we ultimately do not disclose a record. Review time also includes time spent both obtaining and considering any formal objection to disclosure a confidential commercial information submitter makes under § 2004.4, but it does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.

    (8) Search is the process of looking for and retrieving records or information responsive to a request. Search time includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records and the reasonable efforts we expend to locate and retrieve information from electronic records.

    (c) Charging fees. In responding to FOIA requests, we will charge the following fees unless we granted a waiver or reduction of fees under paragraph (h) of this section, or the total fee to be charged is less than $25. If we do not meet the time limits for responding to your request, and if no unusual circumstance described in § 2004.6(c) applies, we will not assess fees.

    (1) Search. (i) We will not assess any search fees for processing requests made by educational institutions, noncommercial scientific institutions, or representatives of the news media. For all other requesters, we will charge for time spent searching even if we do not locate any responsive records or if we determine that the records are entirely exempt from disclosure. We will provide two hours of free search time except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use.

    (ii) For each quarter hour spent by personnel searching for requested records, including electronic searches that do not require new programming, we will charge based on the salary of the employee(s) conducting the search (basic hourly rate(s) of pay for the employee(s) plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits).

    (iii) We will charge the direct costs if it is necessary to create a new computer program to locate the requested records. We will notify you of the costs associated with creating such a program, and you must agree to pay the associated costs before we build the program.

    (iv) If your request requires the retrieval of records stored at a Federal records center, we will charge additional costs in accordance with the Transactional Billing Rate Schedule established by the National Archives and Records Administration.

    (2) Duplication. We will charge duplication fees to all requesters. We will honor your preference for receiving a record in a particular form or format if we can readily reproduce it in the form or format requested. If we provide photocopies, we will make one copy per request at the cost of $.15 per page. For copies of records produced on tapes, disks or other media, we will charge the direct costs of producing the copy, including operator time. Where we must scan paper documents in order to comply with your preference to receive the records in an electronic format, we will charge you the direct costs associated with scanning those materials. For other forms of duplication, we will charge the direct costs. We will provide the first 100 pages of duplication (or the cost equivalent for other media) without charge except for requesters seeking records for a commercial use.

    (3) Review. We will charge review fees to requesters who make commercial use requests. We will assess review fees in connection with the initial review of the record, i.e., the review we conduct to determine if an exemption applies to a particular record or portion of a record. We will not charge for review at the administrative appeal stage of exemptions applied at the initial review stage. However, if a particular exemption is deemed no longer to apply, any costs associated with re-review of the records in order to consider the use of other exemptions may be assessed as review fees. We will charge review fees at the same rates as those charged for a search under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.

    (d) Other charges—(1) Special services. We will charge you the direct cost of providing any special services you request, such as sending records by express mail, certifying that records are true copies, or providing multiple copies of the same document.

    (2) Interest. We may assess interest charges on any unpaid fees starting on the 31st day following the day on which we sent the bill to you at the rate prescribed in Interest and Penalty on Claims, 31 U.S.C. 3717.

    (e) Aggregating requests. We may aggregate separate FOIA requests for the purpose of assessing fees when we reasonably believe that a requester or a group of requesters acting in concert, is dividing a request into a series of requests for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing fees. For example, we may aggregate multiple requests for similar information filed within a short period of time.

    (f) If we anticipate fees will exceed $25. Unless you have indicated in advance a willingness to pay fees as high as anticipated, we will notify you if we estimate that charges will exceed $25.

    (1) We will not process your request until you either commit in writing to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designate some amount of fees you are willing to pay. If you are a noncommercial use requester and we have not yet provided your statutory entitlements (i.e., two hours of search time and 100 free pages), you can tell us to stop when we exhaust the statutory entitlements. We will start the twenty-day response clock when we receive your written reply.

    (2) If you agree to pay some designated amount of fees, but we estimate that the total fee will exceed that amount, we will toll processing when we notify you of the estimated fees in excess of the amount you had indicated a willingness to pay. When we receive your written commitment to pay the actual or estimated total fee, or designate an additional amount of fees you are willing to pay, we will restart the processing clock.

    (3) If you decide to reformulate your request to reduce costs, we will consider it to be a new request that restarts the twenty-day response clock. You can contact USTR's FOIA Public Liaison at [email protected] for assistance.

    (4) We will close your request if you do not respond in writing within thirty calendar days after the date we notify you of the fee estimate.

    (g) Advance payments. (1) If we determine or estimate that the total fee will exceed $250, we may require you to make an advance payment up to the amount of the entire anticipated fee before we begin to process your request.

    (2) If you previously failed to pay a properly charged FOIA fee to any Federal agency within thirty calendar days of the billing date, we may require proof that you paid the full amount due, plus any applicable interest on that prior request, and that you make an advance payment to us of the full amount of any anticipated fee before we begin to process a new request or continue to process a pending request or any pending appeal. If we have a reasonable basis to believe that you have misrepresented your identity in order to avoid paying outstanding fees, we may require you to provide proof of identity.

    (3) If we require advance payment, we will not consider your request received and will not do any additional work until we receive the required payment. We will close your request if you do not pay the advance payment within thirty calendar days after the date of our fee determination.

    (h) Requirements for waiver or reduction of fees. (1) You can seek a fee waiver or reduction by explaining in writing how disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in your commercial interest. In determining whether to waive or reduce a fee we will consider whether disclosure of the requested information would:

    (i) Shed light on the operations or activities of the government. The subject of the request must specifically concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal government with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

    (ii) Likely contribute significantly to public understanding of those operations or activities. Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not be meaningfully informative if nothing new would be added to the public's understanding. The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience—the public-at-large as opposed to a narrow segment of the population. We will consider your expertise in the subject area as well as your ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public.

    (iii) Is to further an identified commercial interest and whether that is the primary interest advanced by the request. For example, we ordinarily presume that the public's interest is greater than the requester's commercial interest when we receive a request from a representative of the news media. We will not presume that disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return primarily serves the public interest.

    (2) We will grant a partial waiver when only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements in this section.

    (3) You should include your fee waiver or reduction request when you first submit your FOIA request to us. You can submit a fee waiver or reduction request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. If you already committed to pay fees and subsequently request a waiver of those fees that we deny, you must pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.

    Janice Kaye, Chief Counsel for Administrative Law, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22863 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3290-F6-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 450 Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Part 613 [Docket No. FHWA-2016-0016; FHWA RIN 2125-AF68; FTA RIN 2132-AB28] Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The FHWA and FTA are reopening the comment period for the NPRM that was published on June 27, 2016, at 81 FR 41473, in order to receive additional public comment on targeted issues. The NPRM proposes revisions to the transportation planning regulations to promote more effective regional planning by States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). The original comment period closed on August 26, 2016. The FHWA and FTA received a number of requests to extend the comment period. The FHWA and FTA recognize that those interested in commenting on this important program may not have had the opportunity to provide comments and that the comment period should be reopened. Therefore, the comment period is being reopened.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail or hand deliver comments to: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, or submit electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or fax comments to (202) 493-2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). You may review the DOT complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Electronic Access and Filing

    This document and all comments received may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The Web site is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: https://www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's Web site at: http://www.thefederalregister.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For FHWA: Mr. Harlan W. Miller, Planning Oversight and Stewardship Team (HEPP-10), (202) 366-0847; or Ms. Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel (HCC-30), (202) 366-2019. For FTA: Ms. Sherry Riklin, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 366-5407; Mr. Dwayne Weeks, Office of Planning and Environment, (202) 493-0316; or Mr. Christopher Hall, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-5218. Both agencies are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., ET for FHWA, and 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., ET for FTA, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 27, 2016, the FHWA and FTA published a proposed rule to revise the transportation planning regulations to promote more effective regional planning by States and MPOs. See 81 FR 41473. The goal of the proposed revisions is to promote unified planning products for each urbanized area, even if there are multiple MPOs designated within that urbanized area. Specifically, the NPRM proposed that MPOs would develop a single metropolitan transportation plan, a single transportation improvement program (TIP), and a jointly established set of performance targets for the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan. If multiple MPOs are designated within that urbanized area, they would jointly prepare these unified planning products. To accomplish this, the proposed revisions would clarify that the metropolitan planning area (MPA) must include the entire urbanized area and contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 20 years.

    As discussed in the NPRM, these proposed revisions would better align the planning regulations with statutory provisions concerning the establishment of MPA boundaries and the designation of MPOs. This includes the statutory requirement for the MPA to include an urbanized area in its entirety together with the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within 20 years, and the exception provision to allow more than one MPO to serve a single MPA if warranted by the size and complexity of the MPA. This return to the original legislative intent is in alignment with the findings of the draft report Beyond Traffic: Trends and Choices 2045. Beyond Traffic was released by the Department in February 2015. It examines the long-term and emerging trends affecting our Nation's transportation system and the implications of those trends. It describes how demographic and economic trends, as well as changes in technology, governance, and our climate, will increase the importance of our metropolitan regions in making decisions that cross State, political, socioeconomic, and often transportation planning lines. By 2045, the population is anticipated to increase by 70 million people, with most of that growth occurring in metropolitan areas.

    The rulemaking would establish clearer operating procedures, and reinstate certain coordination and decisionmaking requirements for situations where there is more than one MPO serving an MPA. The proposed rule would require unified planning products for the MPA, including jointly established performance targets within an MPA, and a single metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for the entire MPA in order to result in planning products that reflect the regional needs of the entire urbanized area. These unified planning products would be jointly developed by the multiple MPOs in such MPAs where more than one MPO is designated.

    The FHWA and FTA propose to phase in implementation of these proposed coordination requirements and the proposed requirements for MPA boundary and MPO boundaries agreements over 2 years.

    Additional Public Comments Sought on Specific Issues

    The FHWA and FTA are reopening the comment period in order to receive public comment on certain issues raised in the NPRM. Specifically, the FHWA and FTA are looking for specific and detailed comments that contribute to the understanding of the impact of the proposed requirements for unified planning products where multiple MPOs serve the same urbanized area, potential exceptions that should be included in the final rule, and criteria for applying such exceptions. The FHWA and FTA also seek specific and detailed comments on the expected costs of implementing the proposed rule. The FHWA and FTA are seeking comments specific to these issues as we decide whether to finalize any provisions within the scope of the NPRM. Previously submitted comments should not be resubmitted.

    The original comment period for the NPRM closed on August 26, 2016. The FHWA and FTA ask commenters to focus on the specific issues open for public comment, as discussed in the above paragraph. Other comments will be considered to the extent practicable. To allow time for interested parties to submit comments on the targeted issues highlighted above, the comment period is being reopened until October 24, 2016.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 19th 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85 and 1.91. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. Carolyn Flowers, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22907 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 29 CFR Parts 2520 and 2590 RIN 1210-AB63 Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports; Proposed Rule AGENCY:

    Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this Notice is to announce an extension of the comment period on the Notice of Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016, by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and the separate but related Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016, by the Department of Labor.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Notice of Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is extended to December 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To facilitate the receipt and processing of written comment letters on the proposed regulation, interested persons are encouraged to submit their comments electronically. You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1210-AB63, by any of the methods described in the Notice of Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports (81 FR 47534) and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (81 FR 47496). All comments received will be made available to the public, posted without change to www.regulations.gov and www.dol.gov/ebsa, and made available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure Room, N-1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mara S. Blumenthal, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-8523 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration, together with the Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (together Agencies) published a Notice of Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016 (81 FR 47534). The proposed revisions involved the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan and the Form 5500-SF Short Form Annual Return/Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan. The Department of Labor simultaneously published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which contains proposed amendments to the Department's related annual reporting regulations (81 FR 47496).

    The Notices have generated substantial interest by stakeholders who wish to provide input into the development of the final form revisions and regulations. Several stakeholder groups submitted written requests for additional time to comment. Comments on the proposal, including such requests, are made available electronically at www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa. The commenters generally argued that the original 75-day comment period was not enough time given the scope and significance of the proposed form revisions and regulatory amendments. Some also noted the current deadline for submitting comments (October 4, 2016) is shortly before the October 15, 2016 deadline for filing the 2015 Form 5500 and 2015 Form 5500-SF for calendar year plans relying on an IRS Form 5558 extension. The commenters stated that the proximity of the two deadlines would make it difficult for personnel involved in the evaluation of and preparation of comments regarding the proposed forms revision and regulatory amendments to devote adequate time to that work because the same personnel are already engaged in preparation and filing of 2015 Forms 5500 and Forms 5500-SF. Certain commenters also stated that staff responsible for contributing to comments on the forms revisions and regulatory proposals will be focused during the same time period on compliance activities related to the Department's final rule on conflicts of interest—retirement investment advice and related prohibited transaction exemptions. The commenters suggested different extensions that ranged from 60 days to 105 days.

    The Agencies are interested in facilitating a robust and thoughtful public comment process on these important improvements to the Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF annual return/reports. An important goal for the Agencies is to complete the forms revision and regulatory amendments aspect of the project in advance of key procurement and system development deadlines that are part of the related effort to recompete of the contract for the ERISA Filing Acceptance System II (EFAST2)—the wholly electronic system operated by a private-sector contractor for the processing of Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF annual return/report. The Agencies explained in the Federal Register Notices that the forms revision and regulatory amendments proposals generally are being coordinated with a recompete of the EFAST2 contract. The Agencies also explained that the majority of proposed forms revisions are currently targeted for implementation in the Plan Year 2019 Form 5500/5500-SF annual return/reports. We also noted that development of EFAST2 changes pursuant to a new contract could begin in spring 2018, with processing under such a new contract starting on January 1, 2020.

    Based on the requests from a range of stakeholder groups, the Agencies have decided to extend the public comment period on the proposed forms revisions and regulatory amendments from the original October 4 deadline to December 5, 2016. This extension will provide interested persons with an additional two months to prepare and submit comments, while also respecting the need to keep the regulatory aspect of the project moving forward to keep pace with procurement and system development objectives of the recompete contract acquisition plan. Although technically not published in the Federal Register until July 21, 2016, the Notice of Proposed Forms Revision and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking were released to the public and made available online on July 11, 2016—10 days prior to the commencement of the formal comment period. The extension of the comment period to December 5, 2016, thus provides a total of 147 days to evaluate the proposal and provide written comments.

    The Agencies are not prepared at this time to grant a more extended deadline for public comments on the proposed form revisions and regulatory amendments because of concern about potential adverse effects on the timing and cost of the EFAST2 recompete process. In that regard, the Department published a “Request for Industry Feedback,” RFI: DOL-OPS-16-RFI-0716PML (available at fbo.gov) in connection with the EFAST2 recompete process, which also requested comments by October 4, 2016. The deadline for capable businesses to respond on the Request for Industry Feedback is not being extended in this Notice.

    Finally, a number of commenters asked that the Agencies hold a public hearing on the proposals following the close of the written comment period. One commenter also asked that the effective date of any final form changes be delayed until plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020. In the Department's view, both requests are premature in the context of a decision whether to extend the public comment period on the proposals. It is not clear at this time that a public hearing will necessarily contribute to the decision-making process by clarifying one or more significant issues affecting the proposal, but the Agencies will be in a better position to evaluate that issue after receiving the public comments on the proposals. Similarly, the issue of the effective date of final form changes is better addressed in a final notice of form revisions after the Agencies have had the benefit of public input on the proposals and have decided upon the final form changes and regulatory amendments that will be adopted.

    The Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation have agreed to this extension of the comment period for purposes of portions of the Notice of Proposed Forms Revision that address annual reporting requirements under the Internal Revenue Code and Title IV of ERISA.

    Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits, Security Administration, Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22989 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0305; FRL-9952-81-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant Deterioration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The State of California (State) is required under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to adopt and implement a SIP-approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program. These proposed SIP revisions would incorporate a PSD rule for the VCAPCD into the SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment and unclassifiable areas within the District. We are taking public comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action following consideration of the public comments received.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0305 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ya-Ting (Sheila) Tsai, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3328, [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 rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule actions? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule actions? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Transfer of Existing Permits Issued by the EPA and Program Implementation D. Public Comment and Proposed Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates on which they were revised or repealed by the local air agency and the dates of the corresponding SIP submittals to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Through these submittals, CARB is requesting revisions to the SIP to incorporate the PSD program for the VCAPCD into the SIP. The CARB's submittal of March 11, 2016 requested the EPA's approval of VCAPCD Rule 26.13 into the SIP, and its submittal dated August 23, 2011 requested that the EPA remove VCAPCD Rule 26.10 from the SIP.

    Table 1—Submitted Rule Actions Rule No. Rule title Action Action date Submitted date 26.10 New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration Repealed 6/28/2011 8/23/2011 26.13 New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Revised 11/10/2015 3/11/2016

    On April 19, 2016, the EPA determined that the March 11, 2016 CARB submittal requesting approval of VCAPCD Rule 26.13 into the SIP met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On February 23, 2012, the CARB submittal requesting the removal of VCAPCD Rule 26.10 from the SIP was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    The EPA approved Rule 26.10, New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration into the VCAPCD portion of the California SIP on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567); however, the EPA's approval of this rule was not an approval of a PSD program for the VCAPCD. Rather, VCAPCD Rule 26.10 simply confirmed that new major sources and major modifications within the District must comply with the applicable requirements for federal PSD permitting in 40 CFR 52.21, and provided that any such source must obtain separate permits from the District and the EPA.

    On June 28, 2011, VCAPCD adopted Rule 26.13, New Source Review—Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) with the intent to assume PSD permitting responsibility for sources located in Ventura County upon the EPA's SIP approval of the rule. On the same date, the VCAPCD repealed local PSD Rule 26.10 for purposes of State and local law. In a letter dated August 4, 2011, the VCAPCD submitted a request to CARB that Rule 26.13 be added to the Ventura County portion of the SIP and that Rule 26.10 be removed from the SIP. On August 23, 2011, CARB submitted a proposed SIP revision to the EPA requesting the approval of Rule 26.13 into the SIP and the removal of Rule 26.10 from the SIP.

    However, EPA staff subsequently determined that the version of Rule 26.13 adopted by the District on June 28, 2011 contained certain deficiencies and could benefit from clarifying changes, and notified the District about these deficiencies. To address these deficiencies, the VCAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 26.13 on November 10, 2015, and CARB submitted the revised version of this rule to the EPA for SIP approval on March 11, 2016. Accordingly, the EPA's proposed action addresses the current version of Rule 26.13, as revised on November 10, 2015 and submitted to the EPA on March 11, 2016. If the EPA approves Rule 26.13, the EPA will add revised Rule 26.13 to the SIP and Rule 26.10 will be removed from the SIP.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule actions?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the primary and secondary NAAQS. Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the Act require such state plans to meet the applicable requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection. VCAPCD Rule 26.13 is intended to implement a pre-construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment and unclassifiable areas within the District. Because the State does not currently have a SIP-approved PSD program within the VCAPCD, the EPA is currently the PSD permitting authority within the VCAPCD, and implements the federal PSD program under 40 CFR 52.21, as Rule 26.10 reiterates. Approval of VCAPCD Rule 26.13 into the SIP, and removal of Rule 26.10 from the SIP, will transfer PSD permitting authority from the EPA to the VCAPCD. The EPA would then assume the role of overseeing the VCAPCD's PSD permitting program, as intended by the CAA.

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

    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). Other relevant statutory and regulatory provisions for our review of the submitted rule include CAA section 165 and section 51.166 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.166). CAA section 165 requires states to adopt a pre-construction permitting program for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in attainment areas and unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 establishes the specific requirements for SIP-approved PSD permit programs that must be met to satisfy the requirements of section 165 of the CAA.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With some exclusions and revisions, VCAPCD Rule 26.13, as submitted by the CARB in March 2016, incorporated by reference the EPA's federal PSD program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, as of September 1, 2015. We generally consider the EPA's PSD permit program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 to be consistent with the criteria for SIP-approved PSD permit programs in 40 CFR 51.166. However, we conducted a review of VCAPCD Rule 26.13 to ensure that all requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 were met by this District rule. Our detailed evaluation is available as an attachment to the technical support document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action. We also reviewed the revisions that the District made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 that were incorporated by reference into the rule, such as revising certain terms and definitions to reflect that the District, rather than the EPA, will be the PSD permitting authority following SIP approval of the District's PSD rule. We also determined that the removal of Rule 26.10 from the SIP would be appropriate concurrent with approval of Rule 26.13 into the SIP, because the applicable PSD requirements for federal PSD permitting in 40 CFR 52.21 referenced in Rule 26.10 would no longer apply once the EPA approves VCAPCD's Rule 26.13 into the SIP. Based on our review of Rule 26.13 and the underlying statutory and regulatory requirements governing this action, we are proposing to find the SIP revision for the District's PSD rules acceptable under CAA sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 51.166.

    The EPA's TSD for this rulemaking action has more information about Rule 26.13, including our evaluation and recommendation to approve it into the SIP.

    C. Transfer of Existing Permits Issued by the EPA and Program Implementation

    The VCAPCD requested approval to exercise its authority to administer the PSD program with respect to those sources located in Ventura County that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA. This would include authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature), and authority to enforce such permits.

    Consistent with section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act, the SIP submittal and additional information provided by the District make clear that that VCAPCD has the authority under state statute and rule to administer the PSD permit program, including but not limited to the authority to administer, process and issue any and all permit decisions, and enforce PSD permit requirements within the District. This applies to PSD permits that the District will issue and to existing PSD permits issued by the EPA that are to be transferred to the District upon the effective date of the EPA's approval of the PSD SIP submittal.

    We have also determined that the District has adequate personnel and funding to administer the PSD program.

    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve District Rule 26.13 into the Ventura County portion of the SIP because we believe it fulfills all relevant CAA requirements. We also propose to remove District Rule 26.10 from the SIP concurrent with our final approval of Rule 26.13, for the reasons discussed above. If we take final action to approve Rule 26.13, our final action will incorporate Rule 26.13 into the federally enforceable SIP and remove Rule 26.10 from the SIP.

    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until October 24, 2016.

    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 VCAPCD Rule 26.13 as described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

    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, Carbon monoxide, Greenhouse gases, 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: September 14, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22883 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1 and 90 [WP Docket No. 16-261; RM-11719; RM-11722; FCC 16-110] Amendment To Improve Access to Private Land Mobile Radio Spectrum AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) proposes and seeks comment on proposals to revise the Commission's rules governing private land mobile radio (PLMR) services, such as allowing 806-824/851-869 MHz (800 MHz) band incumbent licensees in a market a window in which to apply for Expansion Band and Guard Band frequencies before the frequencies are made available to applicants for new systems, extending conditional licensing authority to applicants for site-based licenses in the 800 MHz and 896-901/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) bands, making available for PLMR use frequencies that are on the band edge between the Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool and either General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) or Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) spectrum, making certain frequencies that are designated for central station alarm operations available for other PLMR uses, and accommodating certain railroad operations.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before November 22, 2016 and reply comments on or before December 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WP Docket No. 16-261, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melvin Spann, [email protected], Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1333, or TTY (202) 418-7233.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), adopted August 17, 2016, and released August 18, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0728/FCC-16-95A1.pdf. 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).

    I. Introduction A. Proposal To Revise Part 90 and Make Related Changes

    1. In this NPRM, we propose to amend part 90 of the Commission's rules to expand access to private land mobile radio (PLMR) spectrum. Specifically, we grant in part petitions for rulemaking filed by the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) proposing to amend our Rules to allow 806-824/851-869 MHz (800 MHz) band incumbent licensees in a market a six-month period in which to apply for Expansion Band and Guard Band frequencies before the frequencies are made available to applicants for new systems; and to amend section 90.159 of our rules to extend conditional licensing authority to applicants for site-based licenses in the 800 MHz and 896-901/935-940 MHz (900 MHz) bands. In addition, on our own motion but suggested by recent waiver requests, we propose to amend section 90.35 of our rules to make available for PLMR use frequencies that are on the band edge between the Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool and either General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) or Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) spectrum, to make certain frequencies that are designated for central station alarm operations available for other PLMR uses, and to make certain updates and corrections; and to amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) of our rules to accommodate certain railroad operations.

    2. Spectrum in the 450-470 MHz band is designated for use by various services, including tart 74 BAS, part 90 PLMR, and part 95 GMRS. The I/B Pool frequency table in section 90.35(b)(3) of the Commission's rules sets forth the assignable frequencies in those segments of the band that are available to I/B eligibles. Frequencies at or near the band edges between part 90 spectrum and part 74 or 95 spectrum were not designated for use by any of these services because they could not be utilized without overlapping spectrum designated for the other service.

    3. When these frequency designations were adopted, PLMR stations operated in wideband (25 kilohertz) mode. Since the beginning of 2013, however, the Commission has required narrowbanding (maximum 12.5 kilohertz bandwidth or equivalent efficiency) by PLMR licensees in the 150-174 MHz and 421-470 MHz bands. With the implementation of narrowbanding and the availability of very-narrowband 4-kilohertz equipment, some frequencies near the band edges now can be used without overlapping spectrum designated for other services. In 2014, the Mobility Division (Division) of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) granted waivers to permit PLMR licensees to operate with a 4-kilohertz emission designator on frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz, which are between BAS spectrum and PLMR spectrum but not designated for use on a primary basis by any service; and on frequency pairs 462/467.5375 MHz and 462/467.7375 MHz, which are between PLMR spectrum and GMRS spectrum but not designated for use by any service. The Division concluded that waivers were appropriate because very-narrowband PLMR stations can operate on these frequencies without overlapping BAS or GMRS channels, so the public interest would be served by facilitating access to spectrum in congested areas.

    4. We propose to amend the I/B Pool frequency table to add frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidth not exceed 6 kilohertz (the widest bandwidth that will avoid overlap between the frequency pairs). We tentatively conclude that it would be in the public interest to make additional frequencies available to PLMR applicants that can be utilized without overlapping the occupied bandwidth of currently assignable frequencies and without causing harmful interference. We seek comment on this proposal. We note that frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz are lower-adjacent to a set of frequency pairs for which the concurrence of the Power Coordinator is required if the proposed interference contour overlaps an existing service contour. We therefore also seek comment on whether to require such concurrence for either of these frequency pairs. We ask commenters to address whether any operational restrictions should be imposed to preclude interference to other users, such as limits on antenna height or power. We also seek comment from operators that have received waivers and any operators with adjacent frequency assignments in the same geographic area about whether they have experienced any interference issues, and if so, how and if they have been resolved.

    5. The Division also granted waivers to permit operation on frequency pair 451/456.009375 MHz with an 8-kilohertz emission designator in locations where no applicant had requested frequency pairs 451/456.00625 MHz and 451/456.0125 MHz. The purpose of our proposed rule change is to permit the most efficient use of scarce spectrum. We therefore believe that this purpose is better served by adding two 6-kilohertz channels in an area than one 8-kilohertz channel, in order to accommodate more users and encourage the deployment of more efficient equipment. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that we should not add frequency pair 451/456.009375 MHz to the I/B Pool frequency table, though stations authorized on the channel pursuant to waiver would be grandfathered. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion, and on whether any other interstitial frequencies should be added to the table.

    6. In the same Order, the Division denied requests for waivers to operate on frequency pair 451/456.0000 with a 4-kilohertz emission designator. It noted that the proposed operations would overlap the 450-451 MHz and 455-456 MHz bands, in which BAS low power auxiliary stations are authorized to operate. The Division concluded that assigning channels for PLMR operations that overlap designated BAS spectrum would not serve the public interest. We seek comment on whether I/B use of frequency pair 451/456.0000 would in fact cause harmful interference to BAS operations. In particular, commenters should address whether BAS low power auxiliary stations operate over the entire 450-451 MHz and 455-456 MHz bands, and whether PLMR operations that overlap two kilohertz of these one megahertz bands would cause harmful interference to BAS operations.

    7. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of each of the above-described proposals or possible rule changes regarding the expansion of PLMR spectrum use to frequencies located between BAS spectrum and PLMR spectrum.

    8. Finally, we propose to amend the I/B Pool frequency table to add frequency pairs 462/467.5375 MHz and 462/467.7375 MHz, with the limitation that the authorized bandwidth not exceed 4 kilohertz (the widest bandwidth that will avoid overlapping GMRS frequencies).1 When the Division granted a waiver to permit operation on frequency pair 462/467.7375 MHz, it noted that adjacent frequency pair 462/467.750 MHz is exempt from narrowbanding and still may be assigned with a channel bandwidth of 25 kilohertz, which would be overlapped by 4-kilohertz operation on frequency pair 462/467.7375 MHz. The Division nevertheless granted the waiver because there was no incumbent licensee on frequency pair 462/467.750 MHz in any of the particular areas where a waiver was requested that had an occupied bandwidth greater than 20 kilohertz, so there was no overlap of occupied bandwidth with the proposed 4-kilohertz emission. We seek comment on our proposal—including its costs and benefits—and on whether we should instead refrain from adding frequency pair 462/467.7375 MHz in order to preserve the availability of adjacent frequency pair 462/467.750 MHz for wideband operations, but grandfather stations authorized on the channel pursuant to waiver. Commenters are asked to discuss whether wideband use of frequency pair 462/467.750 MHz is common, and whether we should expect any growth of wideband operations on the channel.

    1 GMRS frequencies 462.5500 MHz, 462.7250 MHz, 467.5500 MHz, and 467.7250 MHz have an authorized bandwidth of twenty kilohertz. The Commission has proposed to migrate GMRS to narrowband technology. We nonetheless conclude that it would be premature to permit PLMR operation on frequency pairs 462/467.5375 MHz and 462/467.7375 MHz with an authorized bandwidth exceeding four kilohertz prior to a determination of what the GMRS narrowbanding timetable would be.

    9. The alarm industry uses a number of methods to maintain communications paths used to monitor alarm systems at customer premises from central station alarm monitoring centers. Certain frequencies are designated for the use of persons rendering a central station commercial protection service. Specifically, four 12.5-kilohertz frequency pairs and the upper-adjacent 6.25-kilohertz interstitial frequency pairs are designated for central station protection service use nationwide (nationwide frequencies), and six 12.5-kilohertz frequency pairs and the upper-adjacent 6.25-kilohertz interstitial frequency pairs are set aside for central station protection service in the 88 urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 in the 1960 Census (urban frequencies).

    10. A recent review of the Commission's Universal Licensing System suggests that these frequencies are currently underutilized. In particular, 39 of the urbanized areas where the additional frequencies are set aside for central station protection service have no central station protection service licensees,2 and no more than half of the frequencies are assigned in any of the other 49 areas.3 The need of central stations for these frequencies appears to have diminished since this spectrum was set aside for their use over 40 years ago, which may be attributable to advancements in services and technologies that can be used to complete the communications path between the location of the alarm and the alarm services' central office, such as cellular telephone, satellite communication services, and the Internet. In recent years, entities that do not provide central station commercial protection service have expressed interest in utilizing these frequencies for other purposes.

    2 Akron, OH; Albuquerque, NM; Baltimore, MD; Canton, OH; Chicago, IL/IN; Cleveland, OH; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Des Moines, IA; El Paso, TX; Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL; Ft. Worth, TX; Harrisburg, PA; Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX; Indianapolis, IN; Jacksonville, FL; Memphis, TN; Miami, FL; Oklahoma City, OK; Omaha, NE; Orlando, FL; Pittsburgh, PA; Salt Lake City, UT; San Antonio, TX; Scranton, PA; Seattle, WA; Spokane, WA; Springfield, MA; St. Louis, MO/IL; St. Petersburg, FL; Syracuse, NY; Tacoma, WA; Tampa, FL; Tulsa, OK; Washington, DC; Wichita, KS; Wilkes-Barre, PA; and Youngstown-Warren, OH/PA.

    3 Albany-Troy-Schenectady, NY; Allentown-Bethlehem, PA; Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; Chattanooga, TN; Cincinnati, OH/KY; Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA/IL; Dayton, OH; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Flint, MI; Fresno, CA; Grand Rapids, MI; Hartford, CT; Kansas City MO/KS; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; Milwaukee, WI; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Mobile, AL; Nashville, TN; New Haven, CT; New Orleans, LA; New York, NY/NJ; Newport News-Hampton, VA; Norfolk-Portsmouth, VA; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA/NJ; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Providence-Pawtucket, RI/MA; Richmond, VA; Rochester, NY; Sacramento, CA; San Bernardino, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Shreveport, LA; South Bend, IN; Springfield, MA; Toledo, OH; Trenton, NJ/PA; Tucson, AZ; Wilmington, DE; and Worcester, MA.

    11. As an initial matter, we propose to modify section 95.35(c)(63) to remove the use limitation in the urbanized areas where the urban frequencies are not in use. We tentatively conclude that it would be in the public interest to make these frequencies available for other PLMR operations in those areas. We seek comment on this proposal, including its costs and benefits.

    12. In addition, we seek comment on other ways to expand PLMR users' access to frequencies that are designated, but no longer needed, for central station commercial protection services, including by making available channels in urbanized areas where some of the urban frequencies are in use. Commenters should address related costs and benefits associated with such proposals. Commenters also should address the current and expected future need for central station commercial protection service channels in the 460-470 MHz band. For example, in the areas where some frequencies are in use, how many urban frequencies should continue to be set aside? Are the nationwide frequencies sufficient to meet demand, without any urban frequencies? Can central station commercial protection service and other PLMR operations coexist? Commenters advocating eliminating the use restriction on any frequency in any area where it currently is in use should discuss how to protect incumbent central station commercial protection service operations from harmful interference.

    13. We also take this opportunity to propose to correct certain errors in section 90.35. Specifically, we propose to restore to the list of airports at or near which certain frequencies are reserved for commercial air transportation services two airports (Kahului and Ke-Ahole) that inadvertently were deleted, and correct the coordinates for one airport that were listed incorrectly (Boeing/King County International), the last time the list was updated. We also seek comment on whether any airports should be added to or removed from the list, which has not been updated since 2002. In addition, we propose to correct the entries in the I/B Pool table for frequencies from 153.0425 MHz to 153.4025 MHz for which the notation indicating that the concurrence of the Petroleum Coordinator is required was inadvertently deleted when certain narrowbanding rules were adopted. We seek comment on these proposals.

    14. Pursuant to section 90.159(b), most applicants proposing to operate a new PLMR station, or to modify an existing PLMR station, on frequencies below 470 MHz that require frequency coordination are permitted to operate the proposed station during the pendency of the application for a period of up to 180 days, beginning 10 days after the application is submitted to the Commission. This conditional authority is not available for applicants in the PLMR frequency bands above 470 MHz, where spectrum is available on an exclusive basis. When the Commission enacted the rule granting conditional authority below 470 MHz, it stated that it was being conservative by implementing conditional authority only in shared bands, and could consider expanding the concept in the future if experience demonstrated that such action is appropriate.

    15. LMCC argues in its Conditional Authority Petition that expansion of conditional authority to 470-512 MHz (T-Band), 800 MHz, and 900 MHz PLMR frequencies is now appropriate. It asserts that, over time, frequency assignments below 470 MHz have become more technically complex, whereas the rules governing the 800 and 900 MHz bands have become less technically complex. Thus, “in the opinion of LMCC, the rules governing frequency assignments in the bands below 470 MHz no longer provide a justification for distinguishing between below- and above-470 MHz for purposes of authorizing conditional licensing.” It also states that recent experience with conditional licensing authority in the PLMR bands above 470 MHz pursuant to a temporary waiver supports the proposed rule change.

    16. Commenters support extending the conditional licensing rules to applications filed with WTB and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (the Bureaus) for facilities above 470 MHz. We tentatively conclude that LMCC and the commenters are correct in asserting that expanding conditional authority will enable more applicants to meet pressing communications requirements without needing to seek special temporary authority, and will provide greater flexibility and earlier deployment of spectrum without compromising quality of service. Accordingly, we propose to amend section 90.159 to expand conditional authority to 800 MHz and 900 MHz I/B and Public Safety Pool frequencies, as well as section 1.931 of our rules to provide an appropriate cross-reference to such a rule amendment. We request comment on this tentative conclusion and our proposal, including its costs and benefits. In light of the Spectrum Act and the current T-Band freeze, we do not at this time propose to extend conditional licensing to T-Band frequencies.

    17. While LMCC proposes to extend conditional authority to T-Band, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz I/B Pool and Public Safety Pool frequencies, neither it nor any commenter discusses whether conditional authority should apply to applicants for 769-775/799-805 MHz (700 MHz) Public Safety narrowband frequencies. We therefore seek comment on whether conditional authority should be expanded to the 700 MHz Public Safety narrowband spectrum, and what the associated costs and benefits of such an approach would be.

    18. We also seek comment on how conditional licensing could affect public safety licensees operating in these bands and ask commenters to address, without limitation, the specific issues identified below, as well as information on related costs and benefits. Should applicants be required to obtain Regional Planning Committee concurrence for proposed facilities in the 800 MHz National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) band and in the 700 MHz band prior to conditional licensing? Does the mission-critical nature of public safety communications argue against allowing conditional licensing of public safety facilities that potentially would interfere with existing public safety communications systems?

    19. Although Mobile Relay Associates (MRA) does not oppose extending conditional licensing to applications filed with the Bureaus for facilities above 470 MHz, MRA asserts that all Part 90 conditional licensing (both below and above 470 MHz) should be limited to unopposed applications and should be permitted only on a secondary, non-interfering basis. It states that it has encountered interference from stations operating pursuant to conditional authorization, which it argues reveals a flaw in the conditional licensing system. MRA, however, acknowledges that conditional authority functions properly “[i]n the vast majority of cases.” While MRA observes that part 22 conditional authority has similar limitations to those it proposes, we note that part 22 applications, unlike part 90 applications eligible for conditional authority, do not require frequency coordination prior to being filed with the Commission. To the extent that part 90 conditional authority functions properly without the limitations suggested by MRA, we do not believe that the possibility of discrete incidents of interference warrants imposing those limitations upon all applicants.

    20. MRA also argues that a conditionally authorized applicant should be required to discontinue operation upon the filing of a petition to deny or informal objection supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury. We note that section 90.159(d) provides that conditional authorization does not prejudice any action the Commission may take on the subject application. Thus, the Commission has discretion to modify or cancel such conditional authority at any time without a right to a hearing; and the applicant assumes all risks associated with operation under conditional authority, the termination or modification of conditional authority, or the subsequent dismissal or denial of its application.

    21. Nonetheless, we seek comment on MRA's proposal that all part 90 conditional licensing be granted on a secondary basis and limited to applications that are unopposed, and that a conditionally authorized applicant must discontinue operation upon the filing of a petition to deny or informal objection supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury. Commenters should discuss whether, regardless of whether any new limitations on conditional authority are imposed, section 90.159(d) should be amended to better address MRA's concerns, and the costs and benefits of such action. For example, we seek comment on MRA's request that the Commission amend the rule to reiterate that conditional licensing is only for six months and that if the application remains pending at the end of six months, the pending applicant must then discontinue operation and await the processing of its application.

    22. Fixed use of frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band generally is permitted on a secondary basis to land mobile operations, but section 90.261(f) excludes certain frequencies in order to reserve them for other specialized uses. Among the excluded frequencies are railroad frequencies at 452/457.925 MHz to 452/457.96875 MHz.

    23. A signal booster is a device at a fixed location that automatically receives, amplifies, and retransmits on a one-way or two-way basis the signals received from base, fixed, mobile, and portable stations, with no change in frequency or authorized bandwidth. In order to reduce the potential for interference to other users, section 90.219(f)(3) limits the radiated power of each retransmitted channel to five watts effective radiated power (ERP).

    24. In 2014, the Division granted in part a request of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) for waiver of sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) concerning use of signal boosters to maintain communications between the front and rear of trains. Specifically, the Division permitted use of fixed location trackside signal boosters with up to 30 watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.90625 to 452/457.9625 MHz in areas where coverage is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. The Division concluded that the purpose of the fixed use restriction in the subject rules would not be served by applying them strictly to trackside signal boosters, because the rules operate to protect railroad operations, and grant of the waiver would further support railroad operations. In order to address concerns about interference to non-railroad frequencies, the Division excluded the channel pairs at the edge of frequencies coordinated by AAR (452/457.9000 MHz and 452/457.96875 MHz), and required the use of single-channel Class A signal boosters.

    25. We propose to amend sections 90.219(d)(3) and 90.261(f) to codify the terms of the waiver. We propose to authorize railroad licensees to use single-channel Class A signal boosters with up to 30 watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.90625 to 452/457.9625 MHz in areas where communications between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers. We seek comment on this proposal. We also ask commenters to address whether we should permit such operations on the outermost railroad channels (452/457.9000 MHz and 452/457.96875 MHz) and whether it is necessary to require the use of single-channel Class A signal boosters. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of these proposals.

    26. As part of the rebanding of the 800 MHz band to resolve interference between commercial and public safety systems, the Commission created the Expansion (815-816/860-861 MHz) and Guard (816-817/861-862 MHz) Bands in order to provide spectral separation between commercial licensees operating Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio systems above 817/862 MHz and public safety licensees operating below 815/860 MHz. Expansion Band (EB) spectrum is designated mostly for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) stations, with the remainder for Business/Industrial/Land Transportation (B/ILT) Pool eligible. EB users also include Public Safety licensees that chose not to relocate out of the band. Guard Band (GB) spectrum is in the General Pool, and thus is available for Public Safety, B/ILT, and SMR operations. EB/GB channels become available for licensing when the Bureaus announce that the required level of clearing has been achieved in that NPSPAC region.

    27. The LMCC EB/GB Petition proposes that the Commission modify its rules to provide a 6-month window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees in a market to acquire EB/GB channels to expand existing systems before accepting applications from new entrants. LMCC states that expansion spectrum for incumbent 800 MHz systems in urban areas is urgently needed but sparsely available. It argues that a limited opportunity for expansion of incumbent systems would serve the public interest because those licensees had to undergo the disruptive rebanding process without deriving any economic benefit, and use of the EB/GB frequencies to expand the capacity of existing systems would promote spectral efficiency.

    28. Commenters are split regarding this LMCC proposal. PLMR frequency coordinators support it. They argue that affording incumbents temporary exclusivity will allow them to address existing needs that have been growing during the rebanding process. They also argue that such priority will encourage existing licensees to upgrade to more efficient systems because the cost will be spread over a larger number of channels. Most commenters—generally prospective applicants for SMR channels in regions where EB/GB spectrum has not yet been made available—oppose the proposal. They argue that giving priority to incumbent operators would effectively bar new entrants, and particularly small businesses, in areas of high spectrum demand. They also dispute LMCC's assumption that new entrants are less likely than incumbents to place spectrum into operation efficiently and expeditiously.

    29. We propose to adopt the LMCC proposal in part. Specifically, we propose to provide a window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees in the market to acquire or expand coverage and improve their quality of service on EB B/ILT Pool channels before accepting applications from new entrants. We also propose to provide this window to Public Safety licensees that elected to remain in the Expansion Band so that they may expand coverage on their existing EB channels. Incumbent 800 MHz licensees already have deployed facilities and demonstrated a commitment to utilizing the band in a given market and are unlikely to acquire spectrum for other than operational purposes and can be expected to put additional channels into service promptly to meet existing operational needs. Moreover, although some commenters point out that a filing window for incumbent 800 MHz licensees might lessen the spectrum available to new entrants in spectrum-constrained markets, a new entrant's ability to establish a new system in a constrained market could be limited. We also note that the membership of LMCC, the proponent of this rule change, includes all of the part 90 frequency coordinators. We tentatively agree with them that an incumbent preference would be the most effective way to distribute these EB channels among present and future B/ILT users.

    30. LMCC suggests 6 months as a reasonable window. We seek comment on whether, given the pressing need and likely prompt deployment, we should provide a shorter window, such as 3 months. We also ask commenters to address whether any limits on this priority should be imposed in order to preserve the availability of channels for new licensees. In addition, we ask commenters to address the costs and benefits of the above-described approach for facilitating 800 MHz B/ILT and Public Safety licensees' opportunities to acquire channels or expand coverage.

    31. Although we have tentatively concluded that a window is appropriate for EB B/ILT Pool channels, we tentatively conclude that the LMCC proposal for incumbent priority is not appropriate with respect to EB SMR channels. Unlike B/ILT licensees, SMR licensees compete for customers in the commercial wireless marketplace. Therefore, both incumbents and new licensees have similar economic motives to utilize the spectrum in a timely manner, and new entrants may have an even greater interest in deploying new or innovative services. On this basis, we do not believe that incumbents should be given priority over new entrants for these channels. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Commenters should explain whether incumbent priority is appropriate under these circumstances, and the related costs and benefits.

    32. We also seek comment on whether we should provide a window for 800 MHz licensees in a market to acquire, or expand coverage on, GB channels, as well as the related costs and benefits. As noted above, GB spectrum is in the General Pool, in which eligible users include non-cellular SMR and Public Safety entities as well as B/ILT eligibles. As noted above, it is not at all clear that preferring incumbent 800 MHz SMR licensees over potential competitors would further the public interest. Commenters should address whether these concerns outweigh the benefits noted above of affording priority to incumbent B/ILT licensees, and whether those benefits apply equally to incumbent Public Safety licensees.

    33. Finally, we seek comment on how we should implement a decision to provide a period of incumbent exclusivity for any EB/GB channels. The Commission established the procedure for making EB/GB channels available for licensing in the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, but never codified it. We seek comment on whether the procedure should be codified (as revised in this proceeding to provide priority for incumbents), or whether we should, without any rule change, simply announce a modification to the procedure that the Commission set forth in the 800 MHz proceeding. Commenters may also suggest other means of implementing a period of incumbent exclusivity. Those supporting codification should provide suggested rule language.

    34. The proposed rule changes discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are intended to expand access to PLMR spectrum. We welcome the industry's assistance in eliminating unnecessary impediments to the most efficient use of this scarce resource.

    II. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Presentations

    35. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule section 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule section 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system (“ECFS”) available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    B. Filing Requirements

    36. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    37. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.

    38. Interested parties may find authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), as well as section 1.407 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407.

    III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    39. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. Below, we further describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the rules changes we propose in this FNPRM.

    40. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users. The SBA rules, however, contain a definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Commission's records, there are a total of 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz, which is the range affected by this NPRM. Despite the lack of specific information, however, the Commission believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities.

    41. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to spectrum frequency coordinators. There are nine frequency coordinators certified by the Commission to coordinate frequencies allocated for public safety use. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to frequency coordinators. The SBA rules, however, contain a definition for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more than 1,500 persons. Under this category and size standard, we estimate that a majority of frequency coordinators can be considered small.

    42. The Census Bureau defines the category of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2011, there were a total of 809 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. According to Census bureau data for 2011, there were a total of 939 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500 employees and 12 had 1000 or more employees. Thus, under that size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

    43. The proposed rule changes discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are intended to expand access to PLMR spectrum, using existing licensing mechanisms. Because this simply gives licensees new options for spectrum to use, but does not impose a new burden, licensees, frequency coordinators, and manufacturers should not incur new costs.

    44. We believe that the rule changes discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will promote flexibility and more efficient use of the spectrum, reduce administrative burdens on both the Commission and licensees, and allow licensees to better meet their communications needs.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    47 CFR Part 90

    Radio.

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1 and 90 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 157, 225, 303(r), 309, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452.

    2. Section 1.931 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:
    § 1.931 Application for special temporary authority.

    (b) * * *

    (11) An applicant for an itinerant station license, an applicant for a new private land mobile radio station license in the frequency bands below 470 MHz or in the 806-824/851-866 MHz band, the 896-901/935-940 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929-930 MHz band (other than a commercial radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) or an applicant seeking to modify or acquire through assignment or transfer an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 806-824/851-866 MHz band, the 896-901/935-940 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929-930 MHz band may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to 180 days under a conditional permit. Conditional operations may commence upon the filing of a properly completed application that complies with § 90.127 if the application, when frequency coordination is required, is accompanied by evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this chapter. Operation under such a permit is evidenced by the properly executed Form 601 with certifications that satisfy the requirements of § 90.159(b).

    PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 3. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7), and Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156.

    4. Section 90.35 is amended by: a. Amending paragraph (b)(3) by revising entries for 153.0425, 153.0575, 153.0725, 153.0875, 153.1025, 153.1175, 153.1325, 153.1475, 153.1625, 153.1775, 153.1925, 153.2075, 153.2225, 153.2375, 153.2525, 153.2675, 153.2825, 153.2975, 153.3125, 153.3275, 153.3425, 153.3575, 153.3725, 153.3875, and 153.4025, and adding entries for 451.00625, 451.0125, 456.00625, 456.0125, 462.5375, 462.7375, 467.5375, and 467.7375, b. Revising paragraph (c)(2), c. Amending paragraph (c)(61)(iv) by adding entries for Kahului, HI, and Kailula-Kona, HI, and revising the entry for Boeing/King County Int'l (BFI), and d. Revising paragraph (c)(63).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 90.35 Industrial/Business Pool.

    (b) * * *

    (3) Frequencies.

    Industrial/Business Pool Frequency Table Frequency or band Class of
  • station(s)
  • Limitations Coordinator
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.0425 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.0575 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.0725 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.0875 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1025 ......do 30, 80 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1175 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1325 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1475 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1625 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1775 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.1925 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2075 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2225 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2375 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2525 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2675 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2825 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.2975 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3125 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3275 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3425 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3575 ......do 4, 7, 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3725 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.3875 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 153.4025 ......do 30 IP *         *         *         *         *         *         * 451.00625 Base or mobile 33 451.0125 ......do 33 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 456.00625 ......do 33 456.0125 ......do 33 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 462.5375 ......do 2 462.7375 ......do 2 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 467.5375 ......do 2 467.7375 ......do 2 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (c) * * *

    (2) This frequency will be assigned with an authorized bandwidth not to exceed 4 kHz.

    (61) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    City and airport Reference coordinates N. Latitude W. Longitude *         *         *         *         *         *         * Kahului, HI: Kahului (OGG) 20°53′55.4″ 156°25′48.9″ Kailula-Kona, HI: Ke-Ahole (KOA) 19°43′57.3″ 156°24′56.0″ *         *         *         *         *         *         * Seattle, WA: Boeing/King County Int'l (BFI) 47°31′48.4″ 122°18′07.4″ *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (63) Within the boundaries of the urbanized areas listed below, this frequency may be used only by persons rendering a central station commercial protection service within the service area of the radio station utilizing the frequency and may be used only for communications pertaining to safety of life and property, and for maintenance or testing of the protection facilities. Central station commercial protection service is defined as an electrical protection and supervisory service rendered to the public from and by a central station accepted and certified by one or more of the recognized rating agencies, or the Underwriters Laboratories' (UL), or Factory Mutual System. Other stations in the Industrial/Business Pool may be licensed on this frequency only when all base, mobile relay and control stations are located at least 120 km (75 miles) from the city center or centers of the specified urban areas. With respect to combination urbanized areas containing more than one city, 120 km (75 mile) separation shall be maintained from each city center which is included in the urbanized area. The locations of centers of cities are determined from appendix, page 226, of the U.S. Commerce publication “Air Line Distance Between Cities in the United States.” This limitation applies to the following urbanized areas: Albany-Troy-Schenectady, NY; Allentown-Bethlehem, PA; Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Boston, MA; Bridgeport, CT; Buffalo, NY; Charlotte, NC; Chattanooga, TN; Cincinnati, OH/KY; Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA/IL; Dayton, OH; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Flint, MI; Fresno, CA; Grand Rapids, MI; Hartford, CT; Kansas City MO/KS; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; Milwaukee, WI; Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; Mobile, AL; Nashville, TN; New Haven, CT; New Orleans, LA; New York, NY/NJ; Newport News-Hampton, VA; Norfolk-Portsmouth, VA; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia, PA/NJ; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Providence-Pawtucket, RI/MA; Richmond, VA; Rochester, NY; Sacramento, CA; San Bernardino, CA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Shreveport, LA; South Bend, IN; Springfield, MA; Toledo, OH; Trenton, NJ/PA; Tucson, AZ; Wilmington, DE; and Worcester, MA.

    5. Section 90.159 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (b)(1), and (c) to read as follows:
    § 90.159 Temporary and conditional permits.

    (b) An applicant proposing to operate a new land mobile radio station or modify an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 806-824/851-866 MHz band, the 896-901/935-940 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929-930 MHz band (other than a commercial radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) that is required to submit a frequency coordination recommendation pursuant to paragraphs (b) through (h) of § 90.175 of this part may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to one hundred eighty (180) days upon the filing of a properly completed formal Form 601 application that complies with § 90.127 of this part if the application is accompanied by evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with § 90.175 of this part and provided that the following conditions are satisfied:

    (1) The proposed station location is west of Line C as defined in § 90.7, and (for applicants proposing to operate below 470 MHz or in the 806-824/851-866 MHz band or the 896-901/935-940 MHz band) south of Line A as defined in § 90.7.

    (c) An applicant proposing to operate an itinerant station or an applicant seeking the assignment of authorization or transfer of control for an existing station below 470 MHz or in the 806-824/851-866 MHz band, the 896-901/935-940 MHz band, or the one-way paging 929-930 MHz band (other than a commercial radio service applicant or licensee on these bands) may operate the proposed station during the pendency of its application for a period of up to one hundred eighty (180) days upon the filing of a properly completed formal Form 601 application that complies with § 90.127 of this part. Conditional authority ceases immediately if the application is dismissed by the Commission. All other categories of applications listed in § 90.175 of this part that do not require evidence of frequency coordination are excluded from the provisions of this section.

    6. Section 90.219 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
    § 90.219 Use of signal boosters.

    (d) * * *

    (3)(i) Except as set forth in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section, signal boosters must be deployed such that the radiated power of each retransmitted channel, on the forward link and on the reverse link, does not exceed 5 Watts effective radiated power (ERP).

    (ii) Railroad licensees may operate Class A signal boosters transmitting on a single channel with up to 30 Watts ERP on frequencies 452/457.90625 to 452/457.9625 MHz in areas where communications between the front and rear of trains is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain barriers.

    7. Section 90.261 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 90.261 Assignment and use of the frequencies in the band 450-470 MHz for fixed operations.

    (f) Secondary fixed operations pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section will not be authorized on the following frequencies or on frequencies subject to § 90.267, except as provided in § 90.219(d)(3)(ii):

    [FR Doc. 2016-21638 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 211, 215, 219, 242, and 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0027] RIN 0750-AJ00 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS Case 2015-D013) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, both of which provide revisions to the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before November 22, 2016, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2015-D013, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2015-D013.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2015-D013” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2015-D013 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS to implement section 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016, both of which revise the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans. Section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 provides for contractors participating in the Test Program to report, on a semiannual basis, the amount of first-tier subcontract dollars awarded; the total number of subcontracts active under the Test Program that would have otherwise required a subcontracting plan under 15 U.S.C. 637(d); costs incurred in negotiating, complying with, and reporting on comprehensive subcontracting plans; and costs avoided by adoption of a comprehensive subcontracting plan. This information is expected to assist in determining if Test Program participants have achieved cost savings while enhancing opportunities for small businesses.

    In addition, section 821—

    • Repeals section 402 of Public Law 101-574, which suspended liquidated damages under comprehensive small business subcontracting plans;

    • Requires consideration, as part of the past performance evaluation of an offeror, of any failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its comprehensive subcontracting plan;

    • Extends the Test Program through December 31, 2017;

    • Increases the threshold for participation in the Test Program from $5,000,000 to $100,000,000; and

    • Prohibits negotiation of comprehensive subcontracting plans with contractors who failed to meet the subcontracting goals of their comprehensive subcontracting plan for the prior fiscal year.

    Section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016 removes the prohibition on negotiation of comprehensive subcontracting plans with contractors who failed to meet the subcontracting goals of their comprehensive subcontracting plan for the prior fiscal year.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    This rule proposes to amend DFARS subparts 211.5, 215.3, 219.7, 242.15, and 252.2 as summarized in the following paragraphs:

    A. Subpart 211.5, Liquidated Damages

    Section 211.500 is added to clarify that subpart 211.5 and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 11.5 do not apply to liquidated damages for comprehensive subcontracting plans under the Test Program, and to include a reference to DFARS 219.702-70.

    B. Subpart 215.3, Source Selection

    Section 215.305 is amended to require contracting officers to consider an offeror's failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its comprehensive subcontracting plan as part of the past performance evaluation.

    C. Subpart 219.7, The Small Business Subcontracting Program

    • Section 219.702-70, Statutory requirements for the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans, renumbers section 219.702 and incorporates new requirements stemming from section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015.

    ○ Paragraph (1) is renumbered as paragraph (a) and amended to include the title of the Test Program.

    ○ Paragraph (2), which addressed the nonapplicability of liquidated damages, is deleted in its entirety.

    ○ Paragraph (b) is added to provide the current requirements for participation in the Test Program. These requirements are expressly stated in 15 U.S.C. 637 note, as amended by section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 and section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016. To participate in the Test Program, the contractor must have furnished to DoD, during the immediately preceding fiscal year under at least three contracts, supplies, services, or construction in the aggregate amount of at least $100 million.

    ○ Paragraph (c) is added to describe the establishment and use of comprehensive subcontracting plans.

    ○ Paragraph (d) is added to provide the process to determine the need to assess liquidated damages for failure to make a good faith effort to comply with the comprehensive subcontracting plan. Paragraph (e) is added to describe the calculation and application of liquidated damages. This rule sets forth the following methodology for assessing liquidated damages:

    • The participant contractor shall be subject to the payment of liquidated damages if, after allowing the contractor an opportunity to demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with its comprehensive subcontracting plan, the contracting officer makes a final decision that the contractor failed to make a good faith effort to comply with its plan.

    • The amount of liquidated damages owed to the Government shall be the amount of anticipated damages sustained by the Government, including but not limited to additional expenses of administration, reporting, and contract monitoring.

    ○ Paragraph (3) is renumbered as paragraph (f) and amended to revise the expiration date for the Test Program from December 31, 2014, to December 31, 2017.

    • Section 219.708, Contract Clauses, is amended as follows:

    ○ Paragraph (b)(1)(B) guidance on use of clause 252.219-7004 is updated and aligned with the revised flowdown instructions in paragraph (g) of the clause. A correction is made to the Code of Federal Regulations to remove the phrase “and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan(DoD Contracts),”. Paragraph (b)(1)(B)(2)(ii) is removed as the information is now contained at FAR 19.708(b)(1)(iii).

    ○ Paragraph (b)(2), is amended to instruct contracting officers to use the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in lieu of FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan.

    D. Subpart 242.15, Contractor Performance Information

    Section 242.1502 is added to require that past performance evaluations include an assessment of the contractor's performance against, and efforts to achieve, the goals in its comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    E. Subpart 252.2, Text of Provisions and Clauses

    • Clause 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), basic clause and its Alternate I, are amended to advise that contractors must insert (i.e., “flow down”) the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), to subcontractors who participate in the Test Program.

    • Clause 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), is amended to incorporate new requirements stemming from section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015.

    ○ Paragraph (a) provides definitions for additional terms used in connection with the Test Program.

    ○ Paragraph (c) is amended to advise participant contractors of the requirements for participation in the Test Program.

    ○ Paragraph (d) is amended to include the reporting requirements for contractors with comprehensive subcontracting plans. The reports must present the data by North American Industry Classification System code, by major defense acquisition program, by contract (for certain contracts with a value exceeding $100,000,000), and by military department.

    ○ Paragraph (f) is added to address liquidated damages under a comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    ○ Paragraph (g) flowdown instructions are clarified and updated.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule proposes to amend the clauses at DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), and 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in order to implement section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015. The requirements of section 821 were enacted to promote utilization of small businesses and to determine the success of the Test Program at reducing administrative burdens while enhancing subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. Section 821 advances the interests of small business subcontractors by encouraging test program participants to comply with their comprehensive subcontracting plans.

    A. Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold

    41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT). It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.

    B. Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off the Shelf Items

    41 U.S.C. 1906 governs the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, and is intended to limit the applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. 41 U.S.C. 1906 provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the FAR Council makes a written determination that it is not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial item contracts, the provision of law will apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. Likewise, 41 U.S.C. 1907 governs the applicability of laws to commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy the decision authority to determine that it is in the best interest of the Government to apply a provision of law to acquisitions of COTS items in the FAR. The Director, DPAP, is the appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of regulations.

    C. Applicability Determination

    This proposed rule does not apply the requirements of section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 to contracts at or below the SAT, but does apply the requirements of section 821 to contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items, as defined at FAR 2.101.

    The prescriptions for these clauses currently require their use in solicitations and contracts for commercial items, including COTS items. This rule merely revises these clauses to implement the new requirements of section 821; consequently, exclusion of acquisitions of commercial and COTS items from these requirements would create confusion among contractors and the contracting workforce and would result in fewer subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. By applying the requirements of section 821 to acquisitions of commercial items, the burden on contractors is no greater than the burden on contractors who have other types of subcontracting plans. DoD will make the final determination with regard to application to commercial items after receipt and analysis of public comments.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because small entities do not participate in the Test Program. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 821 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291) and section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 provides several changes to the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (Test Program), including new reporting and eligibility requirements, an extension of the Test Program, and authority to assess liquidated damages. Section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016 removes one of the eligibility requirements.

    The objectives of this proposed rule are to collect data to assist in assessing the successes or shortcomings of the Test Program and to provide the means to hold Test Program participants accountable for failure to make a good faith effort to comply with their comprehensive subcontracting plans. The authorizing legislation is section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 and section 872 of the NDAA for FY 2016.

    The rule will not apply to small entities. The rule, however, may have an indirect positive economic impact on small entities, because the rule encourages Test Program participants to make a good faith effort to comply with their comprehensive subcontracting plans.

    The rule does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small entities. There are new semiannual reporting requirements for Test Program participants who are, as a matter of eligibility for the program, other than small businesses.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There are no known, significant, alternative approaches to the rule that would meet the requirements of the applicable statutes.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015-D013), in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), because the rule does not impose a collection of information on ten or more members of the public.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 211, 215, 219, 242, and 252.

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 215, 219, 242, and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 211, 215, 219, 242, and 252 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS 2. Add section 211.500 to read as follows:
    211.500 Scope.

    This subpart and FAR subpart 11.5 do not apply to liquidated damages for comprehensive subcontracting plans under the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans. See 219.702-70 for coverage of liquidated damages for comprehensive subcontracting plans.

    PART 215—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 3. Amend section 215.305(a)(2) by— a. Designating the text as paragraph (a)(2)(A); and b. Adding paragraph (a)(2)(B).

    The addition reads as follows:

    215.305 Proposal evaluation.

    (a)(2) * * *

    (B) Contracting officers shall consider an offeror's failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its comprehensive subcontracting plan under the Test Program described at 219.702-70 as part of the evaluation of the past performance.

    PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
    219.702 [Redesignated as 219.702-70]
    4. Redesignate section 219.702 as 219.702-70; and revise it to read as follows:
    219.702-70 Statutory requirements for the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

    (a) In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 637 note, DoD has established a test program to determine whether comprehensive subcontracting plans on a corporate, division, or plant-wide basis will reduce administrative burdens while enhancing subcontracting opportunities for small and small disadvantaged business concerns. This program is referred to as the Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (Test Program).

    (b) Eligibility requirements. To become and remain eligible to participate in the Test Program, a business concern is required to have furnished supplies or services (including construction) under at least three DoD contracts during the preceding fiscal year, having an aggregate value of at least $100 million.

    (c) Comprehensive subcontracting plans. (1) The Defense Contract Management Agency will designate the contracting officer who shall negotiate and approve comprehensive subcontracting plans with eligible participants on an annual basis.

    (2) Test Program participants use their comprehensive subcontracting plans, in lieu of individual subcontracting plans, when performing any DoD contract or subcontract that requires a subcontracting plan.

    (d) Assessment. The contracting officer designated to manage the comprehensive subcontracting plan shall conduct a compliance review during the fiscal year after the close of the fiscal year for which the plan is applicable. The contracting officer shall compare the approved percentage or dollar goals to the total, actual subcontracting dollars covered by the comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (1) If the contractor has failed to meet its approved subcontracting goal(s), the contracting officer shall give the contractor written notice specifying the failure, advising of the potential for assessment of liquidated damages, permitting the contractor to demonstrate what good faith efforts have been made, and providing a period of 15 working days (or longer period at the contracting officer's discretion) within which to respond. The contracting officer may take the contractor's failure to respond to the notice as an admission that no valid explanation exists.

    (2) The contracting officer shall review all available information to determine whether the contractor has failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the plan.

    (3) If, after consideration of all relevant information, the contracting officer determines that the contractor failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the comprehensive subcontracting plan, the contracting officer shall issue a final decision. The contracting officer's final decision shall include the right of the contractor to appeal under the Disputes clause. The contracting officer shall distribute a copy of the final decision to all cognizant contracting officers for the contracts covered under the plan.

    (e) Liquidated damages. The amount of liquidated damages shall be the amount of anticipated damages sustained by the Government, including but not limited to additional expenses of administration, reporting, and contract monitoring, and shall be identified in the comprehensive subcontracting plan. Liquidated damages shall be in addition to any other remedies the Government may have.

    (f) Expiration date. The Test Program expires on December 31, 2017.

    5. Amend section 219.708 by— a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(B); b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and c. Removing from paragraph (c)(1) “test program described in 219.702” and adding “Test Program described in 219.702-70” in its place.

    The revisions read as follows:

    219.708 Contract clauses.

    (b)(1) * * *

    (B) In contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the Test Program described in 219.702-70, including contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, use the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), instead of the clauses at 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan.

    (2) In contracts with contractors that have comprehensive subcontracting plans approved under the Test Program described in 219.702-70, do not use the clause at FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan.

    PART 242—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES 6. Add subpart 242.15, consisting of 242.1502, to read as follows: Subpart 242.15—Contractor Performance Information
    242.1502 Policy.

    (g) Past performance evaluations in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System shall include an assessment of the contractor's performance against, and efforts to achieve, the goals identified in its comprehensive small business subcontracting plan when the contract contains the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program).

    PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 7. Amend section 252.219-7003 by— a. In the basic clause— i. Removing the clause date of “(MAR 2016)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; ii. Adding paragraph (g); and b. In Alternate I— i. Removing the clause date of “(MAR 2016)” and adding “(DATE)” in its place; and ii. Adding paragraph (g).

    The additions read as follows.

    252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts).

    (g) Include the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in subcontracts with subcontractors that participate in the Test Program described in DFARS 219.702-70, where the subcontract is expected to exceed $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility) and to have further subcontracting opportunities.

    Alternate I. * * *

    (g) Include the clause at 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in subcontracts with subcontractors that participate in the Test Program described in DFARS 219.702-70, where the subcontract is expected to exceed $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility) and to have further subcontracting opportunities.

    8. Revise section 252.219-7004 to read as follows:
    252.219-7004 Small business subcontracting plan (Test Program).

    As prescribed in 219.708(b)(1)(B), use the following clause:

    Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) (Date)

    (a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

    Covered small business concern means a small business concern, veteran-owned small business concern, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern, HUBZone small business concern, women-owned small business concern, or small disadvantaged business concern as these terms are defined in FAR 2.101.

    Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) means the Governmentwide, electronic, Web-based system for small business subcontracting program reporting. The eSRS is located at http://www.esrs.gov.

    Failure to make a good faith effort to comply with a comprehensive subcontracting plan means a willful or intentional failure to perform in accordance with the requirements of the Contractor's approved comprehensive subcontracting plan or willful or intentional action to frustrate the plan.

    Subcontract means any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a Federal Government prime Contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract.

    (b) The Contractor's comprehensive small business subcontracting plan and its successors, which are authorized by and approved under the Test Program of 15 U.S.C. 637 note, as amended, shall be included in and made a part of this contract. Upon expulsion from the Test Program or expiration of the Test Program, the Contractor shall negotiate an individual subcontracting plan for all future contracts that meet the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 637(d).

    (c) Eligibility requirements. To become and remain eligible to participate in the Test Program, a business concern is required to have furnished supplies or services (including construction) under at least three DoD contracts during the preceding fiscal year, having an aggregate value of at least $100 million.

    (d) Reports. (1) The Contractor shall report semiannually for the six-month periods ending March 31 and September 30, the information in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (v) of this section within 30 days after the end of the reporting period. Submit the report at https://www.esrs.gov.

    (i) A list of contracts covered under its comprehensive small business subcontracting plan, to include the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number.

    (ii) The amount of first-tier subcontract dollars awarded during the six-month period covered by the report to covered small business concerns, with the information set forth separately by—

    (A) North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code;

    (B) Major defense acquisition program, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2430(a);

    (C) Contract number, if the contract is for maintenance, overhaul, repair, servicing, rehabilitation, salvage, modernization, or modification of supplies, systems, or equipment, and the total value of the contract, including options, exceeds $100 million; and

    (D) Military department.

    (iii) Total number of subcontracts active under the Test Program that would have otherwise required a subcontracting plan.

    (iv) Costs incurred in negotiating, complying with, and reporting on its comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (v) Costs avoided through the use of a comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (2) The Contractor shall—

    (i) Ensure that subcontractors with subcontracting plans agree to submit an Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and/or Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

    (ii) Provide its contract number, its DUNS number, and the email address of the Contractor's official responsible for acknowledging or rejecting the ISR to all first-tier subcontractors, who will be required to submit ISRs, so they can enter this information into the eSRS when submitting their reports.

    (iii) Require that each subcontractor with a subcontracting plan provide the prime contract number, its own DUNS number, and the email address of the subcontractor's official responsible for acknowledging or rejecting the ISRs to its subcontractors with subcontracting plans who will be required to submit ISRs.

    (iv) Acknowledge receipt or reject all ISRs submitted by its subcontractors using eSRS.

    (3) The Contractor shall submit SSRs using eSRS at http://www.esrs.gov. The reports shall provide information on subcontract awards to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns. Purchases from a corporation, company, or subdivision that is an affiliate of the prime Contractor or subcontractor are not included in these reports. Subcontract award data reported by prime contractors and subcontractors shall be limited to awards made to their immediate next-tier subcontractors. Credit cannot be taken for awards made to lower-tier subcontractors unless the Contractor or subcontractor has been designated to receive a small business or small disadvantaged business credit from a member firm of the Alaska Native—Corporations or an Indian tribe. Only subcontracts involving performance in the U.S. or its outlying areas should be included in these reports.

    (i) This report may be submitted on a corporate, company, or subdivision (e.g., plant or division operating as a separate profit center) basis, as negotiated in the comprehensive subcontracting plan with the Defense Contract Management Agency.

    (ii) This report encompasses all subcontracting under prime contracts and subcontracts with the Department of Defense, regardless of the dollar value of the subcontracts, and is based on the negotiated comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (iii) The report shall be submitted semi-annually for the six months ending March 31 and the twelve months ending September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period.

    (iv) The authority to acknowledge receipt or reject the SSR resides with the Defense Contract Management Agency.

    (e) The failure of the Contractor or subcontractor to comply in good faith with the clause of this contract entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” or an approved plan required by this clause, shall be a material breach of the contract.

    (f) Liquidated damages. The Contracting Officer designated to manage the comprehensive subcontracting plan will exercise the functions of the Contracting Officer, as identified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4), on behalf of all DoD departments and agencies that awarded contracts covered by the Contractor's comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (1) To determine the need for liquidated damages, the Contracting Officer will conduct a compliance review during the fiscal year after the close of the fiscal year for which the plan is applicable. The Contracting Officer will compare the approved percentage or dollar goals to the total, actual subcontracting dollars covered by the plan.

    (2) If the Contractor has failed to meet its approved subcontracting goal(s), the Contracting Officer will provide the Contractor written notice specifying the failure, advising of the potential for assessment of liquidated damages, and permitting the Contractor to demonstrate what good faith efforts have been made. The Contracting Officer may take the Contractor's failure to respond to the notice within 15 working days (or longer period at the Contracting Officer's discretion) as an admission that no valid explanation exists.

    (3) If, after consideration of all relevant information, the Contracting Officer determines that the Contractor failed to make a good faith effort to comply with the comprehensive subcontracting plan, the Contracting Officer will issue a final decision to the Contractor to that effect and require the Contractor to pay liquidated damages to the Government in the amount identified in the comprehensive subcontracting plan.

    (4) The Contractor shall have the right of appeal under the clause in this contract entitled “Disputes” from any final decision of the Contracting Officer.

    (g) The Contractor shall include in subcontracts that offer subcontracting opportunities, are expected to exceed $700,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility), and are required to include the clause at 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns—

    (1) FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts)—Basic;

    (2) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, with its Alternate III, and 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts)—Alternate I, to allow for submission of SF 294s in lieu of ISRs; or

    (3) 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), in subcontracts with subcontractors that participate in the Test Program described in DFARS 219.702-70.

    (End of clause)
    [FR Doc. 2016-22573 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Part 219 and Appendix I to Chapter 2 [Docket DARS-2016-0033] RIN 0750-AJ05 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Amendment to Mentor-Protégé Program (DFARS Case 2016-D011) AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 that provides amendments to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before November 22, 2016, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016-D011, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2016-D011.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2016-D011” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2016-D011 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jennifer Johnson, telephone 571-372-6100.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This rule proposes to revise the DFARS to implement section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92). Section 861 provides several amendments to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (“the Program”). In particular, section 861 provides for contractors who participate in the Program as mentors to report all technical or management assistance provided; any new awards of subcontracts to the protégé firm, including the value of such subcontracts; any extensions, increases in the scope of work, or additional, unreported payments to the protégé firm; the amount of any progress payments or advance payments made to the protégé firm for performance under any subcontract made under the Program; any loans made to the protégé firm; all Federal contracts awarded to the mentor and protégé firms as a joint venture; any assistance the mentor firm obtained for the protégé firm from small business development centers established under 15 U.S.C. 648, entities providing procurement technical assistance under 10 U.S.C. chapter 142, or historically Black colleges or universities or minority institutions of higher education; whether the terms of the mentor-protégé agreement have changed; and a narrative describing the success assistance provided under the Program has had in addressing the protégé firm's developmental needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and addressing any problems encountered. These reporting requirements apply retroactively to mentor-protégé agreements in effect on November 25, 2015, date of enactment of the NDAA for FY 2016. The new reporting requirements will provide information to DoD's Office of Small Business Programs to support decisions regarding continuation of particular mentor-protégé agreements.

    In addition, section 861—

    • Adds new eligibility criteria;

    • Limits the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé firm may be a party;

    • Limits the period of time during which a protégé firm may participate in mentor-protégé agreements under the Program;

    • Adds new elements to mentor-protégé agreements addressing the benefits of the agreement to DoD and goals for additional awards for which the protégé firm can compete outside the Program;

    • Removes business development assistance using mentor firm personnel and cash in exchange for an ownership interest in the protégé firm from the types of assistance that a mentor firm may provide to a protégé firm;

    • Prohibits reimbursement of any fee assessed by the mentor firm for certain services provided to the protégé firm while participating in a joint venture with the protégé firm;

    • Revises the definitions of the terms “small business concern” and “disadvantaged small business concern;”

    • Adds definitions for “severely disabled individual” and “affiliated;” and

    • Extends the Program for three years.

    II. Discussion and Analysis

    This rule proposes amendments to DFARS subpart 219.71 and Appendix I, and significant revisions are summarized in the following paragraphs:

    A. Subpart 219.71, Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program

    • 219.7102, General. This section is amended to replace the list of Program eligibility criteria with a reference to the eligibility criteria located in Appendix I, section I-102.

    • 219.7104, Developmental assistance costs eligible for reimbursement or credit. This section is amended to revise the date by which a mentor firm must incur costs under the Program in order to be eligible for reimbursement or credit toward small business subcontracting goals.

    B. Appendix I, Policy and Procedures for the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program

    • I-100, Purpose. This section is amended to align more closely with the language in section 861 of the NDAA for FY 2016.

    • I-101, Definitions. This section is amended to add the definition of “nontraditional defense contractor” provided in section 861, and to delete the definition of “historically Black college or university” that repeated the definition in FAR 2.101.

    • I-102, Participant eligibility. This section is amended to revise the mentor and protégé eligibility criteria in accordance with section 861.

    • I-103, Program duration. This section is amended to revise the date by which new mentor-protégé agreements may be submitted and approved and the date by which a mentor firm must incur costs under the Program in order to be eligible for reimbursement or credit toward subcontracting goals.

    • I-104, Selection of protégé firms. This section is amended to encourage mentor firms to select firms as protégés that have not received significant prime contracts from a Federal agency. In addition, this section is amended to indicate the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé firm may be a party, and to implement the time limitation specified in section 861 for a protégé firm's participation in the Program.

    • I-105, Mentor approval process. This section is amended to reflect the revised eligibility criteria.

    • I-107, Elements of a mentor-protégé agreement. This section is amended to incorporate new requirements of section 861.

    ○ New paragraph (e) is added to require assurances in mentor-protégé agreements that the mentor and protégé firms are not affiliated as defined in section 861. In addition, the existing paragraph (e) is renumbered as paragraph (f), and the existing paragraph (f) is renumbered as paragraph (g).

    ○ New paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) are added to implement the section 861 requirement for mentor-protégé agreements to include the following:

    A description of the quantitative and qualitative benefits to DoD from the agreement, if applicable; and

    Goals for additional awards for which the protégé firm can compete outside the Program.

    • I-109, Reimbursement agreements. This section is amended to implement the prohibition in section 861 of reimbursement of fees assessed by the mentor firm for certain services provided to the protégé firm or reimbursement of business development expenses incurred by the mentor firm while participating in a joint venture with the protégé firm.

    • I-112, Reporting requirements. This section is amended to include the new reporting requirements of section 861 and to specify that they apply retroactively in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of section 861.

    III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Items

    This rule does not add any new provisions or clauses or impact any existing provisions or clauses.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

    This rule proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 861 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, which provides amendments to the DoD Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (“the Program”). Specifically, section 861 requires mentor firms to report a variety of information on the assistance they have provided to their protégé firms, the success this assistance has had in addressing the protégé firm's developmental needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and addressing any problems encountered. The new reporting requirements apply retroactively to mentor-protégé agreements that were in effect on the date of enactment of the NDAA for FY 2016 (enacted November 25, 2015). In addition, section 861 adds new eligibility criteria for mentor and protégé firms; limits the period of time a protégé firm can participate in the Program; limits the number of mentor-protégé agreements to which a protégé can be a party; extends the Program for three years; and makes several other amendments.

    The objectives of this rule are to implement statutory amendments to the Program and to provide DoD's Office of Small Business Programs with information to support decisions regarding continuation of particular mentor-protégé agreements. The legal basis for the amendments is section 861 of the NDAA for FY 2016.

    The rule will apply to small entities that participate in the Program. There are currently 85 small entities participating in the Program as protégé firms and six small entities participating as mentors.

    The rule imposes new reporting requirements on mentor firms, including mentors who are small businesses, regarding assistance they have provided to their protégé firms and the success this assistance has had. Although protégé firms are not required to submit these reports, the mentor firms will need to obtain supporting information from the protégé firms in order to ascertain the success of the assistance provided.

    The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

    DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2016-D011), in correspondence.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). OMB Control Number 0704-0332, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Appendix I, is currently in place for the DoD Mentor Protégé program. This proposed rule, DFARS Case 2016-D011, however, requires revision of OMB 0704-0332 to increase the burden hours to accommodate the increased reporting requirements resulting from this rule. Accordingly, DoD has submitted a request to OMB for approval of a revised information collection requirement as discussed below.

    A. Public Reporting Burden for This Collection of Information is Estimated To Average Three Hours per Response, Including the Time for Reviewing Instructions, Searching Existing Data Sources, Gathering and Maintaining the Data Needed, and Completing and Reviewing the Collection of Information

    The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:

    Respondents: 127.

    Responses per respondent: 2 approximately.

    Total annual responses: 255.

    Preparation hours per response: 2 hours.

    Total response Burden Hours: 595.

    B. Request for Comments Regarding Paperwork Burden

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or email [email protected], with a copy to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Comments can be received from 30 to 60 days after the date of this notice, but comments to OMB will be most useful if received by OMB within 30 days after the date of this notice.

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the DFARS, and will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Jennifer Johnson, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or email [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2016-D011 in the subject line of the message.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 219 and Appendix I to Chapter 2

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR part 219 and appendix I to chapter 2 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 219 and appendix I to chapter 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 219—SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
    219.7100 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 219.7100 by— a. Removing “Section 831” and adding “section 831” in its place; and b. Adding the phrase “, as amended through November 25, 2015” to the end of the first sentence. 3. Amend section 219.7102 by— a. Revising paragraph (a); b. Removing paragraph (b); and c. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

    The revision reads as follows:

    219.7102 General.

    (a) Mentor firms and protégé firms that meet the criteria in Appendix I, section I-102.

    219.7103-2 [Amended]
    4. Amend section 219.7103-2, in paragraph (e)(3), by removing “219.7102(d)(1)(ii)” and adding “219.7102(c)(1)(ii)” in its place.
    219.7104 [Amended]
    5. Amend section 219.7104 by— a. In paragraph (b)— i. Removing “Advance agreements are encouraged.”; ii. Removing “before October 1, 2018” and adding “not later than September 30, 2021” in its place; and b. In paragraph (d), removing “before October 1, 2018” and adding “not later than September 30, 2021” in its place. Appendix I to Chapter 2—Policy and Procedures for The DOD Pilot Mentor Protégé Program 6. Amend appendix I to chapter 2 by— a. In section I-100, revising paragraph (a); b. Removing section I-101.1; c. Redesignating section I-101.2 as section I-101.1; d. Adding new section I-101.2; e. Revising section I-101.4; f. Removing section I-101.5; g. Redesignating section I-101.6 as section I-101.5; h. In the newly redesignated section I-101.5, removing “Section” and adding “section” in its place; i. Removing section I-101-7; j. Redesignating section I-101.8 as section I-101.6; k. In section I-102, revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d); l. Amend section I-103 by— i. In paragraph (a), removing “September 30, 2015” and adding “September 30, 2018” in its place; ii. In paragraph (b), removing “September 30, 2018” and adding “September 30, 2021” in its place; m. Amend section I-104 by— i. Revising paragraph (a); ii. In paragraph (c), removing “as defined in I-101.5” ' iii. In paragraph (d) removing “I-107(f)” and adding “I-106(d)” in its place; iv. Revising paragraph (e); n. Amend section I-105 by— i. Revising paragraph (b)(1); ii. In paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), removing “company's” and “company” and adding “entity's” and “entity”, respectively in each place they appear; iii. Revising paragraph (b)(7); iv. Revising paragraph (c); o. Amend section I-106 by— i. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing “business development, ”; ii. In paragraph (d)(1)(iii), adding “described in I-107(g)” to the end of the sentence; iii. In paragraph (d)(2), removing “Award of subcontracts” and adding “Award of subcontracts to the protégé firm” in its place; iv. Removing paragraph (d)(6); v. Redesignating paragraph (d)(7) as (d)(6); p. Amend section I-107 by— i. In the introductory text, removing “will contain the following elements:” and adding “shall contain—” in its place; ii. Revising paragraph (b); iii. In paragraph (d), removing “I-102” and adding “I-102(a)” in its place; iv. Revising paragraphs (e), (f), and (g); q. Amend section I-109 by— i. Redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f); ii. Adding new paragraph (e); r. Amend section I-110.1, in paragraph (a), by removing “DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program” and adding “DoD Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans” in its place; and removing “entity employing the severely disabled” and adding “entity employing severely disabled individuals” in its place; s. Amend section I-112.1 by— i. In the section heading, removing “SF 294s” and adding “Standard Forms 294” in its place; ii. In paragraph (b), removing “SDB” and adding “applicable” in its place; and removing “I-101.3 or I-101.5” and adding “I-102(b)” in its place; t. Revise section I-112.2.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    I-100 Purpose.

    (a) This Appendix I to 48 CFR chapter 2 implements the Pilot Mentor-Protégé Program (hereafter referred to as the “Program”) established under section 831 of Public Law 101-510, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note), as amended through November 25, 2015. The purpose of the Program is to provide incentives to major DoD contractors to furnish eligible small business concerns with assistance designed to—

    (1) Enhance the capabilities of eligible small business concerns to perform as subcontractors and suppliers under DoD contracts and other contracts and subcontracts; and

    (2) Increase the participation of such business concerns as subcontractors and suppliers under DoD contracts, other Federal Government contracts, and commercial contracts.

    I-101.2 Nontraditional defense contractor.

    An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and the regulations implementing such section, for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction (10 U.S.C. 2302(9)).

    I-101.4 Severely disabled individual.

    An individual who is blind or severely disabled as defined in 41 U.S.C. 8501.

    I-102 Participant eligibility.

    (a) To be eligible to participate as a mentor, an entity must—

    (1) Be eligible for the award of Federal contracts;

    (2) Demonstrate that it—

    (i) Is qualified to provide assistance that will contribute to the purpose of the Program;

    (ii) Is of good financial health and character; and

    (iii) Is not on a Federal list of debarred or suspended contractors; and

    (3) Be capable of imparting value to a protégé firm because of experience gained as a DoD contractor or through knowledge of general business operations and Government contracting, as demonstrated by evidence that such entity—

    (i) Received DoD contracts and subcontracts equal to or greater than $100 million during the previous fiscal year;

    (ii) Is an other-than-small business, unless a waiver to the small business exception has been obtained from the Director, Small Business Programs (SBP), OUSD(AT&L);

    (iii) Is a prime contractor to DoD with an active subcontracting plan; or

    (iv) Has graduated from the 8(a) Business Development Program and provides documentation of its ability to serve as a mentor.

    (b) To be eligible to participate as a protégé, an entity must be—

    (1) A small business concern;

    (2) Eligible for the award of Federal contracts;

    (3) Less than half the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standard for its primary North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code;

    (4) Not owned or managed by individuals or entities that directly or indirectly have stock options or convertible securities in the mentor firm; and

    (5) At least one of the following:

    (i) A qualified HUBZone small business concern.

    (ii) A women-owned small business concern.

    (iii) A service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern.

    (iv) An entity owned and controlled by an Indian tribe.

    (v) An entity owned and controlled by a Native Hawaiian organization.

    (vi) An entity owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

    (vii) A qualified organization employing severely disabled individuals.

    (viii) A nontraditional defense contractor.

    (ix) An entity that currently provides goods or services in the private sector that are critical to enhancing the capabilities of the defense supplier base and fulfilling key DoD needs.

    (c) Mentor firms may rely in good faith on a written representation that the entity meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, except that a mentor firm is required to confirm a protégé's status as a HUBZone small business concern (see FAR 19.703(d)).

    (d) If at any time the SBA (or DoD in the case of entities employing severely disabled individuals) determines that a protégé is ineligible, assistance that the mentor firm furnishes to the protégé after the date of the determination may not be considered assistance furnished under the Program.

    I-104 Selection of protégé firms.

    (a) Mentor firms will be solely responsible for selecting protégé firms that qualify under I-102(b). Mentor firms are encouraged to identify and select concerns that have not previously received significant prime contract awards from DoD or any other Federal agency.

    (e) A protégé firm may not be a party to more than one DoD mentor-protégé agreement at a time, and may only participate in the Program during the 5-year period beginning on the date the protégé firm enters into its first mentor-protégé agreement.

    I-105 Mentor approval process.

    (b) * * *

    (1) A statement that the entity meets the requirements in I-102(a), specifying the criteria in I-102(a)(3) under which the entity is applying.

    (7) The total dollar amount and percentage of subcontracts that the entity awarded to firms qualifying under I-102(b)(5)(ii) through (viii) during the 2 preceding fiscal years. (Show DoD subcontract awards separately.) If the entity was required to submit a Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, the request must include copies of the final reports for the 2 preceding fiscal years.

    (c) A template of the mentor application is available at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sb/programs/mpp/resources.shtml.

    I-107 Elements of a mentor-protégé agreement.

    (b) The NAICS code(s) that represent the contemplated supplies or services to be provided by the protégé firm to the mentor firm and a statement that, at the time the agreement is submitted for approval, the protégé firm does not exceed the size standard in I-102(b)(3);

    (e) Assurances that—

    (1) The mentor firm does not share, directly or indirectly, with the protégé firm ownership or management of the protégé firm;

    (2) The mentor firm does not have an agreement, at the time the mentor firm enters into a mentor-protégé agreement, to merge with the protégé firm;

    (3) The owners and managers of the mentor firm are not the parent, child, spouse, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, grandparent, grandchild, or first cousin of an owner or manager of the protégé firm;

    (4) The mentor firm has not, during the 2-year period before entering into a mentor-protégé agreement, employed any officer, director, principal stock holder, managing member, or key employee of the protégé firm;

    (5) The mentor firm has not engaged in a joint venture with the protégé firm during the 2-year period before entering into a mentor-protégé agreement, unless such joint venture was approved by SBA prior to making any offer on a contract;

    (6) The mentor firm is not, directly or indirectly, the primary party providing contracts to the protégé firm, as measured by the dollar value of the contracts; and

    (7) The SBA has not made a determination of affiliation or control;

    (f) A preliminary assessment of the developmental needs of the protégé firm;

    (g) A developmental program for the protégé firm including—

    (1) The type of assistance the mentor will provide to the protégé and how that assistance will—

    (i) Increase the protégé's ability to participate in DoD, Federal, and/or commercial contracts and subcontracts; and

    (ii) Increase small business subcontracting opportunities in industry categories where eligible protégés or other small business firms are not dominant in the company's vendor base;

    (2) Factors to assess the protégé firm's developmental progress under the Program, including specific milestones for providing each element of the identified assistance;

    (3) A description of the quantitative and qualitative benefits to DoD from the agreement, if applicable; and

    (4) Goals for additional awards for which the protégé firm can compete outside the Program;

    I-109 Reimburseable agreements.

    (e) DoD may not reimburse any fee to the mentor firm for services provided to the protégé firm pursuant to I-106(d)(6) or for business development expenses incurred by the mentor firm under a contract awarded to the mentor firm while participating in a joint venture with the protégé firm.

    I-112.2 Program specific reporting requirements.

    (a) Mentors must report on the progress made under active mentor-protégé agreements semiannually for the periods ending March 31st and September 30th throughout the Program participation term of the agreement. The September 30th report must address the entire fiscal year.

    (1) Reports are due 30 days after the close of each reporting period.

    (2) Each report must include the following data on performance under the mentor-protégé agreement:

    (i) Dollars obligated (for reimbursable agreements).

    (ii) Expenditures.

    (iii) Dollars credited, if any, toward applicable subcontracting goals as a result of developmental assistance provided to the protégé and a copy of the ISR or SF 294 and/or SSR for each contract where developmental assistance was credited.

    (iv) Any new awards of subcontracts on a competitive or noncompetitive basis to the protégé firm under DoD contracts or other contracts, including the value of such subcontracts.

    (v) All technical or management assistance provided by mentor firm personnel for the purposes described in I-106(d).

    (vi) Any extensions, increases in the scope of work, or additional payments not previously reported for prior awards of subcontracts on a competitive or noncompetitive basis to the protégé firm under DoD contracts or other contracts, including the value of such subcontracts.

    (vii) The amount of any payment of progress payments or advance payments made to the protégé firm for performance under any subcontract made under the Program.

    (viii) Any loans made by the mentor firm to the protégé firm.

    (ix) All Federal contracts awarded to the mentor firm and the protégé firm as a joint venture, designating whether the award was a restricted competition or a full and open competition.

    (x) Any assistance obtained by the mentor firm for the protégé firm from the entities listed at I-106(d)(6).

    (xi) Whether there have been any changes to the terms of the mentor-protégé agreement.

    (xii) A narrative describing the following:

    (A) The success assistance provided under I-106(d) has had in addressing the developmental needs of the protégé firm.

    (B) The impact on DoD contracts.

    (C) Any problems encountered.

    (D) Any milestones achieved in the protégé firm's developmental program.

    (E) Impact of the agreement in terms of capabilities enhanced, certifications received, and technology transferred.

    (3) In accordance with section 861, paragraph (b)(2), of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), the reporting requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) through (a)(2)(xii)(C) of this section apply retroactively to mentor-protégé agreements that were in effect on November 25, 2015. Mentors must submit reports as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (4) A recommended reporting format and guidance for its submission are available at: http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sb/programs/mpp/resources.shtml.

    (b) The protégé must provide data, annually by October 31st, on the progress made during the prior fiscal year by the protégé in employment, revenues, and participation in DoD contracts during—

    (1) Each fiscal year of the Program participation term; and

    (2) Each of the 2 fiscal years following the expiration of the Program participation term.

    (c) The protégé report required by paragraph (b) of this section may be provided as part of the mentor report for the period ending September 30th required by paragraph (a) of this section.

    (d) Progress reports must be submitted—

    (1) For credit agreements, to the cognizant Component Director, SBP, that approved the agreement, and the mentor's cognizant DCMA administrative contracting officer; and

    (2) For reimbursable agreements, to the cognizant Component Director, SBP, the contracting officer, the DCMA administrative contracting officer, and the program manager.

    [FR Doc. 2016-22574 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 680 [Docket No. 160617541-6541-01] 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:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 47 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP) and to make minor clarifications to regulations implementing the Crab FMP. This proposed rule addresses how individual processing quota (IPQ) use caps apply to the Bering Sea Chionoecetes bairdi Tanner crab fisheries: The eastern C. bairdi Tanner (EBT) and the western C. bairdi Tanner (WBT). This proposed rule would exempt EBT and WBT IPQ crab that is custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the processing facility owners from being applied against the IPQ use cap of the processing facility owners, thereby allowing a facility to process more crab without triggering the IPQ use cap. This proposed exemption is necessary 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 proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Crab FMP, and other applicable law.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-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 Amendment 47 to the Crab FMP, the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) (collectively referred to as the “Analysis”), and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this proposed action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    The Environmental Impact Statement (Program EIS), RIR (Program RIR), Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Program FRFA), 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:

    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 Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (Crab FMP). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS approved, the Crab FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the Crab FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 680.

    A notice of availability for Amendment 47 was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016; 81 FR 62850. Comment on Amendment 47 is invited through November 14, 2016. All relevant written comments received by the end of the comment period, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment, this proposed rule, or both, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision for Amendment 47 and addressed in the response to comments in the final rule.

    This proposed rule would modify regulations that specify how IPQ use caps apply to IPQ issued for EBT and WBT crab fisheries. The following sections describe (1) the BSAI crab fisheries under the Crab Rationalization Program (Program), (2) IPQ use caps and custom processing arrangements, (3) IPQ use caps applicable to the EBT and WBT crab fisheries, and (4) this proposed rule and the anticipated effects of the action.

    The BSAI Crab Fisheries Under the Program

    The 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; catcher/processor crew QS was issued to captains and crew on board catcher/processor vessels; and catcher vessel crew QS was issued to captains and crew on board catcher vessels. 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 processor holding IPQ for that fishery. 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.

    NMFS issued QS and PQS for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. Unlike the QS and PQS issued for most other Program fisheries, the QS and PQS issued for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to regional delivery and processing requirements, commonly known as regionalization. Therefore, the Class A IFQ that results from EBT and WBT QS, and the IPQ that results from EBT and WBT PQS, can be delivered to, and processed at, any otherwise eligible processing facility.

    In addition, the PQS and resulting IPQ issued for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to right-of-first-refusal (ROFR) provisions included in the Program. The ROFR provisions provide certain communities with an option to purchase PQS or IPQ that would otherwise be used outside of the community holding the ROFR.

    Because the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not subject to regionalization or ROFR provisions, crab harvested under a Class A IFQ permit in these fisheries can be delivered to processors in a broad geographic area more easily than crab harvested under Class A IFQ permits in Program fisheries subject to regionalization and ROFR provisions. The rationale for exempting the EBT and WBT crab fisheries from regionalization and ROFR provisions is described in the Program EIS (see ADDRESSES), and in the final rule implementing the Program (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005).

    IPQ Use Caps and Custom Processing Arrangements

    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).

    The Program is designed to minimize the potential for a person to evade the PQS ownership and IPQ use caps through corporate affiliations or other legal relationships. To accomplish this, § 680.7(a)(7) prohibits an IPQ holder from using more IPQ than the maximum amount of IPQ that may be held by that person. Section 680.7(a)(7) also provides that IPQ use by a person is calculated by summing the total amount of IPQ that is held by that person and IPQ held by other persons who are affiliated with that person. The term “affiliation” is defined in § 680.2 as a relationship between two or more entities where one entity directly or indirectly owns or controls 10 percent or more of the other entity. Additional terms used in the definition of “affiliation” are described in § 680.2.

    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 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. Custom processing arrangements typically occur when an IPQ holder does not own a shoreside processing facility or cannot economically operate a stationary floating crab processor.

    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. For ease of reference, this preamble refers to this exemption as a “custom processing arrangement exemption.” NMFS refers the reader to the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP for additional information regarding the rationale for custom processing arrangement exemptions in specific BSAI crab fisheries. Section 680.42(b)(7) describes the three requirements that must be met for the custom processing arrangement exemption to apply.

    First, the custom processing arrangement exemption applies to IPQ issued in six BSAI crab fisheries. Section 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(A) lists the six BSAI crab fisheries for which the custom processing arrangement exemption applies—Bering Sea C. opilio with a North Region designation, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Pribilof Islands blue and red king crab, Saint Matthew blue king crab, Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab processed west of 174° W. long., and Western Aleutian Islands red king crab. As described later in this preamble, the custom processing arrangement exemption implemented under Amendment 27 does not apply to custom processing arrangements in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries.

    Second, the custom processing arrangement exemption applies provided there is no affiliation between the person whose IPQ crab is processed at that facility and the IPQ holders who own that facility. As noted earlier, “affiliation” is defined under § 680.2 as a relationship between two or more entities where one directly or indirectly owns or controls 10 percent or more of the other entity. Under § 680.42(b)(7)(i), NMFS does not count IPQ crab that are custom processed at a facility owned by an IPQ holder against the IPQ use cap of the owner of the processing facility as long as the person whose IPQ crab is custom processed at that facility does not directly or indirectly own or control 10 percent or more of the entity that owns the processing facility. In such a case, NMFS credits a person who holds IPQ and who owns a processing facility only with the amount of IPQ crab used by that person, or any affiliates of that person, when calculating IPQ use caps. In sum, these regulations allow processing facility owners who also hold IPQ to use their facility, or facilities, to establish custom processing arrangements with other IPQ holders to process more crab without exceeding IPQ use caps, thereby increasing the amount of crab available for processing at the facility (i.e., throughput) and providing a more economically viable processing operation. These regulations effectively allow more than 30 percent of the IPQ for the six BSAI crab fisheries to be processed at a facility if there is no affiliation between the person whose IPQ crab is processed at that facility and the IPQ holders who own that facility.

    Third, a custom processing arrangement exemption applies provided the facility at which the IPQ crab are custom processed meets specific location requirements. Under § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B), IPQ crab that are custom processed do not count against the IPQ use cap of persons owning the facility if the facility is located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on the effective date of regulations implementing Amendment 27 (June 29, 2009) and is either 1) a shoreside crab processor or 2) a stationary floating crab processor that is located within a harbor and moored at a dock, docking facility, or other permanent mooring buoy, with specific provisions applicable to the City of Atka. The specific provisions applicable to facilities operating within the City of Atka are not directly relevant to the EBT and WBT crab fisheries and this proposed rule, and are not addressed further. Additional information on the location requirements for facilities is found in the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 27 (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009).

    Finally, § 680.7(a)(8) prohibits a shoreside crab processor or a stationary floating crab processor in which no IPQ holder has a 10 percent or greater ownership interest in the processing facility from receiving more than 30 percent of the IPQ issued for a particular crab fishery. However, as with facilities that have an IPQ holder with a 10 percent or greater ownership interest, IPQ crab processed at these facilities under a custom processing arrangement does not apply against the limit on the maximum amount of IPQ crab that can be processed at such a facility.

    Regulations implementing Amendment 27 also created a custom processing exemption for IPQ crab subject to ROFR provisions (see § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(C) and Section 2.5.2.1 of the Analysis). However, as noted earlier in this preamble, ROFR requirements do not apply to EBT and WBT crab and modifications to IPQ use cap calculations for IPQ crab subject to ROFR provisions that were made by Amendment 27 are not described further in this proposed rule. As a result of Amendment 27, EBT and WBT crab are the only Program fisheries in which all IPQ crab apply to the IPQ use caps of the facility owners, even though the processing of EBT and WBT is done by the same companies and facilities that process all other Program crab fisheries, which have custom processing arrangement exemptions and certain exemptions for IPQ crab subject to ROFR.

    IPQ Use Caps Applicable to the EBT and WBT Crab Fisheries

    As noted earlier, the EBT and WBT crab fisheries are not crab fisheries to which the custom processing arrangement exemption applies, and EBT and WBT IPQ crab that are processed under a custom processing arrangement apply against a person's IPQ use cap if that person owns the facility (i.e., has a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest) at which those IPQ crab are custom processed. Given that the EBT and WBT IPQ use caps are set at 30 percent, a minimum of four persons who are not affiliated with each other (i.e., a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest) must receive and process EBT or WBT IPQ crab to ensure that all Class A IFQ can be delivered and processed with no person exceeding the IPQ use caps.

    When the Council recommended and NMFS implemented Amendment 27, the Council and NMFS did not create a custom processing arrangement for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. The preamble to the proposed rule implementing Amendment 27 explains that the Council and NMFS did not recommend a custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT IPQ crab because EBT and WBT crab QS do not have regional landing requirements and therefore can be effectively delivered to any otherwise eligible processor with matching IPQ in any location (73 FR 54351, September 19, 2008). 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.

    Emergency Rule

    At its December 2015 meeting, the Council determined that the unforeseen and recent exit of one Tanner crab processor from processing caused the remaining processors currently operating in the Bering Sea region to be constrained by IPQ use caps in the Tanner crab fisheries. With the loss of this unique, unaffiliated processor, less than the required minimum of four unique and unaffiliated processors remain active in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries; therefore, only 90 percent of the Class A IFQ could have been delivered to, and only 90 percent of the IPQ could have been used at, facilities owned and operated by the remaining processors—Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, and Unisea Seafoods—without exceeding the IPQ use caps. The remaining 10 percent of the EBT Class A IFQ/IPQ and WBT Class A IFQ/IPQ would have had to be delivered to processing facilities unaffiliated with these three processors, or left unharvested (see Section 2.6.1 of the Analysis for more detail). Based on these conditions and the low probability that a new, unaffiliated processor would enter the fishery at that time, the Council voted to request that NMFS promulgate an emergency rule to temporarily allow a custom processing exemption to the IPQ use caps for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries. Without emergency action, 10 percent of the Tanner crab Class A IFQ likely would have been stranded (826,322 pounds of EBT and 615,489 pounds of WBT for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year).

    The Council and NMFS considered a range of factors before the Council recommended and NMFS implemented the emergency rule. First, the Council and NMFS considered whether developing or using an alternative shorebased processing facility in the Bering Sea that was not affiliated with the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods would be a feasible processing option for the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. At the time, there was no unaffiliated company that expressed interest in entering the fishery. Additionally, the Council and NMFS determined that the regulatory closure date for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries provided very limited time for IPQ holders to find an alternative processing facility.

    Second, the Council and NMFS also considered whether alternative shoreside processing facilities not affiliated with the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods, such as facilities in Kodiak, AK, could be used. The Council and NMFS concluded that transporting EBT or WBT crab to those locations would result in longer trips with increased fuel and operating costs for harvesters, result in lost fishing days while the crab are being transported, and increase the potential for deadloss (death) of crab.

    Third, the Council and NMFS considered whether the use of a stationary floating crab processor would be a feasible processing option for the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year. At the time, there was no unaffiliated company that expressed interest in entering the fishery. The Council and NMFS concluded that establishing a contract with a stationary floating crab processor, outfitting the vessel, and establishing a market for delivered Class A IFQ EBT and WBT crab in the short amount of time available before the end of the fisheries during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year would present many of the same logistical challenges that are present for alternative shoreside processing facilities. These factors made it highly unlikely that a new, unaffiliated processor would enter the fishery using a floating processor.

    Finally, the Council and NMFS determined that any IPQ holder hoping to secure an alternative shoreside processing facility or a stationary floating crab processor during the 2015/2016 crab fishing year would have had very little negotiating leverage with any unaffiliated processing facility given the amount of time remaining for the EBT and WBT crab season. That lack of negotiating leverage in establishing delivery terms and conditions could impose additional costs on IPQ holders and harvesters that may make such deliveries uneconomic. The Council and NMFS concluded that there did not appear to be any viable delivery options available for 10 percent of the EBT and WBT Class A IFQ during the remainder of the 2015/2016 crab fishing year.

    On January 26, 2016 (81 FR 4206), NMFS published an emergency rule that temporarily exempted EBT and WBT IPQ crab that was custom processed at a facility through contractual arrangements with the facility owners from being applied against the IPQ use cap of the facility owners. The temporary rule expired on June 30, 2016. Additional detail on the factors considered by the Council and NMFS are described in the preamble to the emergency rule (January 26, 2016, 81 FR 4206).

    This Proposed Rule and Its Anticipated Effects

    At its June 2016 meeting, the Council voted to recommend Amendment 47, which would create a custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT crab. The Council determined that all of the factors that supported their recommendation for an emergency rule for the 2015/2016 crab fishing year continue to exist. 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 determined 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.

    The Council also acknowledged that while additional consolidation within the EBT and WBT processing sector could occur under Amendment 47, the Council does not expect additional consolidation to occur for reasons explained below. NMFS also did not intend for the IPQ use caps to strand a portion of the fishery, however, without the proposed exemption, harvesters, processors, and communities would lose the potential benefits from the stranded portion of crab. The management objective of this action is to provide a custom processing arrangement exemption for the EBT and WBT crab fisheries so that the full Tanner crab allocation can be harvested and processed.

    Proposed Regulations To Implement Amendment 47

    This proposed rule would modify § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(A) by adding EBT and WBT IPQ crab to the list of BSAI crab fisheries already receiving a custom processing arrangement exemption. This would allow EBT and WBT IPQ crab received for custom processing by the three processors currently operating in these fisheries to qualify for a custom processing arrangement exemption and not apply against the IPQ use caps for these processors. With this proposed rule, 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) would 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 rule 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 this proposed rule could result in further consolidation of Tanner crab processing to fewer facilities than currently operating. Under this proposed rule, 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 ROFR, there would be no regulatory limitations preventing all of the EBT and WBT IPQ crab from being processed by one company at one facility.

    The Council and NMFS determined that operational factors make it unlikely that additional consolidation will occur. First, the extent to which the proposed exemption allows further consolidation depends on whether processors choose to enter custom processing arrangements with IPQ holders. The choice to enter those arrangements would depend largely on the benefit to the IPQ holder arising from using the IPQ at the holder's own facility or custom processing the IPQ at a plant unaffiliated with the IPQ holder. Collectively, the three companies and their facilities that process Tanner crab have substantial holdings of IPQ (see Table 2-3 of the Analysis). It is likely more economical for these companies to process the IPQ they hold at their facilities rather than negotiate a custom processing agreement with another processor, which would reduce the likelihood of further consolidation.

    Second, the extent of further consolidation depends on the business decisions that participants make regarding their participation in other crab fisheries, such as Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea opilio. None of the current Tanner crab processors only process Tanner crab; all companies and facilities that process Tanner crab also process Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea opilio. Crab processing tends to be labor intensive, requiring relatively large crews. The cost of transporting, housing, and provisioning crews to run crab processing lines at a plant can be high. Processors that are active in other BSAI crab fisheries may be more likely to continue processing in the Tanner crab fisheries to help maintain a consistent amount of crab available for processing at the facility (see Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis for more information).

    Third, processors are likely to maintain processing facilities near the fishing grounds. Proximity to the fishing grounds may help prevent or reduce deadloss, dead crab landed at the dock, which is associated with increased transit time between the fishing grounds and offload. Additionally, proximity to the fishing grounds can help harvesters maximize their efficiency and prevent the need to spend significant time transiting to and from processing facilities for offload. Given these factors, the Council and NMFS concluded that additional consolidation of processing activity in the EBT and WBT fisheries is unlikely under current and projected operations.

    The proposed rule would provide a benefit to processors willing to custom process Class A IFQ for EBT and WBT crab, and those IPQ holders that do not own processing facilities and must have their crab custom processed. The proposed custom processing arrangement exemption for EBT and WBT IPQ crab would avoid the adverse economic impacts created by the 30 percent IPQ use cap for Tanner crab fisheries to IPQ holders that own and operate processing facilities. This proposed rule would also benefit those IPQ holders that do not have processing facilities since their IPQ could be custom processed by an existing facility and their custom processing arrangement would not count against the 30 percent IPQ use cap (see Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis for further information).

    This proposed rule is expected to benefit harvesters who hold Class A IFQ for EBT and WBT crab. Without this proposed rule, harvesters with EBT or WBT Class A IFQ likely would be unable to fully harvest allocations provided to them due to IPQ use cap limitations imposed on IPQ holders and the three existing processors that receive EBT and WBT crab. This proposed rule would allow Class A IFQ holders in the EBT and WBT crab fisheries to fully harvest their IFQ allocations, because those Class A IFQ holders who match with IPQ holders that do not own processing facilities would be able to deliver their IFQ to a processing facility that has a custom processing arrangement with that IPQ holder.

    The effects of this proposed rule on communities and community sustainability are expected to be beneficial. This proposed rule would continue the delivery of EBT and WBT Class A IFQ crab to processors at facilities owned by the Maruha-Nichiro Corporation, Trident Seafoods, or Unisea Seafoods in BSAI communities. This would increase economic activity, the amount of income generated, and the amount of tax revenues in communities where existing processing facilities are located relative to not creating an exemption. Therefore, the effects of the proposed rule would be beneficial overall to communities with processors with EBT and WBT IPQ as compared with no action. However, if further consolidation occurs under this proposed action, companies may suspend crab processing at facilities in particular communities, causing adverse economic impacts on communities that lose Tanner crab processing activity. As explained above, there are several factors that make further consolidation unlikely.

    Although this proposed rule would provide a benefit to the existing three processors with processing facilities, this rule would not preclude the ability for new, unaffiliated processing companies to enter the EBT and WBT fisheries, establish custom processing arrangements with IPQ holders, and process EBT and WBT crab. Section 2.9.2 of the Analysis provides more detail on the potential for new unaffiliated processing companies to enter the EBT and WBT crab fisheries.

    Proposed Regulation To Make a Minor Clarification

    This proposed rule would also modify § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) to clarify the meaning of the phrase “on the effective date of this rule” that occurs in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B). The phrase “on the effective date of this rule” in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) refers to the effective date of the regulations that implemented Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP and that added § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B) to the regulations (74 FR 25449, May 28, 2009). Regulations implementing Amendment 27 to the Crab FMP were published on May 28, 2009, and became effective on June 29, 2009. The phrase “on the effective date of this rule” was inadvertently left in the regulatory text and not replaced with the actual effective date of the rule. This proposed rule would revise the phrase “on the effective date of this rule” to read “on June 29, 2009” to reduce any confusion about the applicable date for the requirements in § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B). This minor correction does not substantively change the intent or effect of § 680.42(b)(7)(ii)(B).

    Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 47, the Crab FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

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

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. Copies of the IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    The IRFA describes this proposed rule, why this rule is being proposed, the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule, the type and number of small entities to which this proposed rule would apply, and the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule. It also identifies any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules and describes any significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The description of this proposed rule, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble and are not repeated here.

    Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed Rule

    For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    The Small Business Act (SBA) has established size criteria for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including fish processing businesses. On January 26, 2016, the SBA issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries, effective February 26, 2016 (81 FR 4469). The final rule modified the size standard for “seafood product preparation and packaging” (NAICS code 311710) that applies to seafood processors. The final rule also modified the definition of a small entity operating as a seafood processor to include all entities that are independently owned and operated, not dominant in their field of operation, and have a combined annual employment of fewer than 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all their affiliated operations worldwide.

    The entities directly regulated by this action are those entities that process EBT and WBT crab. It does not include entities that harvest Class A IFQ EBT and WBT crab. From 2012 through 2014, there were no processors considered small entities that would have been directly regulated by the proposed action.

    This action would also directly regulate registered crab receivers (RCRs) as all Program crab must be received by an RCR. Some RCRs are the same entities that process Tanner crab, and others are those that have their Tanner crab custom processed. In 2015/2016, there were 10 RCRs that received Tanner crab, seven of which are considered large entities due to their affiliations with large seafood processing companies. The remaining three are considered small entities because they are not-for-profit organizations.

    Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    This proposed action would not require any new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, or any modification of existing requirements.

    Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule

    No relevant Federal rules have been identified that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to This Proposed Rule That Minimize Economic Impacts on Small Entities

    The action alternative would allow the full harvest and processing of the Tanner crab total allowable catch. This action is not expected to have negative economic impacts on the small entities directly impacted by this action. The Council also considered a limited duration option which would have created a temporary rule to provide a fix for the near term, but would require the Council to take further action if it intended to create a more long-term revision. The Council did not select this option as it already has the ability to examine processing activity in the Tanner crab fishery at any time and take future action on this subject. This option would not have had less economic impact on small entities as compared to the proposed rule as the proposed rule is not expected to have negative impacts.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680

    Alaska, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.

    2. In § 680.42, revise paragraphs (b)(7)(ii) introductory text, and (b)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) to read as follows:
    § 680.42 Limitations on use of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.

    (b) * * *

    (7) * * *

    (ii) The IPQ crab meets the conditions in paragraphs (b)(7)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section or the IPQ crab meets the conditions in paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this section:

    (A) The IPQ crab is:

    (1) BSS IPQ crab with a North region designation;

    (2) EAG IPQ crab;

    (3) EBT IPQ crab;

    (4) PIK IPQ crab;

    (5) SMB IPQ crab;

    (6) WAG IPQ crab provided that IPQ crab is processed west of 174 degrees west longitude;

    (7) WAI IPQ crab; or

    (8) WBT IPQ crab.

    (B) That IPQ crab is processed at:

    (1) Any shoreside crab processor located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on June 29, 2009; or

    (2) Any stationary floating crab processor that is:

    (i) Located within the boundaries of a home rule, first class, or second class city in the State of Alaska in existence on June 29, 2009;

    (ii) Moored at a dock, docking facility, or at a permanent mooring buoy, unless that stationary floating crab processor is located within the boundaries of the city of Atka in which case that stationary floating crab processor is not required to be moored at a dock, docking facility, or at a permanent mooring buoy; and

    (iii) Located within a harbor, unless that stationary floating crab processor is located within the boundaries of the city of Atka on June 29, 2009, in which case that stationary floating crab processor is not required to be located within a harbor.

    [FR Doc. 2016-22911 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 185 Friday, September 23, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0057] J.R. Simplot Company; Availability of Preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact, Preliminary Plant Pest Risk Similarity Assessment, and Preliminary Determination for an Extension of a Determination of Nonregulated Status for X17 and Y9 Potato Varieties AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has reached a preliminary decision to extend our determination of nonregulated status of J.R. Simplot Company's (Simplot) InnateTM Potato designated as Russet Burbank event W8 (the antecedent potato event) to Simplot's Ranger Russet variety (X17) and Atlantic variety (Y9) potatoes. Simplot's X17 and Y9 potatoes have been genetically engineered for late blight resistance, low acrylamide potential, lowered reducing sugars, and reduced black spot using the same genetic constructs used to transform the antecedent potato event. We are making available for public comment our preliminary determination, preliminary plant pest risk similarity assessment, and preliminary finding of no significant impact for the proposed determination of nonregulated status.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0057.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0057, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    The J.R. Simplot Company extension request, our preliminary determination, preliminary plant pest risk similarity assessment, preliminary finding of no significant impact, and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0057 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    Supporting documents and any comments we received regarding our determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent organism (potato event W8) can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0076. Supporting documents may also be found on the APHIS Web site for X17 and Y9 (the organisms under evaluation) under APHIS Petition Number 16-064-01p, and the antecedent organism (potato event W8) under APHIS Petition Number 14-093-01p.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. John Turner, Director, Biotechnology Risk Analysis Programs, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3954, email: [email protected] To obtain copies of the supporting documents, contact Ms. Cindy Eck at (301) 851-3885, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authority of the plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

    The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Further, the regulations in § 340.6(e)(2) provide that a person may request that APHIS extend a determination of nonregulated status to other organisms. Such a request must include information to establish the similarity of the antecedent organism and the regulated article in question.

    In a notice 1 published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53101-53102, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0076), APHIS announced our determination of nonregulated status of the J.R. Simplot Company's (Simplot) InnateTM Potato designated as Russet Burbank event W8, which has been genetically engineered for late blight resistance, low acrylamide potential, reduced black spot bruising, and lowered reducing sugars. APHIS has received a request from Simplot for an extension of that determination of nonregulated status to its Ranger Russet variety (X17) and Atlantic variety (Y9) potatoes (APHIS Petition Number 16-064-01p). In the extension request, Simplot named the previously deregulated W8 potato event as the antecedent organism. Like the antecedent, X17 and Y9 are genetically engineered for late blight resistance, low acrylamide potential, reduced black spot bruising, and lowered reducing sugars. In its request, Simplot stated that X17 and Y9 potatoes were produced by using the same genetic construct that was used to transform the antecedent potato and, based on the similarity, is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. Therefore, the request stated that X17 and Y9 potatoes should not be regulated articles under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

    1 To view the notice, our determination, supporting documents, and the comments we have received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS=2014=0076.

    As part of our decisionmaking process regarding a genetically engineered organism's regulatory status, APHIS evaluates the plant pest risk of the regulated article. In section 403 of the PPA, “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing.

    As described in the extension request, X17 and Y9 potatoes have been genetically engineered through the insertion of genetic elements from plant pest organisms listed in 7 CFR 340.2. APHIS previously completed a plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) associated with the insertion of these same genetic elements into potatoes during the review of the antecedent variety, InnateTM Russet Burbank event W8 potato, and concluded that the resulting organisms did not pose a plant pest risk.

    X17 and Y9 potatoes express the same resistance for late blight resistance, low acrylamide potential, reduced black spot bruising, and lowered reducing sugars as the antecedent potato. APHIS prepared a plant pest risk similarity assessment (PPRSA) to compare X17 and Y9 potatoes to the antecedent. As described in the PPRSA, X17 and Y9 potatoes were obtained by introducing the same construct used to produce InnateTM Russet Burbank event W8 into the Ranger Russet variety (X17) and Atlantic variety (Y9). Based on our PPRA for the antecedent and the similarity between X17 and Y9 potatoes and the antecedent based on the PPRSA, APHIS has concluded that X17 and Y9 potatoes are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk.

    The environmental assessment (EA) for the antecedent organism was prepared using data submitted by Simplot, a review of other scientific data, and field tests conducted under APHIS oversight. The EA was prepared to provide the APHIS decisionmaker with a review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent potato. The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Based on the similarity of X17 and Y9 potatoes to the antecedent potato, APHIS has prepared a preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on X17 and Y9 potatoes using the EA prepared for W8 potato. APHIS considered the following alternatives: (1) Take no action, i.e., APHIS would not change the regulatory status of X17 or Y9 potatoes and it would continue to be a regulated article, or (2) make a determination of nonregulated status of X17 and Y9 potatoes. APHIS' preferred alternative is to make a determination of nonregulated status of X17 and Y9 potatoes.

    APHIS has carefully examined the existing NEPA documentation completed for W8 potato and has concluded that Simplot's request to extend a determination of nonregulated status to X17 and Y9 potatoes encompasses the same scope of environmental analysis as the antecedent potato.

    Based on APHIS' analysis of information submitted by Simplot, references provided in the extension request, peer-reviewed publications, information analyzed in the EA, and the similarity of X17 and Y9 potatoes to the antecedent organisms, APHIS has determined that X17 and Y9 potatoes are unlikely to pose a plant pest risk. We have, therefore, reached a preliminary decision to approve the request to extend the determination of nonregulated status of W8 potato to X17 and Y9 potatoes, whereby X17 and Y9 potatoes would no longer be subject to our regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms.

    Paragraph (e) of § 340.6 provides that APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing all preliminary decisions to extend determinations of nonregulated status for 30 days before the decisions become final and effective. In accordance with § 340.6(e) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public of our preliminary decision to extend the determination of nonregulated status of the antecedent potato to X17 and Y9 potatoes.

    APHIS will accept written comments on its preliminary determination and the preliminary FONSI regarding a determination of nonregulated status of X17 and Y9 potatoes for a period of 30 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal Register. The preliminary FONSI, as well as the extension request, supporting documents, and our preliminary determination for X17 and Y9 potatoes, are available for public review as indicated under ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above. Copies of these documents may also be obtained by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    After the comment period closes, APHIS will review all written comments received during the comment period and any other relevant information. All comments will be available for public review. After reviewing and evaluating the comments, if APHIS determines that no new information has been received that would warrant APHIS altering its preliminary regulatory determination or FONSI, our preliminary regulatory determination will become final and effective upon notification of the public through an announcement on our Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml.

    APHIS will also furnish a response to the petitioner regarding our final regulatory determination. No further Federal Register notice will be published announcing the final regulatory determination regarding X17 and Y9 potatoes.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of September 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22928 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction EIS—Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, Lewis and Clark County, Montana AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The USDA Forest Service is withdrawing the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Dalton Mountain Forest Restoration and Fuels Reduction project on the Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2011 (pages 70955-70956)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Woods, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, 1220 38th Street North, Great Falls, Montana 59405, (406) 791-7765.

    Dated: September 14, 2016. William Avey, Forest Supervisor, Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22780 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service White River National Forest; Eagle County, CO; Berlaimont Estates Access Route EIS AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Berlaimont Estates LLC (Berlaimont) owns a 680-acre private inholding completely within the White River National Forest (WRNF) to the north of Interstate 70 in the vicinity of Edwards, Colorado. Berlaimont desires to develop the property as 19 individual residential lots. Currently, the subject property may be accessed by National Forest System Roads (NFSR) 774 and 780, which connect to the southeastern corner of the horseshoe-shaped subject property. Beyond the southeastern corner, NFSR 780 connects to the southwestern corner of the property and NFSR 783 connects to the northwestern corner and northern areas of the property from the west side. Additionally, the northern portion of the property may be accessed via NFSR 778 running up Berry Creek which connects with NFSR 783 providing access into the northern portion of the property from the east. All NFSR's in this area are currently low development, native surfaced roads.

    Berlaimont has applied for an easement to construct, improve, utilize, and maintain road segments across the National Forest System (NFS) lands in support of their desired development of their property. Specifically, Berlaimont is proposing to improve segments of the existing NFSR 774 and NFSR 780, as well as construct a new road segment across additional NFS lands in order to more directly access the northern portion of their property. Their proposed improvements would consist of constructing a paved asphalt road with a gravel shoulder, vehicle turnouts, retaining walls, traffic signs, guardrails, erosion control facilities, and drainage facilities. The Forest Service will be analyzing this proposal along with a wider range of potential alternatives.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by November 7, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be available for public review March 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected June 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor,c/o Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected] (include “Berlaimont Estate Access Route EIS” in the subject line), electronically at https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=50041, or via facsimile to (970) 827-9343.

    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 Holy Cross Ranger Station, 24747 U.S. Highway 24, Minturn, CO 81645. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to (970) 827-5715 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information related to the project can be obtained from the project Web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=50041 or by contacting Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District, 24747 U.S. Hwy 24, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, Colorado 81645. Mr. Klein can be reached by phone at (970) 827-5182 or by email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the proposed project is to provide an improved road to Berlaimont's private property.

    The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) directs the Forest Service to provide adequate access to inholdings fully contained within national forest lands. The need for the proposed project is that Berlaimont desires to develop single family residences on their property. The current maintenance level and condition of the existing NSFRs are not at the level desired by Berlaimont to meet their full objectives. Determination of the level of adequate access under ANILCA is not done through a NEPA analysis; however, the effects of issuing an easement to provide adequate access do need to be analyzed. The level of use and development granted through a Record of Decision may equal or exceed the level that shall be identified through the separate ANILCA determination.

    Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action is to grant an easement to Berlaimont to improve, utilize, and maintain segments of the existing NFSR 774 and NFSR 780, to the southeastern corner of the property only.

    Amendment to the WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan—For this project, a Forest Plan amendment may be necessary because the proposed action and some possible alternatives may not be consistent with the prescribed standards and guidelines for Management Area 5.41 (Deer and Elk Winter Range).

    Possible Alternatives

    An alternative will also be analyzed that includes the proposed action with the addition of constructing, utilizing, and maintaining a new road segment across NFS lands in order to access the northern portion of the property. Further alternatives may include improving other sections of NFSR's 780, 783 or 778 to the northern portion of the property.

    Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official is Mr. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, c/o Matt Klein, Realty Specialist, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Based on the analysis that will be documented in the forthcoming EIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether or not to implement, in whole or in part, the Proposed Action or another alternative that may be developed by the Forest Service as a result of scoping.

    Preliminary Issues

    The proposed road improvement may have an impact on:

    Wildlife—The area of NFS lands surrounding the property is identified in the WRNF's Land and Resource Management Plan as deer and elk winter range managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover and solitude.

    Visual Resource Management—Each alternative road alignment and degree of improvement (streetlamps, for example) may affect the visual aesthetics of the north Edwards viewshed from either the valley floor or the north-facing hillsides on the opposite side of the valley.

    Soils—Road design and construction could present both short-term (construction) and long-term (operation and use) effects on soil stability and erosion prevention.

    Water Quailty—As with the potential soil impacts described above, road construction and use could alter runoff patterns for stormwater and snowmelt in such a way as to potentially effect water quality of nearby creeks and streams through sedimentation and turbidity or the introduction of foreign chemicals.

    Outdoor Recreation/Public Access—NFSR 774 is a popular route with the public for accessing the Red and White Mountain area. This route is a point of entry for a multitude of recreational activities, including hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, OHV riding, hunting, and snowmobile riding. NFSR's 778, 780 and 783 provide public access into the areas completely surrounding Berlaimont's private land. Use of any of these routes by Berlaimont residents and guests could increase user conflicts with WRNF visitors. Phyiscal improvments to the roadway could be benficial to some types of recreational activities, while simultaneously having a determential effect on others.

    Grazing—The NFS lands surrounding the subject property are currently used as an active grazing allotment for up to 2,900 sheep.

    Permits or Licenses Required

    This Proposed Action considers the issuance of a road easement from the Forest Service to Berlaimont under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).

    Scoping Process

    This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Forest Service is soliciting comments from Federal, State and local agencies and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by implementation of the proposed project. Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Input provided by interested and/or affected individuals, organizations and governmental agencies will be used to identify alternative actions and resource issues that will be analyzed in the EIS. The Forest Service will identify significant issues raised during the scoping process, and use them to formulate alternatives, prescribe mitigation measures and project design features, or analyze environmental effects.

    A public open house meeting was held on Wednesday, September 7th, 2016 in Edwards, CO to inform the public and help to shape this proposal.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the EIS. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered, however those comments will not provide the commenter with standing to appeal the subsequent decision.

    There will be an additional opportunity to comment when the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS is published in the Federal Register. It is anticipated that another public meeting will be held at that time to discuss the Draft EIS. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity submitting written comments must either sign the comment or verify identity upon request. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to object must meet the information requirements in 36 CFR 218.25(a)(3).

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22924 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting.

    DATES:

    Thursday, October 27, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. (PST).

    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 (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Thursday, October 27, 2016, for the purpose discussing civil rights issues in the state and deliberating on a topic of study.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 27, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. PST.

    Public Call Information:

    Dial: 888-296-4215 Conference ID: 3627025 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angelica Trevino at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-296-4215, conference ID number: 3627025. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and 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 entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to David Mussatt, Regional Programs Unit at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=261.Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Introductions—Wendell Blaylock, Chair of the Nevada Advisory Committee II. Discussion of Civil Rights Issues in Nevada—Member of the Nevada Advisory Committee III. Public Comment IV. Adjournment Dated: September 20, 2016. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22965 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-41-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 249—Pensacola, Florida; Authorization of Production Activity; GE Renewables North America, LLC (Wind Turbine Nacelles and Hubs); Pensacola, Florida

    On May 23, 2016, GE Renewables North America, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within Subzone 249A, in Pensacola, Florida.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 39626-39627, June 17, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23009 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-63-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 177—Evansville, Indiana; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Best Chairs, Inc. d/b/a Best Home Furnishings (Upholstered Furniture); Ferdinand, Cannelton and Paoli, Indiana

    Best Chairs, Inc. d/b/a Best Home Furnishings (Best Home) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Ferdinand, Cannelton and Paoli, Indiana within FTZ 177. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on September 14, 2016.

    The Best Home facilities are located within Sites 5, 6, and 7 of FTZ 177 and currently have authority to conduct cut-and-sew activity using certain foreign micro-denier suede upholstery fabrics and polyurethane fabrics to produce upholstered furniture and related parts (upholstery cover sets) on a restricted basis (Board Order 1807 and Doc. B-35-2014). Board Order 1807 authorized the production of upholstered furniture (sofas, sectionals, loveseats, chairs, and recliners) for a five-year period, with a scope of authority that only provides FTZ savings on a limited quantity (2.28 million square yards per year) of foreign origin, micro-denier suede upholstery fabric finished with a hot caustic soda solution process. Doc. B-35-2014 expanded the company's scope of authority to include certain polyurethane fabrics. All foreign upholstery fabrics other than micro-denier suede finished with a hot caustic soda solution process, polyurethane fabrics backed with ground leather, and wet coagulation process, 100 percent polyurethane coated fabrics used in Best Home's production within FTZ 177 are subject to full customs duties.

    The current request seeks to extend Best Home's existing FTZ authority indefinitely (with no increase in the company's annual quantitative limit of 2.28 million square yards) and to add foreign-status leather and non-textile foreign-status components to the scope of authority. This request also seeks to clarify certain HTSUS numbers that apply to the company's existing authority for micro-denier suede upholstery fabric finished with a hot caustic soda solution process. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Best Home from customs duty payments on the foreign-status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Best Home would be able to apply the finished upholstery cover set (i.e., furniture part) or finished furniture duty rate (free) for the authorized fabrics and additional components (indicated below). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: Micro-denier suede fabric finished with a hot caustic soda finishing process; upholstery leather; linear actuators and motors; transformers; power adaptors; handset controllers; power cables; and, Y-cables (duty rate ranges from 1.6% to 17.2%). The request indicates that upholstery leather will be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41), thereby precluding inverted tariff benefits on upholstery leather. All other foreign, unauthorized upholstery fabrics or other components used in the production activity would continue to be admitted to the zone in domestic (duty paid) status.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is November 2, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23005 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-984] Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China for the period of review January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, based on the timely withdrawal of requests for review.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 1, 2016, the Department (the Department) published the notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on drawn stainless steel sinks (sinks) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.1 On April 28, 2016, Zhongshan Superte Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Superte) requested an administrative review of its POR sales.2 On April 29, 2016, Guangdong Yingao Utensils Co., Ltd. (Yingao), Guangdong Dongyuan Kitchenware Industrial Co., Ltd. (Dongyuan), and Jiangmen New Star Hi-Tech Enterprise Ltd. (New Star) requested an administrative review of their POR sales.3 On June 6, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department published a notice initiating an administrative review of Superte, Yingao, Dongyuan, and New Star.4 New Star and Yingao withdrew their requests for an administrative review on June 16, 2016.5 Dongyuan and Superte withdrew their requests for an administrative review on August 22, 2016, and August 25, 2016, respectively.6

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 18826 (April 1, 2016).

    2See Letter from Superte, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China; Administrative Review Request,” dated April 28, 2016.

    3See Letters from Yingao, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” Dongyuan, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” and New Star, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review,” dated April 29, 2016.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 36268 (June 6, 2016).

    5See Letters from New Star, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Annual Administrative Review,” and Yingao, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Annual Administrative Review,” dated June 16, 2016.

    6See Letters from Dongyuan, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Countervailing Duty Administrative Review,” dated August 22, 2016, and Superte, “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China; Withdrawal of Administrative Review Request,” dated August 25, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party, or parties, that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation of the requested review. As noted above, all parties withdrew their requests for review within 90 days of the publication date of the notice of initiation. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of sinks from the PRC during the POR. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notifications to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double countervailing duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: September 16, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22878 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Visitor Centers Survey AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Dr. Danielle Schwarzmann 240-533-0706 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for a new collection of information. NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is conducting research to measure the public's opinions about sanctuary visitor centers, exhibits, and kiosks. Exhibits and kiosks covered under the survey can be permanent or traveling/temporary. The survey will be administered annually both within an ONMS visitor center as well as at partner venues that host an exhibit or kiosk on a national marine sanctuary or marine national monument. The survey will cover visitor centers, exhibits, and kiosks system-wide across all the national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments managed or co-managed by NOAA's ONMS.

    The visitor survey will be conducted to obtain an objective analysis of visitor experiences within a sanctuary visitor center or at a partner venue that includes an exhibit or kiosk with information on a national marine sanctuary or marine national monument. Information will be obtained on visitor satisfaction with the overall exhibits or kiosks, graphics, multi-media products, interactives, along with the overall feelings about the facilities and services offered at the centers/venues. The survey will acquire data on the effectiveness of sanctuary/monument messaging, awareness about and use of sanctuary/monument resources, as well as additional recreational and/or educational opportunities available to the public. Lastly, the survey will include questions about visitor demographics.

    The information will aid NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries budget allocation and prioritization, strategic planning, and management review process to better interpret the sanctuary/monument system and engage with constituents and the larger community on resource protection and conservation topics. Survey results will be used by sanctuary/monument site superintendents to improve visitor services where the survey is administered and will also aide sanctuary/monument headquarters communication and education staff to more effectively communicate key messages. In addition, the survey data will contribute to NOAA and DOC performance reports and year end summaries.

    II. Method of Collection

    The surveys will be conducted in person or through web applications at kiosks.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (new information collection).

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 166.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22966 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds product(s) and/or service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes product(s) and/or service(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective October 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Addition

    On 6/10/2016 (81 FR 37581-37582), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Transcription Service Service Mandatory for: U.S. Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command, 693 Neiman Street, Fort Detrick, MD Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval Medical Logistics Command Deletions

    On 8/19/2016 (81 FR 55447-55448) and 8/26/2016 (81 FR 58913-58917), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 515 West First Street, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Public Buildings Service, Property Management Service Center Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: Superior National Forest Supervisors Office, 8901 Grand Avenue Place, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Forest Service, Superior National Forest Service Type: Food Service Attendant Mandatory for: 148th Fighter Wing: 4680 Viper St. (Dining Hall), Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W7NG USPFO ACTIVITY MN ARNG Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: 1500 St. Louis Avenue, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC FT MCCOY (RC) Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: March Air Reserve Base, March Air Force Reserve Base, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc., Hemet, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Service Type: Mailing Service Mandatory for: USDA, Farm Service Agency, Phoenix, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Community Services, Inc., Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Department of Agriculture, Procurement Operations Division Service Type: Car Wash Service Mandatory for: Customs and Border Protection, Indio Border Station, 83-801 Vin Deo Circle, Indio, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Sheltering Wings Corp., Blythe, CA Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Procurement Directorate Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: FAA, Air Traffic Control Tower, Duluth International Airport, 4525 Airport Approach Road, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: Naval Weapons Station: NAWS Recycling Center, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station: Tot Lot Parks-Housing Area, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Defense Commissary Agency, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station Commissary, 1 Administration Circle, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, NAVFAC SOUTHWEST Service Type: Data Entry/Data Base Management Service Mandatory for: GSA, Washington: Federal Supply Service Bureau, L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, VA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Food Service Attendants Service Mandatory for: CRTC Dining Facility, 1401 Robert B. Miller Jr. Drive, Garden City, GA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Trace, Inc., Boise, ID Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA6643 AF Reserve CMD HQ AFRC PK Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22980 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-SAM-0208—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Smoke Gray 7520-00-SAM-0209—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Blue 7520-00-SAM-0210—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Purple 7520-00-SAM-0212—File Storage Box, Expanding, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Black 7520-00-SAM-0216—File Storage Box, Expanding, 19 tab, Alpha/Subject, Latch Closure, Pressboard and Kraft Paper, Black 7520-00-SAM-0218—File Folder, Expanding, 7 Tab with Pockets, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Black Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Exceptional Children's Foundation, Culver City, CA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List Service Service Type: Mailroom Operation Mandatory for: Missile Defense Agency, Missile Defense Agency Mailroom, Schriever AFB, CO Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Huntsville, AL Contracting Activity: Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, AL Deletions

    The following product and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8030-01-347-0979—Compound, Corrosion Preventative, Type I, Class I Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, MO Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Kansas City, MO Services Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Southwest Supply Center 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Arkansas Lighthouse for the Blind, Little Rock, AR Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: Department of Veterans Affairs, Quad Cities Veterans Center 1529 46th Avenue, Moline, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Arc of the Quad Cities Area, Rock Island, IL Contracting Activity: Dept of Veterans Affairs, 438-Sioux Falls VA Medical Center Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22979 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at [email protected] Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0074. Please provide the Commission with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference No. 3038-0074, found on http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Deliver/Courier at the same address; or through the Agency's Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven A. Haidar, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5611; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0074.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities (OMB Control No. 3038-0074). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) added new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of SEFs, which the Commission has incorporated in part 37 of its regulations.1 These information collections are needed for the Commission to ensure that SEFs registered with the Commission (and entities applying for SEF registration) comply with these requirements. Among other requirements, part 37 of the Commission's regulations imposes SEF registration requirements for a trading platform or system, obligates SEFs to provide transaction confirmations to swap counterparties, and requires SEFs to comply with 15 enumerated core principles.2

    1 In general, this OMB Control Number covers all information collections in part 37 of the Commission's regulations, including Subpart A and the SEF core principles (i.e., Subparts B and C). However, any information collections related to § 37.10 of the Commission's regulations are not included under this control number and are instead subject to a separate information collection with OMB Control Number 3038-0099 (Process for a Swap Execution Facility or Designated Contract Market to Make a Swap Available to Trade).

    2 These 15 core principles establish standards with respect to SEFs: Enforcing rules; listing contracts for trading that are not readily susceptible to manipulation; monitoring trading to prevent market manipulation; obtaining information; adopting position limits or position accountability levels; adopting rules to enforce financial integrity of swaps transactions entered on or through the SEF; adopting rules to provide for the exercise of emergency authority, in consultation with the Commission; making public information regarding prices and volume on a timely basis; maintaining records of all activities of the business of the contract market in a form and manner acceptable to the Commission for five years; avoiding rules that result in unreasonable restraints of trade or anticompetitive burden on trading; enforcing rules to minimize conflicts of interest in its decision-making process; maintaining adequate financial resources; establishing system safeguards; and designating a chief compliance officer.

    The Commission initially estimated that there would be 35 SEFs registered with the Commission, but in the 60-Day Notice of Intent to Renew Collection 3038-0074 (60-Day Renewal Notice), the Commission stated that 22 SEFs, rather than 35 SEFs as initially estimated, were registered with the Commission.3 However, since the publication of the 60-Day Renewal Notice, the Commission has granted permanent registration to an additional SEF, for a total of 23 registered SEFs.4 Accordingly, the Commisison is revising the below burden statement from the 60-Day Renewal Notice to account for the increase from 22 to 23 registered SEFs.

    3See 81 FR 47779, 47780 (July 22, 2016).

    4 Commission granted permanent registration to the additional SEF on August 23, 2016.

    The Commission did not receive any relevant comments on the 60-Day Renewal Notice.

    Burden Statement: The Commission estimates that a respondent's burden for this information collection will be (i) 1,000 on-going annual burden hours per respondent registered SEF and (ii) 300 burden hours per respondent applicant for permanent SEF registration.5

    5 The Commission notes that SEFs did not exist prior to either the Dodd-Frank Act or the Commission's original submission of this OMB Control Number, and so the Commission is revising its burden estimate now that it has had the opportunity to observe SEFs' operations and receive feedback from market participants. The Commission notes that while its revised estimate of 1,000 annual burden hours per respondent SEF is an increase from its original estimate of 308 burden hours per respondent SEF, the Commission's estimate does not represent any new information collection burdens or adjustments to existing information collections. See 78 FR 33476, 33551 (June 4, 2013) (discussing the Commission's original PRA estimate).

    The Commission further notes that the separate estimate of 300 burden hours for applicants for permanent SEF registration does not represent new information collection burdens or adjustments to existing information collections. Rather, while the Commission did consider the burden hours related to the SEF application process in its original information collection submission for this OMB Control Number, the Commission did not explicitly distinguish the burden hours related to the registration process for SEF applicants from the Commission's estimate of the on-going annual burden hours for registered SEFs, but rather provided an aggregate number. See id. at 33549-51. For the sake of clarity, the Commission is explicitly distinguishing in this notice between the burden hours for registered SEFs and for applicants for SEF registration.

    Annual Burden Hours for Registered SEFs Respondents/Affected Entities: Registered SEFs. Estimated number of respondents: 23. 1 Estimated annual burden hours per respondent: 1,000 burden hours. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 23,000 hours. 2 Frequency of collection: Per trade day. 3 Burden Hours for Applicants for Permanent SEF Registration Respondents/Affected Entities: Applicants for SEF Registration. Estimated number of respondents: 4. 4 Estimated annual burden hours per respondent: 300 burden hours. Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,200 burden hours. 5 Frequency of collection: Initial registration. 1 In the part 37 final rule release, the Commission estimated that there would be 35 SEFs. See 78 FR 33476, 33549 (June 4, 2013). The Commission, however, notes that 23 SEFs are currently registered with the Commission. In the 60-Day Renewal Notice, the Commission stated that there were 22 then-registered SEFs; however, since the pulication of the 60-Day Renewal Notice, the Commission has granted permanent registration to an additional SEF. Accordingly, the revised aggregate burden hour estimate accounts for both the increased annual burden hours estimate to 1,000 hours per SEF as well as the revised number of SEFs to 23. 2 1,000 average annual burden hours per respondent SEF × 23 registered SEFs = 23,000 total burden hours for all registered SEFs. 3 The Commission notes that registered SEFs also are required to provide four quarterly reports and one annual report as part of their annual information collection obligations. 4 Based on the number of applicants that have applied for permanent SEF registration since the Commission first granted permanent registration status to SEFs on January 22, 2016, the Commission expects to receive four applications per year for permanent SEF registration. 5 300 average initial burden hours per respondent SEF applicant × 4 anticipated SEF applicants = 1,200 total burden hours incurred for all anticipated SEF applicants per year. Authority

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22957 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0093] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) proposes to alter a system of records, DUSDI 01-DoD, “Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System,” last published at 81 FR 31614, May 19, 2016.

    This system of records exists to: Analyze, monitor, and audit insider threat information for insider threat detection and mitigation within the DoD on threats that persons who have or had been granted eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold sensitive positions may pose to DoD and U.S. Government installations, facilities, personnel, missions, or resources. The system of records will support the DITMAC and DoD Component insider threat programs, enable the identification of systemic insider threat issues and challenges, and provide a basis for the development and recommendation of solutions to deter, detect, and/or mitigate potential insider threats. It will assist in identifying best practices among other Federal Government insider threat programs, through the use of existing DoD resources and functions and by leveraging existing authorities, policies, programs, systems, and architectures.

    This alteration reflects a change to the categories of individuals by removing the phrase: And who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities. Public Law 112-81, 10 U.S.C. 2224 note, Insider Threat Detection, requires the Department to detect and prevent insider threats in order to protect sensitive information and information systems. This authority requires the Department to employ anomaly detection techniques, which logically require ingestion of non-anomalous information in order to identify anomalous information. Accordingly, the individuals subject to the DoD Insider Threat program are those individuals who had or have been granted eligibility or access to classified information.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before October 24, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Allard, Chief of the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division, 703-571-0070.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties, and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on September 2, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No.A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000, 65 FR 77677).

    The Department received comments from five submitters related to the initial publication of the Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System. A response to the comments received has been posted to the electronic docket under docket ID DOD-2016-OS-0060 on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Although a change is being published to the categories of individuals, this resulted from further review of the published system of records notice and not the comments received.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DUSDI 01-DoD System name:

    Department of Defense (DoD) Insider Threat Management and Analysis Center (DITMAC) and DoD Component Insider Threat Records System (May 19, 2016, 81 FR 31614).

    Changes:

    1. In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-11703, on page 31615, in the first column, lines 5 through 8 of the first paragraph under the section title Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, remove the phrase “, and who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities”.

    2. In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-11703, on page 31615, in the second column, lines 6 through 8 of the second paragraph under the section title Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, remove the phrase “, and who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities”.

    3. In the Federal Register of May 19, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-11703, on page 31615, in the second column, lines 10 through 12 of the third paragraph under the section title Categories of Individuals Covered by the System, remove the phrase “, who have exhibited actual, probable, or possible indications of insider threat behaviors or activities”.

    [FR Doc. 2016-22903 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth AGENCY:

    Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, October 6, 2016, 6:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Piketon, Ohio 45661.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Greg Simonton, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3737, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda • Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda • Approval of May Minutes • Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments • Federal Coordinator's Comments • Liaison's Comments • Presentation • Administrative Issues ○ Draft Recommendation 16-02: Priorities for the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request Public Comments on Recommendation Board Comments on Recommendation ○ Update on Annual Executive Planning and Leadership Training Session • EM SSAB Chairs Meeting Update • Election of Chair and Vice Chair • Adoption of Fiscal Year 2017 Work Plan • Subcommittee Updates • Public Comments • Final Comments from the Board • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Greg Simonton at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Greg Simonton at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Greg Simonton at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 16, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22927 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Proposed Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of DOE, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of DOE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before November 22, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Sarah Olexsak, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, or by fax at 202-586-1600, or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Sarah Olexsak, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, 202-586-8055, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Energy is proposing to extend an information collection, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The approved collection is being used to develop information that enables DOE to generate an annual report that provides an update on the Workplace Charging Challenge program partners' activities, as well as to report on metrics DOE is evaluating related to energy consumption, costs, numbers of employers in the program, and best practices that can be identified for the purpose of helping others take steps to deploy electric vehicle charging infrastructure. DOE is not proposing to expand the scope of the existing information collection effort.

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5174; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Workplace Charging Challenge; (3) Type of Request: Renewal; (4) Purpose: DOE's Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) has developed a voluntary initiative, the EV Everywhere Workplace Charging Challenge. This initiative, launched in January 2013, aims to increase the number of U.S. employers offering workplace charging for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) to their employees. Participating employers may sign on as Partners to signal their commitment to workplace charging and otherwise promote workplace charging. As designed, the initiative is intended to benefit both employees and employers.

    The goal of the Workplace Charging Challenge is to increase to over 500 the number of employers offering workplace charging to their U.S. employees by the end of fiscal year 2018, the scheduled end of the program. Individual employers that make available at least one electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), or charger, to their employees at one major employer location count towards this goal, regardless of whether or not the employer is a partner in the Workplace Charging Challenge.

    As part of this program, DOE will continue to conduct outreach to deploy workplace charging, provide technical assistance to support employers' workplace charging programs, and identify specific success stories, lessons learned, and best practices employers have deployed, thereby increasing the value of additional workplace charging programs, and facilitating the deployment EVSE. The effort is part of the larger EV Everywhere Grand Challenge, and as the Grand Challenge by necessity incorporates a deployment component, DOE uses its experience and expertise through the VTO Clean Cities Program to educate the public about PEVs, as well as help identify potential workplace charging barriers and the means to remove such barriers.

    The Challenge does not endeavor to engage an exhaustive number of employers, but rather will continue to work with self-identified employers committed to leading the way in reducing petroleum consumption through the deployment of PEVs and associated charging infrastructure.

    In January 2013, relying on employers' public records and communications, DOE began identifying employers that might be interested in becoming voluntary partners to the Workplace Challenge Program. To measure progress towards the Workplace Charging Challenge goal of more than 500 employers through fiscal year 2018, DOE will continue to monitor some employers directly, and others through data DOE can gather from available online resources, including the Alternative Fuels Data Center. For those employers DOE is monitoring directly, DOE will continue to develop an annual progress update and will publish the generalized results gathered. To generate this annual update, DOE will collect annually from these Workplace Charging Challenge Partners, or employers, data and narratives associated with their PEV charging program and infrastructure.

    The principal objective of collecting the information DOE would like to continue to gather through the Challenge is to allow DOE to develop an objective assessment and estimate of the number of U.S. employers that have established a workplace charging program or otherwise installed EVSE, and to document specific information associated with the offering of such a program to employees. Information requested would continue to be used to establish basic information for Partner employers, which will then be used for future comparisons and analysis of instituted programs and policies. A designated representative for each participating Partner will provide the requested information. The intended respondent is expected to be aware of relevant aspects of the company's charging infrastructure and program if such exists, such that the gathering of information is not expected to be very resource consuming. DOE will continue to compile and issue an annual progress update that would provide an update on the Workplace Charging Challenge program partners' activities, as well as report on metrics DOE is evaluating related to energy consumption, costs, numbers of employers in the program, and best practices that can be identified for the purpose of helping others take steps to deploy charging infrastructure. The following are reports and documents available to date:

    • Workplace Charging Challenge 2014 Progress Update: Employers Take Charge • Workplace Charging Challenge Mid-Program Review: Employees Plug In • Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Workplace Charging Hosts • Install and Manage Workplace Charging • Costs Associated With Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment

    The Challenge effort will continue to rely on data the Partners will provide via an online response tool. The data collection would continue to address the following topic areas: (1) Charging infrastructure and use; (2) employee PEV ownership and PEV knowledge; and (3) feedback on the Challenge.

    The data would continue to be compiled for the purpose of assessing and setting forth in the annual progress updates the Workplace Charging Challenge program's impact in terms of increasing both the number of employers offering workplace charging and the deployment of EVSEs and PEVs.

    As is done presently, the data and subsequent analyses will allow DOE to compare historical records dynamically, and provide the opportunity for DOE to determine annual progress toward Workplace Charging Challenge goals. Calculation of progress and impacts will continue to be undertaken on an annual basis.

    The Workplace Charging Challenge program is targeted at U.S. employers. Providing initial baseline information for each participating employer, which occurs only once, is expected to take 1.5 hours. Follow-up questions and clarifications for the purpose of ensuring accurate analyses may take up to 3.5 hours; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 400; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 400; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 2,000; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There is no cost associated with reporting and recordkeeping.

    Statutory Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 13233; 42 U.S.C. 13252(a)-(b); 42 U.S.C. 13255.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2016. Michael R. Berube, Director, Vehicle Technologies Office, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22975 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Notice of Public Scoping, Request for Comment, and Announcement of Public Scoping Meeting for the U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Assessment for Project Icebreaker (DOE/EA-2045) AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public scoping, request for comment, and announcement of public scoping meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to authorize the expenditure of federal funding for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of “Project Icebreaker,” a 20-megawatt offshore wind renewable energy project that would be located in Lake Erie, approximately 8 miles off Cleveland, Ohio. The proposed project would consist of up to six wind turbine generators and the necessary electrical transmission facilities (i.e. underwater and underground cable) to connect to the Cleveland Public Power Lake Road Substation. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) anticipates receiving an application pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for the proposed project. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is responsible for reviewing impacts related to navigation and the USCG mission.

    Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), DOE is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to identify and analyze potential impacts to the human environment that may occur if DOE authorizes the expenditure of federal funding in support of Project Icebreaker. The USACE and the USCG are cooperating agencies in preparation of the EA. DOE is requesting public input on the scope of the EA for Project Icebreaker.

    The notice of public scoping for the EA and a description of the proposed project is available for review at: www.energy.gov/node/2001046.

    DATES:

    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting on September 28, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Lakewood, Ohio.

    Comments: Comments regarding scoping must be received on or before October 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting: The public meeting will be held at the Lakewood Park Woman's Club Pavilion, 14532 Lake Ave, Lakewood, Ohio 44107.

    Written Comments: Written comments should be sent to Roak Parker at U.S. Department of Energy, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Roak Parker at [email protected] The notice is available for viewing at: www.energy.gov/node/2001046.

    Statutory Authority:

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

    Issued in Golden, CO, on September 14, 2016. Lori A. Gray, NEPA Division Director, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22973 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0246; FRL-9952-98-OAR] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Requirements for New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Requirements for New Marine Compression Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder” (EPA ICR No. 2345.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0641) 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 November 30, 2016. 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 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0246, 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:

    Nydia Yanira Reyes-Morales, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 6405A, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9264; fax number: 202-343-2804; email address: [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, EPA 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, 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: For this ICR, EPA is seeking a revision to an existing package with a three year extension. Title II of the Clean Air Act, (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.; CAA), charges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with issuing certificates of conformity for those engines that comply with applicable emission standards. Such a certificate must be issued before engines may be legally introduced into commerce. Under this ICR, EPA collects information necessary to (1) issue certificates of compliance with emission statements, and (2) verify compliance with various programs and regulatory provisions pertaining to marine compression-ignition engines with a specific engine displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder, also referred to as Category 3 engines. To apply for a certificate of conformity, manufacturers are required to submit descriptions of their planned production engines, including detailed descriptions of emission control systems and test data. This information is organized by “engine family” groups expected to have similar emission characteristics. There are recordkeeping requirements of up to eight years. The Act also mandates EPA to verify that manufacturers have successfully translated their certified prototypes into mass produced engines, and that these engines comply with emission standards throughout their useful lives.

    Under the Production Line Testing Program (“PLT Program”), manufacturers of Category 3 engines are required to test each engine at the sea trial of the vessel in which the engine is installed or within the first 300 hours of operation, whichever comes first. This self-audit program allows manufacturers to monitor compliance and minimize the cost of correcting errors through early detection. In addition, owners and operators of marine vessels with Category 3 engines must record certain information and send minimal annual notifications to EPA to show that engine maintenance and adjustments have not caused engines to be noncompliant. From time to time, EPA may test in-use engines to verify compliance with emission standards throughout the marine engine's useful life and may ask for information about the engine family to be tested.

    The information requested is collected by the Diesel Engine Compliance Center (DECC), Compliance Division (CD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, EPA. Besides DECC and CD, this information could be used by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Department of Justice for enforcement purposes.

    Proprietary information is kept confidential in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), EPA regulations at 40 CFR parts 2 and 1042.915, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel. Non-confidential business information may be disclosed as requested under FOIA. That information may be used by trade associations, environmental groups, and the public. Most of the information is collected in electronic format and stored in CD's databases.

    Form Numbers: 5900-90 (Annual Production Report); 5900-297 (PLT CumSum Report); 5900-298 (PLT Non-CumSum Report); 5900-124 (Application for Certification).

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Respondents are manufacturers of marine compression-ignition engines above 30 liters per cylinder and the owners or operators of the vessels in which those engines are installed, within the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 333618 (Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing), 336611 (Manufacturers of Marine Vessels); 811310 (Engine Repair and Maintenance); 483 (Water transportation, freight and passenger).

    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain a benefit. Manufacturers must respond to this collection if they wish to sell and/or operate their Category 3 engines in the U.S., as prescribed by Section 206(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521) and 40 CFR part 1042. Certification reporting is mandatory (Section 206(a) of CAA (42 U.S.C. 7521) and 40 CFR part 1042, subpart C). PLT reporting is mandatory (Section 206(b)(1) of CAA and 40 CFR part 1042, subpart D).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 201 (total, including engine manufacturers, owners and operators).

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly, Annually, On Occasion, depending on the type of response.

    Total Estimated Burden: 24,813 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total Estimated Cost: $1,931,765 (per year), includes an estimated $734,588 annualized capital or maintenance and operational costs.

    Changes in Estimates: To date, there are no changes in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. However, EPA is evaluating information that may lead to a change in the estimates. After EPA has evaluated this information, burden estimates may slightly decrease due to the fact that EPA has received fewer applications for certification of Category 3 engine families than previously estimated. Cost estimates may increase due to inflation and labor rate changes.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23149 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0511; FRL-9952-95] Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for September 2016 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of TSCA section 5(a) notices when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA on TSCA section 5(a) notices during the period from June 22, 2016 to September 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Greg Schweer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-564-8469; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0511 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the Agency taking?

    This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from June 22, 2016 to September 19, 2016.

    III. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:

    • The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;

    • The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;

    • The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;

    • The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or

    • The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

    Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”

    EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the Federal Register a statement of its findings after its review of a TSCA section 5(a) notice when EPA makes a finding that a new chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such statements apply to premanufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activity notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) submitted to EPA under TSCA section 5.

    Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use, must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance, or before manufacture or processing, for the significant new use.

    The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.

    IV. Statements of Administrator Findings Under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C)

    In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:

    • EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.

    • Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).

    • Web site link to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).

    EPA Case Number: J-16-0006; Chemical identity: Trichoderma reesei modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/j-16-0006_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: J-16-0010; Chemical identity: Saccharomyces cerevisiae modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/j-16-0010_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: J-16-0011-0016; Chemical identity: Biofuel Producing Organism (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/j-16-0011-0016_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: J-16-0017; Chemical identity: Saccharomyces cerevisiae modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/j-16-0017_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: J-16-0018; Chemical identity: Saccharomyces cerevisiae modified (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/j-16-0018_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0281; Chemical identity: Fatty alcohols-dimers, trimers, polymers (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/sanitized_p160281_ogc_reviewed_signature_version_07152016.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0292; Chemical identity: Depolymerized waste plastics (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/sanitized_p160292_final_determinationv2.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0301; Chemical identity: Propyl silsesquioxanes, hydrogen-terminated (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/sanitized_p160301_determination_post_ogc_review_07202016.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0302; Chemical identity: Organic modified propyl silsesquioxane (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/sanitized_p160302_determination_post_ogc_review_07202016.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0340; Chemical identity: Glycerides, C8-18 and C18 unsaturated, from fermentation (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0340_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0343-0344; Chemical identity: Modified urethane polymer (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0343-0344_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0348; Chemical identity: Polypentaerythritol, mixed esters with linear and branched monoacids (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-00348_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0351; Chemical identity: Glycerides, C14-18 and C16-C18 unsaturated, from fermentation (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0351_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0366; Chemical identity: Blocked polyisocyanate (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0366_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0373; Chemical identity: Tris(alkyloxyphenyl)triazine compounds (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-00373_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0391; Chemical identity: Polyester polyol polymer with aliphatic isocyanate and phenol derivates (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0391_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0392; Chemical identity: Modified vegetable oil (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0392_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    EPA Case Number: P-16-0466; Chemical identity: 2,5-Furandione, telomer with ethenylbenzene and (alkylethyl)benzene, amides with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol aminoalkyl Me ether, alkali salts (generic name); Web site link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/p-16-0466_determination_non-cbi_final.pdf.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22972 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9952-91-Region 1] 2016 Fall Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the joint 2016 Fall Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-level ozone precursors and matters relative to regional haze and visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant context.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on November 17, 2016 starting at 9:15 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.

    Location: The Melrose Georgetown Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20037, 202-955-6400.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.

    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC office (202) 508-3840; by email: [email protected] or via the OTC Web site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: September 13, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, Region I.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22969 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-1025] Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (hereinafter the Committee). The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers (including underserved populations, such as Native Americans, persons living in rural areas, older persons, people with disabilities, and persons for whom English is not their primary language) in proceedings before the Commission.

    DATES:

    October 14, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay); email [email protected], or the Deputy Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, Beau Finley, (202) 418-7835 (voice); email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 16-1025, released September 12, 2016, announcing the Agenda, Date, and Time of the Committee's Next Meeting.

    Meeting Agenda

    At its October 14, 2016 meeting, the Committee is expected to consider a recommendation from its No Surprise Billing Task Force regarding the clarity of charges at point of sale and on bills.

    The Committee will also receive briefings from Commission staff on issues of interest to the Committee. A limited amount of time will be available for comments from the public. If time permits, the public may ask questions of presenters via the email address [email protected] or via Twitter using the hashtag #fcclive. The public may also follow the meeting on Twitter @fcc or via the Commission's Facebook page at www.facebook.com/fcc. Alternatively, members of the public may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee at the address provided below.

    The meeting is open to the public and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda and committee roster will be provided on site. Meetings of the Committee are also broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live/. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Federal Communications Commission.

    D'wana Terry, Associate Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22946 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-1039] Elimination of Certain System-Generated Paper Correspondence Notices as Initial Step Toward Providing Electronic Access to Correspondence Notices AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureaus) announce the elimination of certain paper correspondence notices related to applications, licenses, and antenna structure registrations currently generated by the Commission's Universal Licensing System and Antenna Structure Registration System.

    DATES:

    Effective September 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Bucher at (717) 338-2656 or via email at [email protected] or Cyndi Thomas at (202) 418-2018 or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Bureaus' Public Notice (Notice), DA 16-1039, released on September 14, 2016. The complete text of this document is available for viewing via the Commission's EDOCS Web site by entering the DA number, DA 16-1039. The complete text of the document is also available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center on the Court Yard Level (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC (telephone 202-418-0270; TTY 202-418-2555). Alternate formats of this Public Notice (computer diskette, large print, audio recording, and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY), or by sending an email to [email protected]

    In the Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) (collectively “Bureaus”) announce the elimination of certain paper correspondence notices related to applications, licenses, and antenna structure registrations currently generated by the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS) and Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) System and mailed to system users through the U.S. Postal Service. This action marks another step in the Commission's process reform efforts, which recommended eliminating paper copies of correspondence, and allows the Bureaus to streamline the Commission's wireless service licensing and antenna structure registration processes, in advance of the transition of initial services to a modernized ULS platform. The action also builds on earlier efforts to transition from paper to electronic records in the context of official authorizations issued in ULS and ASR.

    The paper correspondence notices that the Bureaus are eliminating provide information about Bureau actions that do not require a response from a system user and the information from those notices is available by other means in either ULS or the ASR System. Taking this step now—reducing the number of notices generated by the Commission's systems—will save money in terms of staff resources, paper supplies, and mailing costs. The Bureaus are not eliminating certain paper notices that provide information about Commission actions or approaching deadlines that require action from the system user. As explained in the Notice, the Commission ultimately anticipates providing electronic access to these system-generated correspondence notices with the transition to the modernized ULS platform.

    By this Notice, as discussed in detail below, the Bureaus announce the following actions with respect to system-generated notifications:

    • Effective upon publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, the Bureaus eliminate seven ULS-generated correspondence notices from ULS, and those notices will not be migrated to the Commission's new wireless licensing system. The Bureaus eliminate seven ASR-generated correspondence notices from the ASR System.

    • The Bureaus retain 15 ULS-generated correspondence notices in ULS. These notices will also be migrated to the Commission's new wireless licensing system with each service as the service is deployed in the new system. The Bureaus retain three ASR-generated correspondence notices.

    • The Bureaus retain the ULS-generated license cancellation notice in ULS, but that notice will not be migrated to the Commission's new licensing system. Electronic safeguards will be implemented in the new licensing system to help prevent licensees from inadvertently cancelling a license.

    The new procedures become effective upon publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. For promulgating “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice”—so-called “procedural rules”—Section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts agencies like the Federal Communications Commission from the general APA requirements to provide the public with advance notice and opportunity for comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Section 3(a) of the APA requires agencies to publish their “rules of procedure” in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(C), and Section 4(d) generally requires an agency to publish its substantive rules 30 days prior to the date on which the rules become effective, id. § 553(d). Because Section 4(d) expressly applies to substantive rules and not to procedural rules, the requirement to publish the new procedures with respect to system-generated correspondence notices 30 days before those procedures become effective is inapplicable in this proceeding.

    Background

    The Commission implemented ULS and the ASR System nearly 20 years ago to facilitate electronic filing for all wireless licensing and antenna structure registration applications as well as electronic access to authorizations. The systems also improve data accuracy through automated checking of applications and enhanced electronic access to license and registration database information. In fact, the two systems receive hundreds of thousands of applications electronically each year and the systems currently store over two million active authorizations. To facilitate communication between the Commission and system users with regard to the status of applications and authorizations, the Commission developed several notices that the systems generate. Correspondence notices are generated from forms that are assigned FCC Form numbers. Notices are assigned form numbers depending on whether they are generated for WTB services (600 series forms) or PSHSB services (1400 series forms). Notices that are being eliminated are listed in Attachment A and notices that are being retained are listed in Attachment B to this Notice. Currently, ULS generates 23 correspondence notices and the ASR System generates 10 correspondence notices.

    These system-generated notices provide a range of information. Once an application is filed, ULS or the ASR System may generate notices ranging from a notice stating that the application has been received to a notice dismissing the application, which could result in termination of an authorization. Both systems also generate notices from data associated with authorizations, e.g., notices reminding licensees and registrants of approaching construction deadlines. Notices may include automated system messages or individual messages manually drafted by Commission staff, depending on the reason for generating a notice. Each notice is then printed on paper, placed in a postage-paid envelope, and mailed through the U.S. Postal System to system users. In some cases, a paper copy of the same notice is mailed to as many as three individuals or entities.

    Discussion Electronic Access to Correspondence Notices

    To implement the FCC Process Reform recommendation to eliminate paper copies of correspondence, the Commission anticipates using a multi-phased process for reducing the overall number of notices generated by its wireless licensing and antenna structure registration systems, and for moving toward options that would allow system users electronic access to system-generated correspondence notices. The first step in this process is addressed by this Notice and affects ULS and the ASR System. Further steps in the process toward electronic access, for licensing, would be implemented in the Commission's new wireless service licensing system.

    As the Commission concluded in adopting final procedures for electronic access to official authorizations in both ULS and the ASR System, given the ease of access to the Internet, the ubiquitous availability of electronic documents, and the high adoption rate by consumers of electronic delivery of many other documents, as well as the near-term deployment of the Commission's new wireless licensing system, the Bureaus believe that the time is appropriate for moving toward modernizing the treatment of system-generated correspondence. Reducing the number of notices generated by the Commission's systems and moving to electronic access will save money in terms of staff resources, paper supplies, and mailing costs. Over the three-year period 2013-2015, ULS and the ASR System together generated 708,940 correspondence notices that were each printed on paper, placed in a postage-paid envelope, and mailed through the U.S. Postal Service. The Bureaus also anticipate that making the correspondence notices available electronically will eliminate the risk of a notice getting lost or damaged in delivery.

    The Bureaus initiate the Commission's phased-in process toward electronic access by first eliminating seven ULS-generated and seven ASR-generated correspondence notices. With respect to the remaining correspondence notices, as services are deployed in the new wireless licensing system, the Bureaus will initially continue the current process of mailing licensing system-generated notices to recipients through the U.S. Postal Service. After some or all services have been deployed in the new licensing system, the Commission anticipates reviewing options for allowing applicants and licensees electronic access to notices generated by that new system. The Commission also anticipates reviewing options for allowing applicants and registrants electronic access to ASR-generated notices. Finally, while we are eliminating a number of existing notices, the new wireless licensing system presents an opportunity for developing new electronic notifications that could provide information formerly included in eliminated notices, as well as other information not currently provided by ULS or the ASR System.

    Notices Eliminated

    All of the correspondence notices that the Bureaus are eliminating provide information about Bureau actions that do not require a response from a system user. In particular, because the information provided in these notices is readily available by some other means in either ULS or the ASR System, or because the reasons for initially developing the notices are no longer supported, we eliminate seven notices from ULS and seven notices from the ASR System. Some notices simply acknowledge that the systems have received an application. The Bureaus find this information redundant because today, an applicant can check ULS or the ASR System within a few days of filing an application to confirm that the relevant system has received the application.

    ULS also generates notices that advise former aircraft or ship licensees that their authorizations have terminated and another party has obtained a license for the aircraft or ship. The ASR System informs a former owner of an antenna structure that an application has been processed to change the ownership of the antenna structure on a registration. The notices, in each of these cases, were developed to limit third parties from fraudulently cancelling or obtaining someone else's license or registration. Over the past several years, however, the Bureaus have found that fraudulent actions rarely, if ever, happen.

    Both ULS and the ASR System also generate notices that acknowledge a licensee or registrant has associated, removed, or replaced an FCC Registration Number (FRN) with respect to a license or registration. Again, these notifications were developed to limit third parties from tampering with the association of an FRN to a license or registration. Today, however, because licensees and registrants associate, remove, or replace an FRN with respect to an authorization only by electronic filings, a third party could not submit an application manually to tamper with the association between an FRN and a license or registration. The Bureaus therefore eliminate these six notices. The Bureaus further note that in 2004, WTB issued public notices announcing that it would send these FRN notifications first by email, and where the applicant did not provide an email address, by mail through the U.S. Postal Service. Because we eliminate the notices, we will no longer send FRN notices by email.

    Finally, the Bureaus will not migrate the notices that we are eliminating in ULS to the Commission's new wireless licensing system. As the new wireless licensing system is deployed and as enhancements are made to the ASR System, the Commission may consider developing electronic notifications that provide information similar to the information currently included in these notices, where, for example a system user elects to receive the information by email or text message.

    Notices Retained

    Return, Dismissal, Termination Pending, and Courtesy Reminder Notices. The Bureaus retain 15 correspondence notices in ULS and three notices in the ASR System because they provide (1) information about Commission actions that require a response from the applicant; or (2) information about approaching deadlines that require action from the applicant, licensee, or registrant. The Bureaus will also migrate the notices that they are retaining in ULS to the new wireless licensing system as services are deployed in that system. In particular, the Bureaus retain notices that return an application for correction or additional information, as well as notices that dismiss an application. The Bureaus also retain “courtesy” notices that remind a licensee or registrant that a construction or renewal deadline is approaching, as well as notices warning a licensee that its license has been placed in termination pending status.

    The Bureaus explain that notices that fall within these categories are often critical to an applicant that intends to continue prosecuting an application, as well as a licensee or registrant that intends to retain an authorization. The Bureaus further note that the Commission has addressed these types of processes in adopting policies for ULS and the ASR System. In 1999, the Commission developed a unified policy for dismissing and returning applications in both ULS and the ASR System. The system-generated return and dismissal notices are the mechanisms by which the Bureaus implemented this policy.

    In adopting rules governing license application procedures for ULS, the Commission also stated that, as a convenience to licensees, ULS would issue construction notifications prior to construction deadlines as well as renewal reminder notices prior to license expiration dates. The Commission further stated that, for the time being, these types of courtesy reminder notices would be sent by mail. In particular, at the time it adopted ULS rules and procedures, the Commission rejected delivery of notices by email, instead deciding that licensees would continue to be notified of official Commission action by regular mail only. The Commission noted, however, that it was “optimistic that a system of electronic communication at some time in the future may offer a substantial increase in efficiency and paper reduction” and that “we may revisit this issue at a later time should circumstances warrant.” Based on general requirements established by the Commission in that same proceeding for its automated termination procedures, ULS generates on the same day correspondence notices as well as a public notice warning licensees that they have not filed construction notifications in a timely manner and, absent confirmation of timely construction, termination of the licenses becomes final.

    The Bureaus further explain that the Commission found that these policies would produce staff efficiencies, lessen the burden on applicants and licensees, increase the accuracy of the ULS database, and promote efficient spectrum use. The Bureaus also note, importantly, that the date on a return or dismissal notice, as well as a termination pending notice, is the date on which the period for seeking reconsideration begins. For these reasons, the Bureaus retain notices that require responses from system users because of an action taken by the Bureaus or because of an approaching renewal or construction deadline.

    The Bureaus also retain four notices currently generated by ULS that the Commission anticipates moving to its Electronic Authorization process in the new wireless licensing system. Three of these notices acknowledge the addition, modification, or deletion of a registered site on an authorization in the 3650-3700 MHz Service, as well as in the Non-Public Safety and Public Safety Intelligent Transportation Services. The fourth notice acknowledges the addition of a registered link on an authorization in the Millimeter Wave 70/80/90 GHz Service. The Bureaus retain these notices because they currently confirm modifications to registered sites or links on an authorization in these services. Once moved to the Commission's Electronic Authorization process, the Bureaus anticipate that the registration notices will be available electronically, unless a licensee notifies the Commission that it wishes to receive the notice on paper through the U.S. Postal Service.

    License Cancellation and Antenna Structure Registration Cancellation and Termination Notice

    The Bureaus also retain license cancellation notices in ULS. For the following reasons, however, the Bureaus will not migrate the license cancellation notice to the new wireless licensing system, and the Bureaus eliminate the cancellation and termination notices in the ASR System. After an application to cancel a license is granted, ULS generates a notice that is mailed to the licensee stating that the license referenced in the notice has been cancelled. In the ASR System, registrations have two statuses—granted and constructed. If a registrant cancels a registration before the antenna structure is constructed, the ASR System automatically generates a cancellation notice. If the registrant terminates a registration after the antenna structure is constructed, staff triggers the ASR System to generate a termination notice. The intent of these notices is to allow the licensee or registrant to take action if the license or registration is improperly cancelled by a third party, but in our experience, the vast majority of erroneous cancellations are filed by someone who was authorized to act on behalf of the licensee or registrant.

    An inadvertent cancellation of a site-based license that goes unnoticed may, in many services, result in another party obtaining a license for the spectrum formerly authorized in the cancelled license. In addition, where another party has not obtained a license for the spectrum, a new application to replace the cancelled license may require frequency coordination and application fees, potentially resulting in significant costs. In auction services, an inadvertent cancellation might result in the loss of the authorization with return of the license spectrum to the Commission. To limit these consequences, the Bureaus retain license cancellation notices in ULS. The Bureaus will, however, eliminate the notice in services as they are deployed in the new wireless licensing system. Rather than generating license cancellation notices in the new licensing system, that system will offer electronic safeguards to prevent a licensee from inadvertently cancelling its license. For example, the new licensing system may create “pop-ups” asking the applicant if it is sure it wants to cancel the license at issue in the application and warning of the consequences of cancelling the authorization.

    The Bureaus also eliminate the cancellation and termination notices in the ASR System. Parties filing registration applications do not obtain registrations through the Commission's competitive bidding procedures, do not pay application fees, and rarely, if ever, does someone other than an antenna structure owner cancel or terminate a registration. Where an antenna structure owner inadvertently cancels or terminates a registration, it simply files a new application.

    Attachment A—Eliminated Correspondence Notices

    The 600 series form numbers are assigned to notices generated for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau services and the 1400 series form numbers are assigned to notices generated for Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau services.

    ULS-Generated Correspondence Notices Eliminated Notice Form No. Notice of Aircraft Radio Station Termination 696A Notice of Ship Radio Station Termination 696S Ownership Notification Letter 602-A Application Notification Letter 682/1404 FCC Registration Notification Letter (associate) 683A/1405 FCC Registration Notification Letter (remove) 683D/1405 FCC Registration Notification Letter (replace) 683R/1405 ASR-Generated Correspondence Notices Eliminated Notice Form No. Notice of ASR Change of Ownership 684 Notification of Application Receipt 675 FCC Registration Notification Letter (associate) 676A FCC Registration Notification Letter (remove) 676D FCC Registration Notification Letter (replace) 676R Notice of ASR Cancellation 686 Notice of ASR Termination 687 Attachment B—Retained Correspondence Notices

    The 600 series form numbers are assigned to notices generated for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau services and the 1400 series form numbers are assigned to notices generated for Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau services.

    ULS-Generated Correspondence Notices Retained Notice Form No. [Form 603] Application Dismissal Letter 603-D/1401 Notice of Return for Canadian Objections 690/1408 Notice of Immediate Return 693/1410 Notice of Immediate Dismissal 694/1411 Notice of Return 698/1414 Notice of Dismissal 699/1415 Notice of Authorization Grant-In-Part 700/1416 Notification of Consummation Reminder Letter 603-CR/1402 Construction/Coverage Deadline Notice of License Termination Pending Status 672/1403 Construction/Coverage Deadline Important Reminder Notice 691/1409 Renewal Reminder Notice 695/1412 3650-3700 MHz Service Registration Acceptance Letter 674 Intelligent Transportation Service (Non-Public Safety) Registration Acceptance Letter 677 Millimeter Wave 70/80/90 GHz Service Registration Acceptance Letter 678 Intelligent Transportation Service (Public Safety) Registration Acceptance Letter 1418 Notice of License Cancellation 697/1413 ASR-Generated Correspondence Notices Retained Form Form No. Notice of Return 688 Notice of Dismissal 689 ASR Construction Reminder 685 Federal Communications Commission. Katherine M. Harris, Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22934 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Reinstatement and Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request (3064-0029) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the reinstatement and renewal of an existing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). On July 11, 2016, (81 FR 44863), the FDIC requested comment for 60 days on a proposal to reinstate and renew the information collection described below. No comments were received. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve the reinstatement and renewal of this collection, and again invites comment on this proposal.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected]. Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Manny Cabeza, (202-898-3767), Counsel, Room MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to reinstate and renew the following previously-approved collection of information:

    1. Title: Notification of Performance of Bank Services.

    OMB Number: 3064-0029.

    Form Numbers: FDIC 6120/06.

    Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1/2 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Total estimated annual burden: 20 hours.

    General Description of Collection: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations are required to notify the FDIC, under section 7 of the Bank Service Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1867), of the relationship with a bank service corporation. Form 6120/06 (Notification of Performance of Bank Services) may be used by banks to satisfy the notification requirement.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 20th day of September, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22954 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0025, -0057, -0140 & -0176) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on the renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before November 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected]. Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Manny Cabeza (202-898-3767), Counsel, MB-3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Application for Consent to Exercise Trust Powers.

    OMB Number: 3064-0025.

    Form Number: FDIC 6200/09.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks wishing to exercise trust powers.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 12.

    Burden Estimate Estimated number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Estimated
  • burden
  • Eligible depository institutions 8 8 On Occasion 64 Not-eligible depository institutions 4 24 On Occasion 96 Totals 12 160

    General Description of Collection: FDIC regulations (12 CFR 333.2) prohibit any insured State nonmember bank from changing the general character of its business without the prior written consent of the FDIC. The exercise of trust powers by a bank is usually considered to be a change in the general character of a bank's business if the bank did not exercise those powers previously. Therefore, unless a bank is currently exercising trust powers, it must file a formal application to obtain the FDIC's written consent to exercise trust powers. State banking authorities, not the FDIC, grant trust powers to their banks. The FDIC merely consents to the exercise of such powers. Applicants use form FDIC 6200/09 to obtain FDIC's consent.

    2. Title: Certified Statement for Quarterly Deposit Insurance Assessment.

    OMB Number: 3064-0057.

    Affected Public: FDIC-insured depository institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,081.

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours per Response: 20 minutes.

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8,108 hours.

    General Description of Collection: The FDIC collects deposit insurance assessments on a quarterly basis. Each assessment is based on the institution's quarterly report of condition for the prior calendar quarter. The FDIC collects the quarterly payments by means of direct debits through the Automated Clearing House network. The collection dates for the first period of any given year (January through June) are June 30 and September 30 of the current year. The collection dates for the second period (July through December) are December 30 of the current year and March 30 of the following year. The information collection consists of recordkeeping associated with reviews by officials of the insured institutions to confirm that the assessment data are accurate and, in cases of inaccuracy, submission of corrected data.

    The FDIC is requesting OMB to approve the change of the name of the collection from Certified Statement for Semiannual Deposit Insurance Assessment to Quarterly Certified Statement Invoice for Deposit Insurance Assessment to reflect the fact that deposit insurance assessment invoices are issued on a quarterly as opposed to a semiannual basis.

    3. Title: Insurance Products Consumer Protections.

    OMB Number: 3064-0140.

    Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks and savings associations that sell insurance products; persons who sell insurance products in or on behalf of insured State nonmember banks and savings associations.

    Burden Estimate Estimated number of
  • responses
  • Average
  • number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Estimated
  • burden
  • Revising and Updating Disclosures 2,729 1 1 Annually 2,729 Disclosures to Consumers 2,729 240 0.1667 On Occasion 10,916 Total Estimated Burden 13,645

    General Description: Respondents must prepare and provide certain disclosures to consumers (e.g., that insurance products and annuities are not FDIC-insured) and obtain consumer acknowledgments, at two different times: (1) Before the completion of the initial sale of an insurance product or annuity to a consumer; and (2) at the time of application for the extension of credit (if insurance products or annuities are sold, solicited, advertised, or offered in connection with an extension of credit).

    4. Title: Reverse Mortgage Products.

    OMB Number: 3064-0176.

    Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks and savings associations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 26.1

    1 FDIC estimates that the number of respondents will be 26 (25 that have already implemented the program and now only face the ongoing compliance burden and one (1) as a placeholder for any new institution that would be required to implement the guidance requirements.

    Burden Estimate: Number of
  • respondents
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Frequency Total burden hours
    Implementation 1 40 Annually 40 Ongoing 25 8 Annually 200 Total 26 240

    General Description: In August, 2010, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the FDIC, issued guidance focusing on the need to provide adequate information to consumers about reverse mortgage products; to provide qualified independent counseling to consumers considering these products; and to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The guidance also addressed related policies, procedures, internal controls, and third party risk management. Prior to the effective date of the final guidance, the Agencies obtained PRA approval from OMB for the information collection requirements contained therein. These information collection requirements included implementation of policies and procedures, training, and program maintenance. The requirements are outlined below:

    • Institutions offering reverse mortgages should have written policies and procedures that prohibit the practice of directing a consumer to a particular counseling agency or contacting a counselor on the consumer's behalf.

    • Policies should be clear so that originators do not have an inappropriate incentive to sell other products that appear linked to the granting of a mortgage.

    • Legal and compliance reviews should include oversight of compensation programs so that lending personnel are not improperly encouraged to direct consumers to particular products.

    • Training should be designed so that relevant lending personnel are able to convey information to consumers about product terms and risks in a timely, accurate, and balanced manner.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 20th day of September 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22953 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 3:53 p.m. on Tuesday, September 20, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision and resolution activities.

    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), concurred in by Director Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the Currency) and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23050 Filed 9-21-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2016-N-08] 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) is seeking public comments concerning an expired information collection known as “Community Support Requirements,” which was assigned control number 2590-0005 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a reinstatement of the control number, which expired on February 29, 2016, for a period of three years.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before November 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Community Support Requirements, (No. 2016-N-08)' ” 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: “Community Support Requirements, (No. 2016-N-08)”.

    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:

    Deattra D. Perkins, Senior Policy Analyst, Division of Housing Mission & Goals, [email protected], (202) 649-3133; or Sylvia C. Martinez, Manager, Federal Home Loan Bank Housing and Community Investment Programs, Division of Housing Mission & Goals, [email protected], (202) 649-3301 (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. Background

    Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires the Director of FHFA to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service that Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) member institutions must meet in order to maintain access to long-term Bank advances. Section 10(g)(2) of the Bank Act requires that, in establishing these community support requirements for Bank members, FHFA take into account factors such as the member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) and record of lending to first-time homebuyers.1 FHFA's community support regulation, which establishes standards and review criteria for determining compliance with section 10(g) of the Bank Act, is set forth at 12 CFR part 1290.

    1 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1), (2).

    Part 1290 requires that each Bank member submit to FHFA biennially a completed Community Support Statement (Form 060), which contains several short questions the answers to which are used by FHFA to assess the responding member's compliance with the community support standards. Previously, this was accomplished by requiring approximately one-eighth of all members to submit a completed Form in each calendar quarter of a two-year review cycle. Under new streamlined procedures that FHFA is in the process of implementing, all members subject to community support review will be required to submit a completed Form 060 at approximately the same time every two years.

    FHFA has revised Form 060 to reflect the new streamlined procedures. These revisions reduce slightly the number of questions on the Form and modify the formatting so that members will be able to complete and submit the Form online. In substance, the revised Form 060 is materially the same as the existing Form. In part I of the Form, a member that is subject to the CRA must record its most recent CRA rating and the year of that rating. Part II of the Form addresses a member's efforts to assist first-time homebuyers. A member may either record the number and dollar amount of mortgage loans made to first-time homebuyers in the previous or current calendar year (part II.A), or indicate the types of programs or activities it has undertaken to assist first-time homebuyers by checking selections from a list (part II.B), or do both. If a member has received a CRA rating of “Outstanding,” it need not complete part II of the Form. A copy of the revised Form and related instructions appear at the end of this Notice.

    Part 1290 also establishes the circumstances under which FHFA will restrict a member's access to long-term Bank advances for failure to meet the community support requirements. It permits Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted to apply directly to FHFA to remove the restriction if certain criteria are met.

    The OMB control number for the information collection contained in Form 060 and part 1290 is 2590-0005. The OMB clearance for this control number expired on February 29, 2016. The respondents are institutions that are Bank members.

    B. Need for and Use of the Information Collection

    This information collection is necessary to enable FHFA to determine whether Bank members satisfy the statutory and regulatory community support requirements and to ensure that, as required by statute, only Bank members that meet those requirements maintain continued access to long-term Bank advances.2

    2See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1).

    C. Burden Estimate

    FHFA has analyzed the two facets of this information collection in order to estimate the hour burdens that the collection will impose upon Bank members annually over the next three years. Based on that analysis, FHFA estimates that the total annual hour burden will be 2,287 hours. The method FHFA used to determine the annual hour burden and associated cost for each facet of the information collection is explained in detail below.

    I. Community Support Statements

    FHFA estimates that, on average over the next several years, 7,000 Bank members will be required to submit completed Community Support Statements biennially. This corresponds to an annual average of 3,500 respondents. FHFA estimates that the average preparation time for each Community Support Statement will be 0.65 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members in connection with the preparation and submission of Community Support Statements is 2,275 hours (3,500 Statements × 0.65 hours).

    II. Requests To Remove a Restriction on Access to Long-Term Advances

    FHFA estimates that an annual average of 16 Bank members whose access to long-term advances has been restricted will submit requests to FHFA to remove those restrictions, and that the average preparation time for each request will be 0.75 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members in connection with the preparation and submission of requests to remove a restriction on access to long-term advances is 12 hours (16 requests × 0.75 hours).

    D. Public Comments 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 the FHFA 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency. BILLING CODE 8070-01-P EN23SE16.001 EN23SE16.002
    [FR Doc. 2016-22930 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-C
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2016-N-07] 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) is seeking public comments concerning the information collection known as the “Affordable Housing Program,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0007 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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 November 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before November 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Affordable Housing Program, (No. 2016-N-07)'” 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: “Affordable Housing Program, (No. 2016-N-07)”.

    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:

    Deattra D. Perkins, Senior Policy Analyst, Division of Housing Mission & Goals, [email protected], (202) 649-3133; or Sylvia C. Martinez, Manager, Federal Home Loan Bank Housing and Community Investment Programs, Division of Housing Mission & Goals, [email protected], (202) 649-3301 (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. Background

    Section 10(j) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires FHFA to promulgate regulations under which each of the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) must establish an Affordable Housing Program (AHP), to provide subsidy to the Bank's member institutions to: (1) Finance homeownership by households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median income (low- or moderate-income households); and (2) to finance the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of rental housing in which at least 20 percent of the units will be occupied by and affordable for households earning 50 percent or less of the area median income (very low-income households).1 Section 10(j) also establishes standards and requirements for providing such subsidized funding to Bank members and requires each Bank to contribute 10 percent of its previous year's net earnings to its AHP annually, subject to a minimum annual combined contribution by the 11 Banks of $100 million.2

    1 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(1) and (2).

    2 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(5)(C).

    FHFA's AHP regulation, which implements the statutory AHP requirements, is set forth at 12 CFR part 1291. The regulation requires that each Bank establish and fund an AHP and sets forth the parameters within which the Banks' programs must operate. The regulation permits the Banks a degree of discretion in determining how their individual programs are to be implemented and requires that each Bank adopt an AHP Implementation Plan setting forth the specific requirements for that Bank's program.3

    3 12 CFR 1291.3.

    Competitive Application Programs

    The AHP regulation requires each Bank to establish a competitive application program under which the Bank accepts applications for AHP subsidized advances or direct subsidies (grants) submitted by its members on behalf of non-member entities having a significant connection to the projects for which subsidy is being sought (project sponsors).4 Each Bank accepts applications for AHP subsidy under its competitive application program during a specified number of funding periods each year, as determined by the Bank.5 A Bank must determine for each application it receives whether the proposed project meets the AHP regulatory eligibility requirements.6 The Bank must score each application according to AHP regulatory and Bank-specific scoring guidelines, and approve the highest scoring projects within that funding period for AHP subsidy.7

    4 12 CFR 1291.5. Under the regulation, an AHP project sponsor may be an entity that either: (1) has an ownership interest in a rental project; (2) is integrally involved in an owner-occupied project, such as by exercising control over the planning, development, or management of the project, or by qualifying borrowers and providing or arranging financing for the owners of the units; (3) operates a loan pool; or (4) is a revolving loan fund. 12 CFR 1291.1 (definition of “sponsor”).

    5 12 CFR 1291.5(b)(1).

    6 12 CFR 1291.5(c).

    7 12 CFR 1291.5(d).

    The regulation provides that, prior to each disbursement of AHP subsidy for a project approved under a Bank's competitive application program, the Bank must confirm that the project continues to meet the AHP regulatory eligibility requirements, as well as all commitments made in the approved AHP application.8 As part of this process, Banks typically require that the member and project sponsor provide documentation demonstrating continuing compliance.

    8 12 CFR 1291.5(g)(3).

    The regulation permits a Bank to approve a modification to the terms of an approved application that would change the score that the application received in the funding period in which it was originally scored and approved, had the changed facts been operative at that time. To approve a modification: (i) The project, incorporating the changes, must continue to meet the regulatory eligibility requirements; (ii) the application, as reflective of the changes, must continue to score high enough to have been approved in the funding period in which it was originally scored and approved; and (iii) there must be good cause for the modification, and the analysis and justification for the modification must be documented by the Bank in writing.9 Banks typically require the member and project sponsor requesting a modification to provide a written analysis and justification as part of their modification request.

    9 12 CFR 1291.5(f).

    The regulation requires generally that a Bank monitor each owner-occupied and rental project receiving AHP subsidy under its competitive application program prior to and after project completion. For initial monitoring, a Bank must determine whether the project is making satisfactory progress towards completion, in compliance with the commitments made in the approved application, Bank policies, and the AHP regulatory requirements. Following project completion, the Bank must determine whether satisfactory progress is being made towards occupancy of the project by eligible households, and whether the project meets the regulatory requirements and the commitments made in the approved application.10 For long-term monitoring of rental projects, subject to certain exceptions in the AHP regulation, the Bank must determine whether, during the 15-year retention period, the household incomes and rents comply with the income targeting and rent commitments made in the approved application.11 For both the initial and long-term monitoring, a Bank must review appropriate documentation maintained by the project sponsor.

    10 12 CFR 1291.7(a)(1).

    11 12 CFR 1291.7(a)(4).

    Homeownership Set-Aside Programs

    The AHP regulation also authorizes each Bank, in its discretion, to allocate up to the greater of $4.5 million or 35 percent of its annual required AHP contribution to establish homeownership set-aside programs for the purpose of promoting homeownership for low- or moderate-income households.12 Under these homeownership set-aside programs, a Bank may provide to its members AHP direct subsidies, which are to be provided by the members to eligible households as a grant to pay for down payment, closing cost, counseling cost or rehabilitation assistance in connection with the household's purchase of a primary residence or rehabilitation of an owner-occupied residence.13 Prior to the Bank's disbursement of a direct subsidy under its homeownership set-aside program, the member must provide a certification that the subsidy will be provided in compliance with all applicable regulatory eligibility requirements.14

    12 12 CFR 1291.2(b)(2); 1291.6.

    13 12 CFR 1291.6(c)(4).

    14 12 CFR 1291.7(b)(2).

    AHP Information Submitted by Banks to FHFA

    FHFA's Data Reporting Manual (DRM) requires each Bank to submit to FHFA aggregate AHP information.15 The DRM requires each Bank to submit to FHFA project-level information regarding its competitive application program and household-level information regarding its homeownership set-aside program semi-annually. The information the Banks are required to submit to FHFA under the DRM is derived from the documentation submitted by Bank members and project sponsors that is described above.

    15 The AHP reporting requirements are located in chapter 5 of the DRM, which is available electronically on FHFA's public Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/FederalHomeLoanBanks/Documents/FHFB-Resolutions/2006/2006-13-Attachment.pdf.

    B. Need for and Use of the Information Collection

    The Banks use the information collected under part 1291 to determine whether: (1) Projects for which Bank members and project sponsors are seeking subsidies under the Banks' competitive application programs satisfy the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and score highly enough in comparison with other applications submitted during the same funding period to be approved for AHP subsidies; (2) projects approved under the Banks' competitive application programs continue to meet the applicable requirements and to comply with the commitments made in the approved applications each time subsidy is disbursed; (3) requests for modifications of projects approved under the Banks' competitive application programs meet the regulatory requirements for approval; (4) projects approved under the Banks' competitive application programs are making satisfactory progress towards completion, and following project completion, are making satisfactory progress towards occupancy of the project by eligible households, in compliance with the commitments made in the approved applications, Bank policies, and the regulatory requirements (initial monitoring); (5) during the 15-year retention period, completed rental projects continue to comply with the household income targeting and rent commitments made in the approved applications (long-term monitoring); and (6) applications for direct subsidy under Banks' homeownership set-aside programs were approved, and the direct subsidies disbursed, in accordance with the regulatory requirements.

    FHFA uses the information required to be submitted by the Banks under the DRM to verify that the Banks' funding decisions, and the use of the funds awarded, were consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements.

    The OMB control number for the information collection is 2590-0007. The current clearance expires on November 30, 2016. The likely respondents are institutions that are Bank members and non-member entities that sponsor an AHP project.

    C. Burden Estimate

    FHFA has analyzed each of the six facets of this information collection in order to estimate the hour burdens that the collection will impose upon Bank members and AHP project sponsors annually over the next three years. Based on that analysis, FHFA estimates that the total annual hour burden will be 115,750. The method FHFA used to determine the annual hour burden for each facet of the information collection is explained in detail below.

    I. AHP Competitive Applications

    FHFA estimates that Bank members, on behalf of project sponsors, will submit to the Banks an annual average of 1,350 applications for AHP subsidies under the Banks' competitive application programs and that the average preparation time for each application will be 24 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members and project sponsors in connection with the preparation and submission of AHP competitive applications is 32,400 hours (1,350 applications × 24 hours).

    II. Compliance Submissions for Approved Competitive Application Projects at AHP Subsidy Disbursement

    FHFA estimates that Bank members, on behalf of project sponsors, will make an annual average of 700 submissions to the Banks documenting that projects approved under the Banks' competitive application programs continue to comply with the regulatory eligibility requirements and all commitments made in the approved applications at the time each AHP subsidy is disbursed, and that the average preparation time for each submission will be 1 hour. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members and project sponsors in connection with the preparation and submission of these compliance submissions is 700 hours (700 submissions × 1 hour).

    III. Modification Requests for Approved Competitive Application Projects

    FHFA estimates that Bank members, on behalf of project sponsors, will submit to the Banks an annual average of 300 requests for modifications to projects that have been approved under the Banks' competitive application programs, and that the average preparation time for each request will be 2.5 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members and project sponsors in connection with the preparation and submission of these modification requests is 750 hours (300 requests × 2.5 hours).

    IV. Initial Monitoring Submissions for Approved Competitive Application Projects

    FHFA estimates that project sponsors will make an annual average of 500 submissions of documentation to the Banks for purposes of the Banks' initial monitoring of in-progress and recently completed projects approved under their competitive application programs, and that the average preparation time for each submission will be 5 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on project sponsors in connection with the preparation and submission of documentation required for initial monitoring of competitive application projects is 2,500 hours (500 submissions × 5 hours).

    V. Long-Term Monitoring Submissions for Approved Competitive Application Program Projects

    FHFA estimates that project sponsors will make an annual average of 4,800 submissions of documentation to the Banks for purposes of the Banks' long-term monitoring of completed projects approved under their competitive application programs, and that the average preparation time for each submission will be 3 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on project sponsors in connection with the preparation and submission of documentation required for long-term monitoring of competitive application projects is 14,400 hours (4,800 submissions × 3 hours).

    VI. Homeownership Set-aside Program Applications and Certifications

    FHFA estimates that Bank members will submit to the Banks an annual average of 13,000 applications and required certifications for AHP direct subsidies under the Banks' homeownership set-aside programs, and that the average preparation time for those submissions together will be 5 hours. The estimate for the total annual hour burden on members in connection with the preparation and submission of homeownership set-aside program applications and certifications is 65,000 hours (13,000 applications/certifications × 5 hours).

    D. Public Comments Request

    Written comments are requested on: (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 members and project sponsors, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22947 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Savings and Loan Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (HOLA), Regulation LL (12 CFR part 238), and Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a savings and loan holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a savings association and nonbanking companies owned by the savings and loan holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(e)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B)). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 20, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Community Savings Bancorp, Inc., Caldwell, Ohio; to become a savings and loan holding company through the mutual to stock conversion and acquisition of Community Savings, Caldwell, Ohio.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22955 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 11, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Frank L Carson, IV, Mulvane, Kansas; to retain shares of Mulvane Bankshares, Inc., Mulvane, Kansas, and for approval as a member of the Carson Family Group that controls Mulvane Bankshares, Inc. Notification submitted by Sidney A. Reitz, Salina, Kansas, as trustee of Frank L. Carson, Jr. Trust No. 2; and Frank L. Carson, III Trust No. 2; to retain control of Mulvane Bankshares, Inc., and for approval as a member of the Carson Family Group. Mulvane Bankshares, Inc. controls Carson Bank, Mulvane, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22956 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-4179-N] Medicare Program; Medicare Appeals; Adjustment to the Amount in Controversy Threshold Amounts for Calendar Year 2017 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the annual adjustment in the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review under the Medicare appeals process. The adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts will be effective for requests for ALJ hearings and judicial review filed on or after January 1, 2017. The calendar year 2017 AIC threshold amounts are $160 for ALJ hearings and $1,560 for judicial review.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This notice is effective on January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liz Hosna ([email protected]), (410) 786-4993.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by section 521 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA), established the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing requests and judicial review at $100 and $1,000, respectively, for Medicare Part A and Part B appeals. Section 940 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), amended section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act to require the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review to be adjusted annually. The AIC threshold amounts are to be adjusted, as of January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Section 940(b)(2) of the MMA provided conforming amendments to apply the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage (MA) appeals and certain health maintenance organization and competitive health plan appeals. Health care prepayment plans are also subject to MA appeals rules, including the AIC adjustment requirement. Section 101 of the MMA provides for the application of the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part D appeals.

    A. Medicare Part A and Part B Appeals

    The statutory formula for the annual adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review of Medicare Part A and Part B appeals, set forth at section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act, is included in the applicable implementing regulations, 42 CFR 405.1006(b) and (c). The regulations require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to publish changes to the AIC threshold amounts in the Federal Register (§ 405.1006(b)(2)). In order to be entitled to a hearing before an ALJ, a party to a proceeding must meet the AIC requirements at § 405.1006(b). Similarly, a party must meet the AIC requirements at § 405.1006(c) at the time judicial review is requested for the court to have jurisdiction over the appeal (§ 405.1136(a)).

    B. Medicare Part C/MA Appeals

    Section 940(b)(2) of the MMA applies the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C appeals by amending section 1852(g)(5) of the Act. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are found at 42 CFR 422, subpart M. Specifically, §§ 422.600 and 422.612 discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 422.600 grants any party to the reconsideration, except the MA organization, who is dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination, a right to an ALJ hearing as long as the amount remaining in controversy after reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary. Section 422.612 states, in part, that any party, including the MA organization, may request judicial review if the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.

    C. Health Maintenance Organizations, Competitive Medical Plans, and Health Care Prepayment Plans

    Section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that the annual adjustment to the AIC dollar amounts set forth in section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act applies to certain beneficiary appeals within the context of health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans. The applicable implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are set forth in 42 CFR 422, subpart M and apply to these appeals. The Medicare Part C appeals rules also apply to health care prepayment plan appeals.

    D. Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug Plan) Appeals

    The annually adjusted AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review that apply to Medicare Parts A, B, and C appeals also apply to Medicare Part D appeals. Section 101 of the MMA added section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act regarding Part D appeals. This statutory provision requires a prescription drug plan sponsor to meet the requirements set forth in sections 1852(g)(4) and (g)(5) of the Act, in a similar manner as MA organizations. As noted previously, the annually adjusted AIC threshold requirement was added to section 1852(g)(5) of the Act by section 940(b)(2)(A) of the MMA. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part D appeals can be found at 42 CFR 423, subparts M and U. The regulations at § 423.562(c) prescribe that, unless the Part D appeals rules provide otherwise, the Part C appeals rules (including the annually adjusted AIC threshold amount) apply to Part D appeals to the extent they are appropriate. More specifically, §§ 423.1970 and 423.1976 of the Part D appeals rules discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 423.1970(a) grants a Part D enrollee, who is dissatisfied with the independent review entity (IRE) reconsideration determination, a right to an ALJ hearing if the amount remaining in controversy after the IRE reconsideration meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary. Sections 423.1976(a) and (b) allow a Part D enrollee to request judicial review of an ALJ or Medicare Appeals Council (MAC) decision if, in part, the AIC meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary.

    II. Provisions of the Notice—Annual AIC Adjustments A. AIC Adjustment Formula and AIC Adjustments

    As previously noted, section 940 of the MMA requires that the AIC threshold amounts be adjusted annually, beginning in January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the CPI for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.

    B. Calendar Year 2017

    The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearing requests will rise to $160 and the AIC threshold amount for judicial review will rise to $1,560 for CY 2017. These amounts are based on the 56.110 percent increase in the medical care component of the CPI, which was at 297.600 in July 2003 and rose to 464.582 in July 2016. The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearing requests changes to $156.11 based on the 56.110 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $100 established in 2003. In accordance with section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act, the adjusted threshold amounts are rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Therefore, the CY 2017 AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings is $160.00. The AIC threshold amount for judicial review changes to $1561.10 based on the 56.110 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $1,000. This amount was rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, resulting in the CY 2017 AIC threshold amount of $1,560.00 for judicial review.

    C. Summary Table of Adjustments in the AIC Threshold Amounts

    In the following table we list the CYs 2013 through 2017 threshold amounts.

    CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 CY 2017 ALJ Hearing $140 $140 $150 $150 $160 Judicial Review 1,400 1,430 1,460 1,500 1,560 III. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: September 7, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23002 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10105] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; the accuracy of the estimated burden; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by October 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: National Implementation of the In-Center Hemodialysis CAHPS Survey; Use: Data collected in the national implementation of the In-center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Survey will be used to: (1) Provide a source of information from which selected measures can be publicly reported to beneficiaries as a decision aid for dialysis facility selection, (2) aid facilities with their internal quality improvement efforts and external benchmarking with other facilities, (3) provide CMS with information for monitoring and public reporting purposes, and (4) support the end-stage renal disease value-based purchasing program. Form Number: CMS-10105 (OMB control number: 0938-0926). Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals or households; Number of Respondents: 109,328; Total Annual Responses: 109,328; Total Annual Hours: 59,037. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Julia Zucco at 410-786-6670.)

    Dated: September 20, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22967 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1399] Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees; Draft Guidance for the Public, Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Members, and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the notice that appeared in the Federal Register of June 29, 2016. In the notice, FDA requested comments on “Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees; Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff” and on whether FDA should request that each advisory committee member, who receives an authorization from FDA on an appearance issue so that they may participate in an advisory committee meeting, voluntarily publicly disclose the authorization. The Agency is taking this action due to errors displayed on the FDA Web site pertaining to this guidance.

    DATES:

    FDA is extending the comment period for the notice that published on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42363) by an additional 60 days. Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comments on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov .Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1399 for “Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees; Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff.” 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 a single hard copy of the draft guidance entitled “Procedures for Evaluating Appearance Issues and Granting Authorizations for Participation in FDA Advisory Committees; Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff” to the Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Office of Special Medical Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janine M. Morris, Office of Special Medical Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5114, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5706.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 29, 2016, FDA published a notice with a 90-day comment period to request comments on the draft guidance and public disclosure of authorizations described in this guidance.

    The Agency has decided to allow for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the notice. The FDA Web site that displayed the posting of this guidance indicated, in error, that the guidance was not open for comment. The Agency was concerned that individuals visiting the FDA Web site and interested in providing comments may not have known that the document was available for comment under the docket found at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FDA is therefore extending the comment period for the notice for an additional 60 days, until November 26, 2016. The Agency believes that a 60-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without compromising timely publication of the final guidance.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet at either http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122045.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22936 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-E-0072] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FYCOMPA AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for FYCOMPA and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by November 22, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by March 22, 2017. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more 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-2014-E-0072 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; FYCOMPA.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product FYCOMPA (perampanel). FYCOMPA is indicated as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondarily generalized seizures in patients with epilepsy aged 12 years and older. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for FYCOMPA (U.S. Patent No. 6,949,571) from Eisai R&D Management Co., Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated March 26, 2014, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of FYCOMPA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for FYCOMPA is 3,274 days. Of this time, 2,968 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 306 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: November 7, 2003. FDA has verified the Eisai R&D Management Co., Ltd. claim that November 7, 2003, is the date the investigational new drug application became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 22, 2011. The applicant claims May 25, 2011, as the date that the new drug application (NDA) for Fycompa (NDA 202834) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 202834, received May 25, 2011, was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. FDA refused to file this application and notified the applicant of this fact by letter dated July 21, 2011. The completed NDA was then submitted on December 22, 2011, which is considered to be the date that the NDA was initially submitted within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(B)(ii).

    3. The date the application was approved: October 22, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 202834 was approved on October 22, 2012.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,549 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22933 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2014-E-2360 and FDA-2014-E-2361] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MYALEPT AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for MYALEPT and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human biological product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by November 22, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by March 22, 2017. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more 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 Nos. FDA-2014-E-2360 and FDA-2014-E-2361 for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; MYALEPT.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human biological product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human biological product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human biologic product MYALEPT (metreleptin). MYALEPT is indicated as an adjunct to diet as replacement therapy to treat the complications of leptin deficiency in patients with congenital or acquired generalized lipodystrophy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received two patent term restoration applications for MYALEPT (U.S. Patent No. 6,001,968 from The Rockefeller University, and U.S. Patent No. 7,183,254 from Amgen, Inc.; The Board of Regents, The University of Texas System; and the Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health). The USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining these patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. The USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 22, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of MYALEPT represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for MYALEPT is 6,509 days. Of this time, 6,174 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 335 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: May 2, 1996. The applicants claim June 19, 2008, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the first IND effective date was May 2, 1996, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): March 27, 2013. FDA has verified the applicants' claims that the biologics license application (BLA) for MYALEPT (BLA 125-390) was initially submitted on March 27, 2013.

    3. The date the application was approved: February 24, 2014. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125-390 was approved on February 24, 2014.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In the applications for patent extension, the applicants each seek 1,206 days of patent term extension.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22935 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on December 6, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tommy Douglas Conference Center, 10000 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903. The conference center's telephone number is 240-645-4000. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: The committee will discuss appropriate clinical trial design features, including acceptable endpoints for demonstrating clinical benefit, for drugs intended to treat secondary hypogonadism while preserving or improving testicular function, including spermatogenesis.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before November 21, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before November 10, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by November 14, 2016.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: September 20, 2016. Janice M. Soreth, Acting Associate Commissioner, Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22925 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2012-E-1231; FDA-2012-E-1232; and FDA-2012-E-1247] Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BELVIQ AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the regulatory review period for BELVIQ and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

    DATES:

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by November 22, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by March 22, 2017. See “Petitions” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more 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 Nos. FDA-2012-E-1231; FDA-2012-E-1232; and FDA-2012-E-1247, for “Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; BELVIQ.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product, BELVIQ (lorcaserin hydrochloride hemihydrate). BELVIQ is indicated as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adults. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration applications for BELVIQ (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,953,787; 7,514,422; and 7,977,329) from Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated February 13, 2013, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of BELVIQ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

    II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for BELVIQ is 2,928 days. Of this time, 2,009 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 919 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective: June 23, 2004. FDA has verified the Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. claim that June 23, 2004, is the date the investigational new drug application became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December 22, 2009. The applicant claims December 18, 2009, as the date the NDA for BELVIQ was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that NDA 22-529 was submitted on December 22, 2009.

    3. The date the application was approved: June 27, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-529 was approved on June 27, 2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-529 was approved on June 27, 2012.

    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,174 days; 1,051 days; or 352 days of patent term extension, respectively.

    III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period. To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22937 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0881] Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations; 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 “Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations.” On July 9, 2012, the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) was signed into law by the President. GDUFA, designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry, requires that generic drug facilities, sites, and organizations around the world provide identification information annually to FDA. This guidance is intended to assist industry to meet the self-identification requirement. It explains who is required to self-identify, what information must be requested, how the information should be submitted to FDA, and what the penalty is for failure to self-identify.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    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-2012-D-0881 for “Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations.” 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:

    Andrew LeBoeuf, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-0503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations.” The guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same name announced in the Federal Register of August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51811). Compared to the draft guidance, the final guidance clarifies various matters, including that the self-identification requirements have been implemented, and simplifies the instructions for electronic submission of self-identification information. FDA received one comment on the draft guidance, which was considered as the guidance was finalized.

    On July 9, 2012, GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, Title III) was signed into law by the President. GDUFA is designed to speed the delivery of safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry. GDUFA enables FDA to assess user fees to support critical and measurable enhancements to FDA's generic drugs program. GDUFA will also significantly improve global supply chain transparency by requiring owners of facilities producing generic drug products, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), and certain other sites and organizations that support the manufacture or approval of these products to electronically self-identify with FDA and update that information annually.

    Self-identification is required for two purposes. First, it is necessary to determine the universe of facilities required to pay user fees. Second, self-identification is a central component of an effort to promote global supply chain transparency. The information provided through self-identification enables quick, accurate, and reliable surveillance of generic drugs and facilitates inspections and compliance.

    Most facilities that self-identify are required to pay an annual facility user fee. These include facilities manufacturing, or intending to manufacture, API of human generic drugs and/or finished dosage form (FDF) human generic drugs. Other facilities, sites, and organizations must self-identify, but are not required to pay the annual facility user fee. These include facilities that solely manufacture positron emission tomography drugs, or sites and organizations that only perform testing, repackaging, or relabeling operations. Please note that while re-packagers are not required to pay user fees, packagers are, in most cases, FDF manufacturers and subject to facility fees.

    A separate system for the electronic self-identification of generic industry facilities, sites, and organizations was established for GDUFA. Entities required to register and list (under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262)), and those required to self-identify under GDUFA, submit information separately to the respective systems. Each system populates its own database to meet unique requirements and deadlines. The new GDUFA system uses the same platform and technical standards already familiar to manufacturers required to register and list.

    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 “Self-Identification of Generic Drug Facilities, Sites, and Organizations.” 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/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22944 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    This document extends the comment period in the Notice of Tribal Consultation and Urban Confer Sessions on the State of the Great Plains Area Indian Health Service announcement that was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period has been extended to November 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roselyn Tso, Acting Director, Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08E17, Rockville, MD 20857, telephone (301) 443-1104. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    Dated: September 16, 2016. Mary Smith, Principal Deputy Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22922 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Rapid Assessment of Zika Virus (ZIKV) Complications (R21).

    Date: October 18-19, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Review, Officer Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3E61, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5019, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: September 19, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-22899 Filed 9-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Eye Institu