Federal Register Vol. 81, No.196,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 196 (October 11, 2016)

Page Range69999-70318
FR Document

81_FR_196
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 70317 - German-American Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 70315 - Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
81 FR 70311 - Presidential Determination on Foreign Governments' Efforts Regarding Trafficking in PersonsPDF
81 FR 70171 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 70111 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 70136 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 70108 - Water Street Land, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing With the Commission, Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, and Recommendations, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for ProcessingPDF
81 FR 70257 - Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service: Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, CAPDF
81 FR 70191 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 70264 - Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping RequirementsPDF
81 FR 70085 - Notice of October 19, 2016 Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid MeetingPDF
81 FR 70260 - Environmental Impact Statement for the Long Bridge Project in Washington, DCPDF
81 FR 70128 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70139 - Notice of Quarterly Report (October 1, 2013-December 31, 2014)PDF
81 FR 70014 - Update to Product ListsPDF
81 FR 70279 - Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board Amended; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70085 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 70191 - Privacy Act of 1974: Revised System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 70269 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping RequirementsPDF
81 FR 70113 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 450 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure ReportPDF
81 FR 70112 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 201 Ethics in Government Act Access FormPDF
81 FR 70200 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Processing of Transactions in Money Market InstrumentsPDF
81 FR 70018 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Butte County Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
81 FR 70065 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Butte County Air Quality Management DistrictPDF
81 FR 70130 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Temporary Protected Status, Form I-821; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 70110 - 2017 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards ProgramPDF
81 FR 70038 - Mandestrobin; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 70109 - Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee TeleconferencePDF
81 FR 70092 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2015PDF
81 FR 70103 - Announcement of an Open MeetingPDF
81 FR 70091 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2014PDF
81 FR 70229 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application for A, G, or NATO VisaPDF
81 FR 70229 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Adoptive Family Relief Act Refund ApplicationPDF
81 FR 70230 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor ApplicationPDF
81 FR 70278 - Agency Information Collection (Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through the Veterans Choice Program)PDF
81 FR 70247 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Highway Project in Los Angeles County, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 70094 - Executive-Led Power Technologies Trade Mission to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, March 12-16, 2017PDF
81 FR 70088 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request-Assessment of the Barriers That Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) AllotmentsPDF
81 FR 70074 - Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 70013 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VAPDF
81 FR 70108 - Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary PermitPDF
81 FR 70105 - GreenGenStorage LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 70108 - Dynegy Point Estero Wave Park, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary PermitPDF
81 FR 70106 - California American Water, Southern Division; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
81 FR 70107 - Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 70105 - Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P., Sugar River Power LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 70134 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Regarding Cultural Items for the Wiyot Tribe, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 70133 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee Findings and Recommendations Regarding Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects for the Pueblo of Santa Ana, New MexicoPDF
81 FR 70004 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 10PDF
81 FR 70248 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 70090 - Boundary Description and Final Map for Skagit Wild and Scenic River, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, WashingtonPDF
81 FR 70172 - In the Matter of Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2PDF
81 FR 70134 - Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy BoardPDF
81 FR 70130 - John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Draft Maps for Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 70118 - Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 70119 - Sunscreen Innovation Act: Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 70136 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 70190 - Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2PDF
81 FR 70100 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 70101 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public WorkshopPDF
81 FR 70100 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public HearingPDF
81 FR 70251 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 70102 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 70172 - Notice of CorrectionPDF
81 FR 70172 - Withdrawal of NoticePDF
81 FR 70104 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and ProgramsPDF
81 FR 70253 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 70273 - Port Performance Freight Statistics Working GroupPDF
81 FR 70080 - International Fisheries; Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Silky Shark Fishing Restrictions and Fish Aggregating Device Data Collection and IdentificationPDF
81 FR 70171 - Notice of Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 70135 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Toxic Substances Control ActPDF
81 FR 70087 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70111 - Notice of Termination; 10498 AztecAmerica Bank; Berwyn, IllinoisPDF
81 FR 70112 - Notice of Termination; 10492 DuPage National Bank; West Chicago, IllinoisPDF
81 FR 70112 - Notice of Termination; 10490 Bank of Jackson County; Graceville, FloridaPDF
81 FR 70111 - Notice of Termination; 10281 Independent National Bank, Ocala, FloridaPDF
81 FR 70111 - Notice of Termination; 10159 Valley Capital Bank, N.A., Mesa, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 70135 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent DecreePDF
81 FR 70120 - Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 70122 - Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 70256 - Agency Request for Emergency Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and Budget; Railworthiness Directive for Certain Railroad Tank Cars Equipped With Bottom Outlet Valve Assembly and Constructed by American Railcar Industries and ACF IndustriesPDF
81 FR 70210 - Terra Income Fund 6, Inc., et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 70226 - Investment Company Act of 1940; Release No. 32302/October 4, 2016PDF
81 FR 70198 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 22.3, Continuing Options Market Maker Registration, of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 70222 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 70205 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 22.3, Continuing Options Market Maker RegistrationPDF
81 FR 70214 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Adopt Participant Fees on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 70224 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Make Non-Controversial Amendments to Its RulesPDF
81 FR 70216 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules To Implement the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Tick Size Pilot Program and To Describe Related Changes to IEX System FunctionalityPDF
81 FR 70207 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7046PDF
81 FR 70226 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 7.16PPDF
81 FR 70067 - Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Hazardous Materials Grants Requirements (RRR)PDF
81 FR 70273 - Hazardous Materials: Proposed Termination of EX Classification Approval EX1987030326PDF
81 FR 70117 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70260 - Final Notice on Updates to the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and Changes to the National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 70126 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70125 - Office of the Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Biotechnology Activities; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 70128 - National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70125 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 70124 - National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 70126 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70127 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70126 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70097 - Draft 2016 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment ReportsPDF
81 FR 70102 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70089 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70101 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20658PDF
81 FR 70100 - Marine Mammals; File No. 19669PDF
81 FR 70276 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 70274 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant To Executive Order 13288, Executive Order 13391, and Executive Order 13469PDF
81 FR 70275 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
81 FR 70275 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
81 FR 70277 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 70277 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8038, 8038-G, and 8038-GCPDF
81 FR 70275 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 70276 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 70276 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 70115 - Privacy Act of 1974PDF
81 FR 70116 - Privacy Act of 1974, CMS Computer Match No. 2016-14, HHS Computer Match No. 1608PDF
81 FR 70114 - Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70228 - National Small Business Development Center Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 70227 - Florida Disaster #FL-00118PDF
81 FR 70228 - Florida Disaster #FL-00119PDF
81 FR 70231 - Grant Guideline, NoticePDF
81 FR 70029 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 32 for Significant New Alternatives Policy ProgramPDF
81 FR 70066 - Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits RequiredPDF
81 FR 70112 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 70025 - Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits RequiredPDF
81 FR 70064 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel OilPDF
81 FR 70020 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel OilPDF
81 FR 70067 - Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Procurement of Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2016-D006); Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 70090 - High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 70060 - Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations-A Focus on Burden Reduction; Request for Public InputPDF
81 FR 70175 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 70043 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened PlantsPDF
81 FR 70062 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) AirplanesPDF
81 FR 70011 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 70282 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Species Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Digitaria pauciflora (Florida Pineland Crabgrass), and Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (Pineland Sandmat) and Endangered Species Status for Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie-Clover)PDF
81 FR 70065 - Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation PlansPDF
81 FR 70023 - Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation PlansPDF
81 FR 69999 - General Administrative Policy for Non-Assistance Cooperative AgreementsPDF

Issue

81 196 Tuesday, October 11, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: Initial Review Group Committee, 70114-70115 2016-24386 Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, 70085 2016-24525 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 70085-70087 2016-24509 Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service RULES General Administrative Policy for Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreements, 69999-70004 2016-23884 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70087-70088 2016-24440 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70117-70118 2016-24415 Privacy Act; Computer Matching Program, 70115-70117 2016-24387 2016-24388 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA, 70013-70014 2016-24476 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70102 2016-24403 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System PROPOSED RULES Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements: Procurement of Commercial Items; DFARS Case 2016-D006; Extension of Comment Period, 70067 2016-24370 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Meetings: Defense Health Board, 70102-70103 2016-24451
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and Programs, 70104-70105 2016-24448 Meetings: President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans, 70103-70104 2016-24487 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Butte County Air Quality Management District, 70018-70020 2016-24498 District of Columbia; Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil, 70020-70023 2016-24372 Missouri; Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits Required, 70025-70029 2016-24375 Nebraska, 70023-70025 2016-23975 Pesticide Tolerances: Mandestrobin, 70038-70043 2016-24492 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 32 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 70029-70038 2016-24381 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Butte County Air Quality Management District, 70065 2016-24497 District of Columbia; Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil, 70064-70065 2016-24373 Missouri; Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits Required, 70066 2016-24379 Nebraska, 70065-70066 2016-23977 NOTICES Meetings: Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee; Teleconference, 70109-70110 2016-24490 Requests for Nominations: 2017 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program, 70110-70111 2016-24494 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70111 2016-24661 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 70011-70013 2016-24197 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes, 70062-70064 2016-24202 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Meetings: Criminal Justice Information System Advisory Policy Board, 70134-70135 2016-24462 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: AztecAmerica Bank, Berwyn, IL, 70111 2016-24437 Bank of Jackson County, Graceville, FL, 70112 2016-24435 DuPage National Bank, West Chicago, IL, 70112 2016-24436 Independent National Bank, Ocala, FL, 70111 2016-24434 Valley Capital Bank, N.A., Mesa, AZ, 70111-70112 2016-24433 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Water Street Land, LLC, 70108-70109 2016-24604 License Applications: Moriah Hydro Corp., 70107-70108 2016-24471 License Transfer Applications: Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, LP; Sugar River Power LLC, 70105 2016-24470 Preliminary Permit Applications: GreenGenStorage LLC, 70105 2016-24474 Preliminary Permit Withdrawals: Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC, 70108 2016-24475 Dynegy Point Estero Wave Park, LLC, 70108 2016-24473 Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facilities: California American Water, Southern Division, 70106 2016-24472 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Los Angeles County, CA, 70247-70248 2016-24480 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 70248-70256 2016-24447 2016-24452 2016-24465 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Railworthiness Directive for Certain Railroad Tank Cars Equipped with Bottom Outlet Valve Assembly and Constructed by American Railcar Industries and ACF Industries, 70256-70257 2016-24429 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Long Bridge Project, Washington, DC, 70260 2016-24522 San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service: Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, CA, 70257-70260 2016-24597 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 70112 2016-24376 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Uniform System of Accounts and Changes to the National Transit Database Reporting Requirements, 70260-70264 2016-24414 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod) and Removal of Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod); Removal from Federal List, 70043-70059 2016-24249 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Status for Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense (Everglades Bully), Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (Florida Prairie-Clover), et al., 70282-70308 2016-24140 NOTICES John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: Maps for Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 70130-70133 2016-24461 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Guidance: Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use, 70122-70124 2016-24430 Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use, 70120-70122 2016-24431 Sunscreen Innovation Act; Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process, 70118-70119 2016-24460 Sunscreen Innovation Act; Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request, 70119-70120 2016-24459 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assessment of the Barriers that Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Allotments, 70088-70089 2016-24478 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 70274-70275 2016-24398 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70089-70090 2016-24402 Boundary Modifications: Skagit Wild and Scenic River, Mt. Baker, Snoqualmie National Forest, WA, 70090 2016-24464 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, 70113-70114 2016-24502 Modified OGE Form 201 Ethics in Government Act Access Form, 70112-70113 2016-24501 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

PROPOSED RULES Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations, 70060-70061 2016-24344
Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70277 2016-24394 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 70275 2016-24397 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 70277 2016-24395 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 70275 2016-24396 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 70276 2016-24391 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 70276 2016-24399 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 70275-70276 2016-24393 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 70276-70277 2016-24392 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Lined Paper Products from India; Administrative Review, 2014, 70091-70092 2016-24486 High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, 70090-70091 2016-24366 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 70092-70094 2016-24488 Trade Missions: Executive-Led Power Technologies; United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia March 12-16, 2017, 70094-70097 2016-24479 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees, 70135 2016-24432 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 70136 2016-24458 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 70135-70136 2016-24441
Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70136-70138 2016-24638 Millenium Millennium Challenge Corporation NOTICES Quarterly Report (October 1, 2013 - December 31, 2014), 70139-70171 2016-24512 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70171 2016-24442 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70264-70273 2016-24505 2016-24526 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 70126-70130 2016-24406 2016-24407 2016-24513 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 70128 2016-24411 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 70126 2016-24413 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 70125-70126 2016-24410 National Institute of Mental Health, 70124-70125 2016-24409 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 70126-70127 2016-24408 National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, 70125 2016-24412 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-day Finding on a Petition to List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna, 70074-70080 2016-24477 International Fisheries: Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Silky Shark Fishing Restrictions and Fish Aggregating Device Data, 70080-70084 2016-24444 NOTICES Drafts 2016 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, 70097-70099 2016-24404 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 70100 2016-24455 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 70101-70102 2016-24454 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 70100 2016-24453 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 19669, 70100-70101 2016-24400 Marine Mammals; File No. 20658, 70101 2016-24401 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Findings and Recommendations Regarding Cultural Items for the Wiyot Tribe, California, 70134 2016-24468 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects for the Pueblo of Santa Ana, NM, 70133-70134 2016-24467 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70171-70172 2016-24675 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Correction, 70172 2016-24439 2016-24450 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Withdrawal, 70172 2016-24449 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 10, 70004-70011 2016-24466 NOTICES Confirmatory Orders: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 70172-70175 2016-24463 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 70175-70190 2016-24321 License Amendment Applications: Tennessee Valley Authority, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 70190-70191 2016-24456 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70191 2016-24563 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 70191-70197 2016-24507 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Hazardous Materials Grants Requirements, 70067-70074 2016-24418 NOTICES Hazardous Materials: Termination of EX Classification Approval EX1987030326, 70273 2016-24417 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission RULES Product Lists; Update, 70014-70018 2016-24511 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: German-American Day (Proc. 9515), 70317-70318 2016-24744 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2017 (Presidential Determination No. 2016-13 of September 28, 2016), 70315-70316 2016-24736 Trafficking in Persons; Foreign Governments' Efforts Regarding (Presidential Determination No. 2016-12 of September 27, 2016), 70309-70313 2016-24734 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Terra Income Fund 6, Inc., et al., 70210-70214 2016-24428 Exemptions: Advisors Series Trust and Orinda Asset Management, LLC, 70226 2016-24427 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 70205-70207 2016-24424 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 70198-70200 2016-24426 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 70214-70216, 70222-70226 2016-24422 2016-24423 2016-24425 Depository Trust Co., 70200-70205 2016-24499 Investors Exchange LLC, 70216-70222 2016-24421 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 70207-70210 2016-24420 NYSE Arca, Inc., 70226-70227 2016-24419 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Florida, 70227-70228 2016-24383 2016-24384 Meetings: Federal Advisory Committee, 70228-70229 2016-24385 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Adoptive Family Relief Act Refund Application, 70229 2016-24484 Application for A, G, or NATO Visa, 70229-70230 2016-24485 Nonimmigrant Treaty Trader/Investor Application, 70230-70231 2016-24483 State Justice State Justice Institute NOTICES Grant Guidelines, 70231-70247 2016-24382 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

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Meetings: Port Performance Freight Statistics Working Group, 70273-70274 2016-24446
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Temporary Protected Status, 70130 2016-24496 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Expanded Access to Non-VA Care through the Veterans Choice Program, 70278-70279 2016-24482 Meetings: Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board, 70279 2016-24510 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 70282-70308 2016-24140 Part III Presidential Documents, 70309-70313, 70315-70318 2016-24744 2016-24736 2016-24734 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.

81 196 Tuesday, October 11, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service 7 CFR Part 550 RIN-0518-AA06 General Administrative Policy for Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreements AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, (ARS), Research, Education, and Economics (REE), Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends ARS regulations and adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance entitled, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” as the uniform guidance within the REE mission area on the use, award, and administration of non-assistance cooperative agreements awarded pursuant to National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977. It thereby gives regulatory effect to the OMB guidance.

DATES:

This final rule is effective October 11, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kim Hicks, 301-504-1141, or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Section 1424 of the Food Security Act of 1985, Public Law 99-198, amended Section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3318(b)) to authorize the Secretary to use a cooperative agreement as a legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the Secretary and a State cooperative institution, State department of agriculture, college, university, other research or educational institution or organization, Federal or private agency or organization, individual, or any other party, if the Secretary determines (a) the objectives of the agreement will serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in agricultural research, extension, and teaching activities, including statistical reporting; and (b) all parties will contribute resources to the accomplishment of those objectives.

The cooperative agreements authorized by 7 U.S.C. 3318(b) have been determined to be neither procurement nor assistance in nature and, therefore, not subject to the provisions of Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 or the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards codified at 2 CFR part 200. Many of the standards and provisions of the OMB grants management circulars were adopted in whole or in part in 7 CFR part 550. Subparts A through D of Part 550, consisting of sections 550.1 through 550.62, included specific provisions of Federal assistance regulations and cost principles because they embody principles of good management and sound financial stewardship important to all Federal assistance and non-assistance awards.

Although the non-assistance cooperative agreements described in this rule are substantially different than the Federal assistance-type cooperative agreements used by most Federal awarding agencies, as a matter of good business practice REE is amending 7 CFR part 550 to adopt 2 CFR part 200, “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards,” (78 FR 78589) published on December 26, 2013, as supplemented by this part, and to update and streamline the existing REE administrative requirements applicable to non-assistance cooperative agreements. This rulemaking will reduce administrative burden for non-Federal entities receiving Federal funds under non-assistance cooperative agreements while reducing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Accordingly, proper use of these non-assistance cooperative agreements promote and facilitate partnerships between the REE Agency and the Cooperator in support of research, extension, and education projects of mutual benefit to each party.

List of Subjects in Part 550

Agricultural research, Non-assistance, Procedural rules, Research, Science, Technology.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Agriculture, REE, revises 7 CFR part 550 to read as follows:

PART 550—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR NON-ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS Sec. 550.100 Purpose and scope. 550.101 Definitions. 550.102 Applicability. 550.103 Eligibility. 550.104 Competition. 550.105 Duration. 550.106 Mutuality of interest. 550.107 Exceptions. 550.108 Conflicting policies and deviations. 550.109 Formation of non-assistance cooperative agreements. 550.110 Certifications and compliance with statutory and national policy requirements; REE conflict of interest policy. 550.111 Project supervision and responsibilities. 550.112 Administrative supervision. 550.113 Rules of the workplace. 550.114 Availability of funds. 550.115 Payment. 550.116 Prior approvals. 550.117 Program income. 550.118 Peer review. 550.119 Publications and audiovisuals. 550.120 Press releases. 550.121 Advertising. 550.122 Vesting of title. 550.123 Financial reporting. 550.124 Technical and property reporting requirements. Authority:

Section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3318(b)).

§ 550.100 Purpose and scope.

(a) Purpose. This part adopts the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by this part, as REE policies and procedures for non-assistance cooperative agreements executed under the authority of Section 1472(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C 3318(b)). It thereby makes applicable for REE non-assistance cooperative agreements the OMB guidance, as supplemented by this part.

(b) Scope. The REE Agencies subject to this rule include ARS, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Economics Research Service (ERS), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). These agreements are neither procurement nor assistance in nature, and therefore, are not subject to the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977.

§ 550.101 Definitions.

As used in this part:

Agency Principal Investigator means the REE Agency technical representative, acting within the scope of delegated authority, who is responsible for participating with the cooperator in the accomplishment of a non-assistance cooperative agreement's objective(s), and monitoring and evaluating the cooperator's performance (i.e., ARS PI).

Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) means the REE Agency's official with delegated authority to negotiate, award, administer, and terminate non-assistance cooperative agreements.

Award means an executed non-assistance cooperative agreement.

Cooperator means an eligible entity, as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3318(b), who enters into a non-assistance cooperative agreement with a REE Agency to further research, extension, or teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences.

Cooperator resource contributions means a real and substantial contribution of resources (more than nominal), in furtherance of the objective(s) of the award, in order to evoke a partnership such that all parties to the agreement have a true stake in the project.

Funding period means the period of time when Federal funding is available for obligation by the cooperator (start date through end date).

Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement (NACA) means a legal instrument which is neither a procurement contract nor an assistance-type cooperative agreement, that furthers agricultural research, extension, or teaching programs in which the objectives of the agreement serve a mutual interest of the parties in agricultural research, extension, and teaching activities and all parties contribute resources to the accomplishment of those objectives.

Peer Review is a process utilized by REE Agencies to determine if agency sponsored research projects have scientific merit and program relevance; to provide peer input, and make improvements to project design and technical approaches; and to provide insight on how to conduct the highest quality research in support of REE Agency missions and programs.

Principle Investigator (PI) means the individual, designated by the cooperator, responsible for directing and monitoring the performance, the day-to-day activities, and the scientific and technical aspects of the cooperator's portion of a REE funded project. The PI works jointly with the REE Agency PI in the development of project objectives and all other technical and performance related aspects of the program or project. See additional responsibilities of PI in § 550.111 of this part.

REE Agency means the USDA, REE Mission Area agency (ARS, ERS, NASS, or NIFA) that enters into a non-assistance cooperative agreement.

State Cooperative Institution is defined in 7 U.S.C. 3103(18) as institutions designated or receiving funds pursuant to the following eight statutory requirements, as may be amended:

(1) The First Morrill Act—The Land Grant Institutions.

(2) The Second Morrill Act—The 1890 Institutions, including Tuskegee University.

(3) The Hatch Act of March 2, 1887 (24 Stat. 440-442, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 361a-361i)—The State Agricultural Experiment Stations.

(4) The Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 372-374, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 341-349)—The State Extension Services.

(5) The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act; 16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.—Cooperating Forestry Schools.

(6) Public Law 95-113, Section 1430—A college or university having an accredited college of veterinary medicine or a department of veterinary science or animal pathology or similar unit conducting animal health and disease research in a State Agricultural Experiment Station.

(7) Public Law 95-113, Section 1475(b), as added by Public Law 97-98, section 1440—Colleges, universities, and Federal laboratories having a demonstrated capacity in aquaculture research.

(8) Public Law 95-113, section 1480, as added by Public Law 97-98, section 1440—Colleges, universities, and Federal laboratories having a demonstrated capacity of rangeland research.

§ 550.102 Applicability.

This part applies to all REE non-assistance cooperative agreements awarded under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 3318(b).

§ 550.103 Eligibility.

REE Agencies may enter into a non-assistance cooperative agreements with eligible entities to further research, extension, or teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences. Eligible entities are any State agricultural experimental station, State cooperative extension service, any college or university, other research or education institution or organization, Federal or private agency or organization, an individual, or other party, either foreign or domestic.

§ 550.104 Competition.

REE Agencies may enter into non-assistance cooperative agreements, as authorized by this part, without regard to any requirements for competition specified in 2 CFR 200.202 and 200.206. (7 U.S.C. 3318(e)).

§ 550.105 Duration.

REE Agencies may enter into non-assistance cooperative agreements for a period not to exceed five years. (7 U.S.C. 3318(c)).

§ 550.106 Mutuality of interest.

The REE Agency must document all parties' interest in the project. Mutual interest exists when all parties benefit in the same qualitative way from the objectives of the award. If one party to the non-assistance cooperative agreement would independently have an interest in the project, which is shared by the other party, and all parties contribute resources to obtain the end result of the project, mutual interest exists.

§ 550.107 Exceptions.

This part does not apply to:

(a) USDA Federal Financial Assistance agreements subject to 2 CFR parts 400 and 415;

(b) Procurement contracts or other agreements subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AgAR); or

(c) Agreements providing loans or insurance directly to an individual.

§ 550.108 Conflicting policies and deviations.

This part supersedes and takes precedence over any individual REE regulations and directives dealing with executed and administered non-assistance cooperative agreements entered into under the delegated authority of 7 U.S.C. 3318(b). This part may only be superseded, in whole or in part, by a specifically worded Federal statute, regulation, or Executive Order. Deviations from specific provisions of part 550 must be authorized by the USDA-REE-Administrative and Financial Management (AFM)-Financial Management and Agreements Division (FMAD), or any successor organization, based on a documented justification. In the interest of maximum uniformity, exceptions from any requirements of this Part will be permitted only in unusual circumstances. Responsibility for developing, interpreting, and updating this Part is assigned to the USDA-REE-AFM-FMAD, or any successor organization.

§ 550.109 Formation of non-assistance cooperative agreements.

In lieu of 2 CFR 200.201 through 200.204, 200.206, and 200.306, this section establishes project development, resource contributions, indirect cost reimbursement, and tuition remission provisions for non-assistance cooperative agreements.

(a) Project development. REE Agencies provide partial funding to cooperators to support research projects that contribute to REE program objectives and help carry out the REE mission. The project must consist of a project plan and/or statement of work, and a budget as follows:

(1) Project plan. A project plan must be jointly developed by the Agency PI and the cooperator, and be compliant with a REE program requirement. The REE Agency may include program-specific requirements, as applicable. These requirements should be aligned with Agency strategic goals, strategic objectives, or performance goals that are relevant to the program.

(2) Statement of work. A detailed statement of work must be jointly planned, developed, and prepared by the cooperator's PI and the Agency PI to address the objective(s), approach, statement of mutual interest, performance responsibilities (which may include specific performance goals, indicators, milestones, or expected outcomes, such as outputs, or services performed or public impacts of any of these, with an expected timeline for accomplishment), and any mutual agreements.

(3) Budget. The budget is a funding plan that must be jointly developed by the Agency PI and the Cooperator PI. The approved budget must identify the cooperator resource contributions, both direct and indirect, by budget line item. The cooperator must provide a budget justification/narrative.

(b) Resource contributions. Each party must contribute resources towards the successful completion of the non-assistance cooperative agreement.

(1) Agency resource contributions. The Agency's contribution is the Federal share as reflected in the award.

(2) Cooperator resource contributions. The Cooperator's contribution may consist of funds, services, or in-kind contributions, must be no less than 20 percent of the total funding provided by the REE Agency, and cannot fall below 20 percent of the total Federal funding throughout the period of performance. All cooperator contributions must consist of a sufficient amount of itemized direct costs to demonstrate a true stake in the project, as determined by the ADO. All contributions must be documented in the budget and be consistent with the cooperator's institution classification of costs.

(i) Cooperator resource contributions must meet all of the following criteria:

(A) Are verifiable from the Cooperator's records;

(B) Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award;

(C) Are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives;

(D) Are allowable under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E;

(E) Are not paid by the Federal government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to cooperator resource contributions of other Federal programs;

(F) Conform to other provisions of this Part, as applicable.

(ii) Cooperator's share of contributions to the project may include:

(A) Unrecovered indirect costs, including indirect costs of the cooperator's resource contributions. Unrecovered indirect cost means the difference between the amount charged to the award and the amount which could have been charged to the award under the cooperator's approved negotiated indirect cost rate.

(B) Values for cooperator's contributions of services and property, established in accordance with 2 CFR 200.434. If the REE Agency authorizes the cooperator to donate buildings or land for construction/facilities acquisition projects or long term use, the value of the donated property for cooperator contributions must be the lesser of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) or (2) of this section (refer to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(H) of this section for more on the value of donated property):

(1) The value of the remaining life of the property recorded in the cooperator's accounting records at the time of donation.

(2) The current fair market value. However, when there is sufficient justification, the REE Agency may approve the use of the current fair market value of the donated property, even if it exceeds the value described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) of this section at the time of donation.

(C) Volunteer services furnished by third-party professional and technical personnel, consultants, and other skilled and unskilled labor, if the service is an integral and necessary part of an approved project or program. Rates for third-party volunteer services must be consistent with those paid for similar work by the cooperator. In those instances in which the required skills are not found in the cooperator, rates must be consistent with those paid for similar work in the labor market in which the cooperator competes for the kind of services involved. In either case, paid fringe benefits that are reasonable, necessary, allocable, and otherwise allowable may be included in the valuation. (Refer to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(H) of this section for more on third-party in-kind contributions.)

(D) Donated employee services furnished by third-party organization. These services must be valued at the employee's regular rate of pay plus an amount of fringe benefits that is reasonable, necessary, allocable, and otherwise allowable, and indirect costs at either the third-party organization's approved federally negotiated indirect cost rate, or, a rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(d), provided these services employ the same skill(s) for which the employee is normally paid. Where donated services are treated as indirect costs, indirect cost rates will separate the value of the donated services so that reimbursement for the donated services will not be made. (Refer to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(H) of this section for more on third-party in-kind contributions.)

(E) Donated property from third parties, which may include such items as office supplies, laboratory supplies, or workshop and classroom supplies. Value assessed to donated property included in the cooperator contributions must not exceed the fair market value of the property at the time of the donation. (Refer to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(H) in this section for more on third-party in-kind contributions.)

(F) Third-party-donated equipment, buildings and land. The method used for determining cooperator contributions for which title passes to the cooperator may differ according to the purpose of the Award, if paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F)(1) or (2) of this section apply:

(1) If the purpose of the Federal award is to assist the non-Federal entity in the acquisition of equipment, buildings or land, the aggregate value of the donated property may be claimed as cooperator resource contributions.

(2) If the purpose of the Award is to support activities that require the use of equipment, buildings or land, normally only depreciation charges for equipment and buildings may be made. However, the fair market value of equipment or other capital assets and fair rental charges for land may be allowed, provided that the REE Agency has approved the charges. See also 2 CFR 200.420.

(G) The value of donated property must be determined in accordance with the usual accounting policies of the cooperator, with the following qualifications:

(1) The value of donated land and buildings must not exceed its fair market value at the time of donation to the Cooperator as established by an independent appraiser (e.g., certified real property appraiser or General Services Administration representative) and certified by a responsible official of the cooperator as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655) (Uniform Act) except as provided in the implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24.

(2) The value of donated equipment must not exceed the fair market value of equipment of the same age and condition at the time of donation.

(3) The value of donated space must not exceed the fair rental value of comparable space as established by an independent appraisal of comparable space and facilities in a privately-owned building in the same locality.

(4) The value of loaned equipment must not exceed its fair rental value.

(H) For third-party in-kind contributions, the fair market value of these goods and services must be documented and to the extent feasible supported by the same methods used internally by the cooperator.

(c) Indirect costs and tuition remission—(1) Reimbursement of indirect costs. Reimbursement of indirect costs is either prohibited or limited as further described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, and the limit is identified on the approved budget, when applicable.

(i) State cooperative institutions. Payment of indirect costs to State cooperative institutions in connection with a non-assistance cooperative agreement is prohibited, as described in 7 U.S.C. 3319. This prohibition does not apply to funds for international agricultural programs conducted by a State cooperative institution and administered by the Secretary, or to funds provided by a Federal agency for such cooperative program or project through a fund transfer, advance, or reimbursement.

(ii) Non-profit organizations. Payment of indirect costs to non-profit organizations in connection with a non-assistance cooperative agreement is limited to 10 percent of the total direct cost of the Award. (Annual Appropriations Bill for Agriculture and Related agencies, General Provisions.)

(iii) All other cooperating entities. With the exception of paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, payment of indirect costs is allowable in connection with a non-assistance cooperative agreement. Reimbursement of indirect costs is limited to the percentage(s) established in the cooperator's approved negotiated indirect cost rate or, if applicable, the de minimis indirect cost rate.

(2) Tuition remission. Reimbursement of tuition expenses to State cooperative institutions in connection with non-assistance cooperative agreements is prohibited. (7 U.S.C. 3319)

(d) Terms and conditions. The Agency may impose award-specific terms and conditions or require additional assurances when appropriate.

§ 550.110 Certifications and compliance with statutory and national policy requirements; REE conflict of interest policy.

(a) Federal statutory and national policy requirements. The Cooperator must adhere to and comply with, all statutory and national policy requirements of the Federal Government. All signed certifications and assurances must be received by the REE Agency prior to execution of the award.

(b) REE conflict of interest policy. (1) The Cooperator must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the REE awarding agency, prior to award, and when a potential conflict arises during NACA period of performance.

(2) The Cooperator must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the performance of their employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts, and any subawards.

§ 550.111 Project supervision and responsibilities.

(a) The Cooperator is responsible and accountable for the performance and conduct of all its employees assigned to the project. REE Agencies do not have authority to supervise cooperator employees nor engage in the employer/employee relationship.

(b) The Cooperator PI must:

(1) Work jointly with the Agency PI on developing the project statement of work and budget;

(2) Assure that technical project performance and financial status reports are timely submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award;

(3) Advise the Agency PI of any issues that may affect the timely completion of the project (award);

(4) Assure that appropriate acknowledgements of support are included in all publications and audiovisuals, in accordance with § 550.119 of this part;

(5) Assure that inventions are appropriately reported, in accordance with § 550.124 of this part;

(6) Upon request, provide the Agency a project plan for use during external peer reviews; and

(7) When appropriate, work with the Agency PI to prepare findings for peer-reviewed publication in scientific journals, and make presentations/talks to shareholders, etc.

§ 550.112 Administrative supervision.

The Cooperator is responsible for employer/employee relations such as personnel, performance, and time management issues. The Cooperator is solely responsible for the administrative supervision of its employees, even when its employees are working in Agency facilities.

§ 550.113 Rules of the workplace.

Cooperator employees, while engaged in work at REE facilities, will abide by the Agency's standard operating procedures with regard to the maintenance of laboratory notebooks, dissemination of information, equipment operation standards, facility access, hours of work, Federal agency required training, and the Rules and Regulations Governing Conduct on Federal Property (41 CFR part 102-74, subpart C). Cooperator employees will also undergo any background investigations/clearances, and submit to any health monitoring medical surveillance requirements associated with the REE facility where they will work.

§ 550.114 Availability of funds.

Unless otherwise stated in the agreement, the funding period will begin on the start date of the period of performance specified on the Award Face Sheet.

§ 550.115 Payment.

Reimbursement is the standard method of payment for non-assistance cooperative agreements. All payments to the Cooperator will be made in U.S. dollars by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), utilizing the Cooperator's DUNS number and current SAM registration information. The method of payment will be identified on the Award Face Sheet and includes:

(a) Electronic payment system. The Agency-accepted electronic payment system is the default method of payment.

(b) EFT/Treasury Check. When the payment method identified on the Award Face Sheet is “EFT/Treasury Check,” the Cooperator must submit invoices to the Agency on the OMB-approved SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.” In addition to the SF-270, the Cooperator must provide:

(1) Total dollar amount requested for reimbursement itemized by approved budget categories, including the indirect cost rate for the award, when applicable.

(2) Name, phone number, email address, and the Cooperator's financial contact, should the ADO or Agency PI have any invoice questions.

§ 550.116 Prior approvals.

(a) Approval. With regard to 2 CFR 200.308(d)(4), prior documented approval from the REE Agency ADO is required for all prior approval requirements described in paragraph 2 CFR 200.308(d)(2).

(b) No cost extensions. With regard to 2 CFR 200.308(d)(2), all time extensions will only be approved by an amendment to the award. The Cooperator shall prepare and submit a written request to the ADO (which must be received no later than 10 days prior to the expiration date of the award). The request must contain, at a minimum, the following information:

(1) The length of additional time required to complete project objectives and a justification for the extension;

(2) A summary of progress to date (a copy of the most recent progress report is acceptable provided the information is current); and,

(3) Signature of the Authorized Representative and the Principal Investigator requesting the extension. Any request received by the ADO that does not meet this requirement will be returned for the necessary signature(s).

(c) Budget revisions. Budget revisions among direct cost categories or programs, functions, and activities for awards in which the Federal share of the project exceeds the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and the cumulative amount of such transfers exceeds or is expected to exceed 10 percent of the total budget as last approved by the REE Agency requires prior documented approval.

(d) Advertising. See § 550.121 of this part.

§ 550.117 Program income.

(a) Use of program income. (1) Program income earned must be added to the non-assistance cooperative agreement, unless otherwise specified in the award.

(2) When specified in the award, program income can be used towards fulfilling the cooperator's resource contributions for the same award.

(b) Disclosing program income. The Cooperator must disclose program income in financial reports. Refer to § 550.123 of this part.

(c) Program income closeout. The REE Agency and the Cooperator will negotiate appropriate uses of income earned balances, after the period of performance, as part of the agreement closeout process.

§ 550.118 Peer review.

Upon request of the REE Agency, Cooperators may be required to provide documentation in support of peer review activities, and Cooperator's personnel may be requested to participate in peer review forums to assist the REE Agency with their reviews.

§ 550.119 Publications and audiovisuals.

In addition to 2 CFR 415.2, “Acknowledgement of USDA Support on Publications and Audiovisuals,” the Cooperator must adhere to the following:

(a) The REE Agency acknowledgment of support must read: “This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Agriculture, (type Agency name) under Agreement No. (type the Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) here).”

(b) All material described in 2 CFR 415.2 must also contain the following disclaimer unless the publication or audiovisual is formally cleared by the REE Agency: “Any opinions, findings, conclusion, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Department of Agriculture.”

(c) Any public or technical information related to work carried out under a non-assistance cooperative agreement must be submitted by the developing party to the other for advice and comment. Information released to the public must describe the contributions of both parties to the work effort. In the event of a dispute, a separate publication or audiovisual may be made with effective statements of acknowledgment and disclaimer.

(d) The Cooperator must submit to the Agency PI copies of all final publications and audiovisuals resulting from the research conducted under the non-assistance cooperative agreement.

(e) REE Agencies and the Federal Government shall enjoy a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, for Federal purposes any materials developed in conjunction with a non-assistance cooperative agreement or contract under such a cooperative agreement.

§ 550.120 Press releases.

Press releases or other forms of public notification for a broad public audience will be submitted to the REE Agency for review, prior to release to the public. The REE Agency will be given the opportunity to review, in advance, all written press releases and any other written information (including web content postings) to be released to the public by the Cooperator, and require changes as deemed necessary, if the material mentions by name the REE Agency, or the USDA, or any REE or USDA employee or research unit or location.

§ 550.121 Advertising.

The Cooperator will not refer in any manner to the USDA or any REE Agency in connection with the use of the results of the award, without prior specific written authorization by the REE Agency. Information obtained as a result of the award will be made available to the public in printed or other forms by the REE Agency at its discretion. The Cooperator will be given due credit for its cooperation in the project. Prior approval is required.

§ 550.122 Vesting of title.

Title to equipment and supplies and other tangible personal property will vest in the Cooperator as described in 2 CFR 200.313 and 200.314, unless otherwise specified in the award. (7 U.S.C. 3318(d))

§ 550.123 Financial reporting.

The Cooperator must submit financial reports at the interval required by the REE Agency, as identified on the Award Face Sheet, and may submit financial reports to the ADO electronically (refer to 2 CFR 200.335 Methods for collection, transmission, and storage of information).

(a) The OMB-approved SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” may be used to report the financial status of an award; however, a financial report must contain an itemization of actual dollar amounts expended on the project during the reporting period (in line with the approved budget), and cumulative totals expended for each budget category from the start date of the award.

(b) Financial reporting due dates:

(1) Quarterly and semi-annual reports are due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period.

(2) Annual reports are due no later than 90 days following the end of the award anniversary date (i.e., one year following the month and day when the period of performance begins, and each year thereafter up until a final report is required).

(c) Final financial report:

(1) Requests for extensions must be submitted to the ADO.

(2) Regardless of Agency-provided extensions for submission of the final financial report, funds will not be available for any drawdowns/payments that exceed statutory limits, as well as any expiring appropriations.

§ 550.124 Technical and property reporting requirements.

(a) Technical performance report. The Cooperator must submit technical performance reports at the interval required by the REE Agency, as identified on the Award Face Sheet, and may submit performance reports to the REE Agency electronically.

(1) The performance report must follow the format of the Government wide Research Performance Progress Report, and must include the information described in 2 CFR 200.328(b)(2)(i) through (iii). (2) The final performance report covers the entire period of performance of the award, and must describe progress made during the entire timeframe of the project.

(b) Intellectual property reporting. Reporting intellectual property resulting from a REE Agency award will be carried out through Interagency Edison (iEdison). The non-Federal entity must submit Invention Reports and Utilization Reports, including other relevant reports, at the iEdison web interface: www.iedison.gov.

(c) Tangible personal property report. Upon termination or expiration of the award, the non-Federal entity must identify personal property/equipment purchased with any Federal funds under the award on the OMB-approved SF-428, “Tangible Personal Property Report and Instructions.”

Dated: September 23, 2016. Catherine Woteki, Chief Scientist, USDA, Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 2016-23884 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2015-0270] RIN 3150-AJ71 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Cask System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 10 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; comment responses.

SUMMARY:

On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) confirmed the effective date of May 31, 2016, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2016. The direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 10 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1014. The NRC confirmed the effective date because it determined that none of the comments submitted on the direct final rule met any of the criteria for a significant adverse comment. The purpose of this document is to provide responses to the comments received on the direct final rule.

DATES:

The comment responses are available on October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0270 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0270. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert MacDougall, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5175; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13265), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in § 72.214 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the Holtec HI-STORM 100 Cask System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. Amendment No. 10 adds new fuel classes to the contents approved for the loading of 16 × 16 class fuel assemblies into a HI-STORM 100 Cask System; allows a minor increase in manganese in an alloy material for the system's overpack and transfer cask; clarifies the minimum water displacement required of a dummy fuel rod (i.e., a rod not filled with uranium pellets); and clarifies the design pressures needed for normal operation of forced helium drying systems. Additionally, Amendment No. 10 revises Condition No. 9 of CoC No. 1014 to provide clearer direction on the measurement of air velocity and modeling of heat distribution through the storage system.

The NRC received four comment submissions with 22 individual comments on the companion proposed rule (81 FR 13295; March 14, 2016). Electronic copies of these comments can be obtained from the Federal Rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov, by searching for Docket ID NRC-2015-0270. The comments are also available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16105A426, ML16105A425, ML16105A424, and ML16105A423. As explained in the March 14, 2016, direct final rule, the NRC would withdraw the direct final rule only if it received a “significant adverse comment.” This is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or Technical Specifications (TSs).

The NRC determined that none of the comments submitted on the direct final rule met any of these criteria and confirmed the effective date of May 31, 2016, for the direct final rule on May 31, 2016 (81 FR 34241). The comments either were already addressed by the NRC staff's preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15331A309) for this rulemaking, were beyond the scope of this rulemaking, or were already addressed in a previous rulemaking. The NRC did not make any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public comments. However, in Section II, “Public Comment Analysis,” of this document, the NRC is taking this opportunity to respond to the comments in an effort to clarify information about the 10 CFR part 72 CoC rulemaking process.

II. Public Comment Analysis

For rulemakings amending or revising a CoC, the scope of the rulemaking is limited to the specific changes in the applicant's request for the amendment or amendment revision. Therefore, comments about the system or spent fuel storage in general that are not applicable to the changes requested are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comments about details of the particular system subject to the rulemaking that do not address the rulemaking's specific proposed changes have already been resolved in prior rulemakings. Persons who have concerns about prior rulemakings and the resulting final rules may consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This Web page provides information on how to notify the NRC of emergency or non-emergency issues.

The following paragraphs summarize each individual comment followed by the NRC response.

Comment 1: Noting that this is Holtec's tenth request to amend CoC No. 1014 for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System, one commenter stated that many people find this pattern disturbing. The nine earlier amendments and revisions to CoC No. 1014 suggest that Holtec's overall performance in achieving technical accuracy has been poor, not only in the originally-submitted TSs and quality assurance (QA) for this cask, but in the nine subsequent amendments and revisions that the NRC has approved. Because this is Holtec's tenth amendment, this commenter asserted that Holtec has failed to address the full range of the cask's technical deficiencies comprehensively, and appears instead to have applied the needed QA only in incremental steps.

NRC Response: This comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The NRC is providing a specific response, however, to clarify the NRC's process for issuing and amending CoCs for dry storage system (DSS) casks.

When the NRC first approves a CoC for a particular storage cask design, the CoC is based on a postulated generic spent fuel design using a composite of fuel characteristics and engineered features of the DSS. Important fuel characteristics include the level of the uranium enrichment in the fuel pellets and their burnup time in the reactor. Fuel assembly variables include the composition of the alloys used in the fuel cladding and assembly hardware; the diameter, number, and length of the fuel rods; and the spacing between them. These fuel characteristics and assembly design variables affect the overall heat load that the cask and multipurpose canister (MPC) holding the fuel assemblies inside the cask must be able to withstand, with a conservative margin of safety, to maintain their integrity for long-term storage under normal, off-normal, and accident conditions. The residual heat and level of uranium burnup in the spent fuel, and the spacing of the fuel in the assemblies, in turn affect the number of fuel assemblies that can be loaded into the MPC, which must have internal components tailored to maintain the configuration of the fuel in the canister. Burnup also affects the composition and physical configuration of the neutron-absorbing materials arranged around the assemblies within the MPC. Each of these considerations must be evaluated with each fuel design to ensure the long-term performance of the overall cask system with an adequate margin of safety.

Fuel and fuel assembly designs have evolved since each storage cask design was originally certified by the NRC. Contemporary fuel assembly designs now differ in several important respects from the generic designs postulated for the casks' original CoCs. To save costs and reduce worker exposures to radiation, for example, many contemporary assembly designs are optimized for fuel with higher enrichment levels to stay in the reactor's core to “burn,” or fission, a larger fraction of uranium for a longer period. This produces fewer spent fuel assemblies per unit of power generated. It also stretches out the time between re-fuelings, when workers need to remove the reactor's head to load new fuel assemblies, off-load used ones, and rearrange partially-burned assemblies to maintain the efficiency of the overall fuel burnup within the reactor core. To accommodate the changes in fuel enrichment, fuel cladding materials, and fuel assembly materials and configurations, a similar evolution is continuing in MPC componentry, including neutron-absorbing alloys and other materials, so that casks can safely accept evolving fuel designs.

Therefore, the nine amendments to CoC No. 1014, like amendments to other CoCs, each represent an NRC safety finding about the vendor's analysis of proposed measures to adapt the cask to a new fuel design for long-term storage. The nine amendments, and the tenth issued in May 2016, are not the product of trial and error, nor of the incremental application of QA, which must be applied in a safety-graded fashion to all aspects of cask design, fabrication, loading, and deployment.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 2: One commenter asserted that in the absence of actual evidence from operational experience or testing, using computer models to estimate a system's behavior or performance has produced “extreme failures” and “major departures between [the computer model's] predictions and [the system's] actual performance.” These departures, the commenter stated, resulted in a January 2012, radiation release at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station's (SONGS) Unit 2 that eventually led to its premature retirement.

NRC Response: This comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The commenter does not identify an issue related to any of the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. Instead, this comment is about a reactor licensee's computer models for the performance of a reactor system, not the cask vendor's models for the performance of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System at issue in this rulemaking. Different types of computer models are typically validated using different methods. The NRC uses industry accepted practices to evaluate an applicant's computational modeling software for storage casks in accordance with Interim Staff Guidance SFST-ISG-21, “Use of Computational Modeling Software” (ADAMS Accession No. ML061080669). Because Amendment No. 10 does not involve computational modeling for reactor systems, the comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking.

As the commenter pointed out, there was a radiation release to the environment at SONGS in January 2012. This comment too is about an issue beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The commenter can obtain more information about the release, which was well below allowable limits, in Southern California Edison's (SCE) report to the NRC on the incident (ADAMS Accession No. ML12090A153), and a report by the NRC Office of the Inspector General (ADAMS Accession No. ML14276A478).

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 3: One commenter stated that the proposed CoC amendment pertains to the same or similar Holtec cask as that to be installed at SONGS, and southern California stakeholders are “extremely disappointed” that SONGS' licensee, SCE, has chosen Holtec's 5/8″ thin metal cask over 14″-to-20″ thick casks that the commenter stated can be inspected in real time to monitor the condition of the spent fuel and measure the depth of stress corrosion cracking.

NRC Response: This comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The commenter does not identify an issue related to any of the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014, and this rulemaking does not concern SCE's choice of cask products. In addition, the NRC has not approved any spent fuel dry storage cask design that permits the continuous real time inspection or monitoring of the condition of the fuel in the cask, or the continuous or periodic direct measurement of the extent or depth of stress corrosion cracking. Such inspection, monitoring, and measurement cannot be accomplished without the additional worker radiation exposures that would be necessary to open the cask overpack and canister. The NRC's regulation at 10 CFR 20.1101(b), however, requires radiation doses to workers and members of the public to be as low as is reasonably achievable. This makes such additional exposures to open casks and overpacks difficult to justify in light of the very slow rates of degradation in the cask system and its contents that have been measured under realistic conditions in a laboratory.

The commenter's description of Holtec's product as a “5/8″ thin metal cask,” however, compels a response for clarification purposes. The comment appears to conflate the MPC, which is not a cask, with the entirety of the HI-STORM dry cask storage system. The HI-STORM 100 MPC, which has 1/2″ thick stainless steel walls, holds the spent fuel assemblies and their hardware within an overpack. The overpack consists of outer and inner steel walls with the annulus between them filled with concrete. The overpack, with 291/2″ thick concrete and steel walls, provides radiation shielding and mass for stability against such natural phenomena as winds, floods, and earthquakes. The MPC, an internal component of the cask system, is not directly exposed to these outside phenomena.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 4: One commenter stated that the NRC has “mostly `dismissed' multiple credible public safety concerns.” The commenter also noted that SCE's “Community Engagement Panel” has failed to function as an independent advisory panel of experts, and instead “functions more as a promotional extension of [SCE's] marketing and media platforms.”

NRC Response: These comments are not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The commenter did not identify any of the “multiple credible public safety concerns” that the NRC is said to have dismissed. Nor did the commenter explain how any of these concerns pertain to any specific revision proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment 5: One commenter asserted that many stakeholders believe that the NRC has allowed “a utility to improperly apply credit for performing an `educational' function” that has involved, among other things, “extensive private meetings with elected officials in adjacent communities in San Diego and Orange County.”

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. In addition, the NRC's safety-focused mission does not include authority to allow or prohibit a licensee from engaging in public relations activities, which do not directly relate to the design, fabrication, configuration, loading, or deployment of the dry cask storage system at issue here.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 6: A commenter stated that many stakeholders are asserting that SONGS licensee, SCE, “consistently underestimates” the actual extent of potential public safety risks associated with its decommissioning plan.

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The SCE's decommissioning plan does not pertain to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014; nor does the comment identify any specific potential public safety risks pertinent to the other purposes of this amendment.

The NRC has a safety hotline that members of the public can use to report any identified public safety risk, such as may be associated with any decommissioning action. The hotline number is 1-800-695-7403. Note that a call during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time) will automatically be directed to the NRC Regional Office for the caller's geographical area. If the call is placed after normal business hours, or can't be answered by the Regional Office during its normal business hours, the call will be directed to the NRC's Headquarters Operations Center, which is staffed 24 hours a day and has a recorded telephone line.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 7: A commenter stated that the licensee expecting to acquire the Holtec casks subject to Amendment No. 10 for spent fuel storage at SONGS has “severely overestimated performance capabilities of equipment, components and parts, defense in depth, operator training, emergency response capability, system reliability, cost containment, and technical capability to safely implement Aging Management Programs.”

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. As noted in the response to Comment 6, the NRC has a safety hotline that members of the public can use to report any identified public safety risk.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 8: Noting the “large inventory” of high-burnup fuel (HBF) in storage at SONGS, a commenter stated that stakeholders have “extreme safety concerns” about the accuracy of the predicted service life of the Holtec underground maximum capacity (UMAX) casks containing HBF, which typically has higher heat loads and radiation levels. Among these concerns, the commenter explained, are “thermal tolerance variability, measurement of air velocity, modeling of heat load distribution, performance capability and integrity of fuel cladding.”

This commenter also stated that with the applicant's proposed changes in the composition of alloy material in MPC componentry, stakeholders have concerns about the accuracy of predicted helium pressure limits for the MPC in underground installations where closed loop forced helium dehydration (FHD) is mandatory for drying MPCs with one or more HBF assemblies or a higher heat load.

NRC Response: The comment about HBF storage at SONGS is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. None of these revisions included a change in spent fuel burnup specifications. The comment is about the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage system, which was authorized generically for underground emplacement under CoC No. 1040 and approved on March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073). The SONGS will be utilizing cask systems specified by Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1040, not Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014.

The commenter also expressed concerns about the accuracy of predicted helium pressure limits for the MPC where closed loop forced FHD is mandatory for drying MPCs with one or more HBF assemblies or a higher heat load. The comment does not explain the basis for the commenter's concern about the predicted pressure limit for drying. This limit was established to provide an ample safety margin against both inadequate pressure for thorough drying and excessive pressure that could result in damage to the spent fuel or other hardware. To maintain this margin, helium pressure limits are controlled during FHD operations at all times. During FHD drying, the MPC's inlet (drain port) and exit (vent port) each have calibrated pressure-indicating devices that show inlet and outlet pressure during drying operations. Trained operators use the helium regulator in accordance with the site's procedures to ensure that the 75-psi limit is not exceeded.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 9: One stakeholder stated that despite Holtec's unproven assurances about the performance capabilities of its casks, a 2015 Sandia National Laboratory report contained evidence that similar thin-metal casks had through-wall cracks in only 5 years.

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The Sandia National Laboratory report referred to by the commenter was for a set of design specifications for a Standardized Transportation, Aging, and Disposal (STAD) canister for eventual emplacement in a geologic repository (ADAMS Accession No. ML16132A321). The NRC could find nothing in this report to support the commenter's assertion that it “contained evidence that similar thin metal casks had through-wall cracks in only 5 years.”

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 10: As evidence that Holtec casks are “an inferior choice” for spent fuel storage, one commenter, speaking for “stakeholders in California,” referred the NRC to the Web site “sanonofresafety.org.”

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014 and does not concern SCE's choice of cask products. Beyond the issue of SCE's choice, if the commenter has concerns about prior spent fuel storage cask rulemakings, or other issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking that make Holtec casks “an inferior choice,” the commenter may consider the NRC's process for petitions for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Additionally, safety concerns about any NRC-regulated activity may be reported to the NRC in accordance with the guidance posted on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/allegations/safety-concern.html. This Web page provides information on how to notify the NRC of emergency or non-emergency issues.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 11: One commenter criticized the NRC for giving in to Holtec's corporate lawyers and failing to hold the company responsible for “creating inadequate safety measures within this [cask] design.” The commenter exhorted the NRC to “stop paying for fraud” and force Holtec to “spend [its] own treasure . . ., not tax dollars,” to fix the problem.

NRC Response: This comment does not provide sufficient information to identify the “inadequate safety measures” in the Holtec cask's design that the commenter has in mind. With respect to the concern regarding payment for the NRC's review and oversight, these functions are not performed at taxpayers' expense. The vendor, in this case Holtec, pays for the NRC's evaluation of the application, as the NRC bills the vendor for the review.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 12: A commenter expressed concern that in permitting a cask system to accept additional classes of spent fuel, the NRC does not decrease the ability of these storage systems to contain the fuel under adverse conditions. The commenter wanted to know whether current requirements for the durability of spent fuel storage systems are sufficient to contain these additional fuels, whatever they may be, in the event of a disaster.

NRC Response: The general issue of the durability of spent fuel storage systems to contain additional types of spent fuel in the event of a disaster is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The NRC is addressing the commenter's concern, however, for educational and clarification purposes.

The NRC addressed a similar comment about the ability of HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage Systems to withstand seismic events during the CoC No. 1040 certification rulemaking. It should be noted that the certification provided by approval of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System does not, in and of itself, authorize the use of this system at any specific site. Under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), before applying the changes authorized by an amended CoC and loading a cask, a general licensee wishing to use this cask system must perform written evaluations in accordance with 10 CFR 72.212 to establish, among other things, that:

• Cask storage pads and areas have been designed to adequately support the static and dynamic loads of the stored casks, considering potential amplification of earthquakes through soil-structure interaction, and soil liquefaction potential or other soil instability due to vibratory ground motion; and

• The independent spent fuel storage installation at the reactor site where the casks will be located will meet the requirements of 10 CFR 72.104 to ensure that radiation doses beyond the reactor's controlled area do not exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid, and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ, and are further controlled to a level as low as is reasonably achievable.

The seismic design levels of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental United States. For locations with potential for seismic activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional NRC evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations.

Similarly, although the design levels of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC for flooding are also acceptable for most areas in the continental United States—again depending on site-specific analyses—the NRC staff previously evaluated the impacts of flooding during the review of the initial certification for the HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) System. In its March 28, 2011, SER for the initial certification of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System (see Sections 4.8.2 and 7.3.1 of ADAMS Accession No. ML103020151), the NRC staff considered both full and partial flooding for both the vertical and horizontal positions for the MPC. The NRC staff found that the fully flooded condition would produce the highest reactivity in the spent fuel, and that the fully flooded model for safety evaluations “is acceptable and applicable to all of the assembly configurations that are to be stored in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage system,” including damaged fuel configurations. In its March 28, 2011, SER, the NRC staff also noted the system's design measures to limit the rise in fuel cladding temperature under the most adverse flood event (one with a water level just high enough to block the MPC overpack's air convection inlet duct). The changes requested in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014 do not affect the NRC's prior flooding evaluation for the initial certification of this system.

In addition, under 10 CFR 72.212(b)(6), before using the general license, the reactor licensee must review the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) referenced in the CoC or amended CoC and the NRC's SER evaluating the SAR to determine whether the reactor site parameters, including analyses of earthquake intensity, tornado missiles, and flooding, are enveloped by the cask design bases considered in these reports. Like those for seismic activity, the flooding and tornado missile design levels of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC are acceptable for most areas in the continental United States. For locations with potential for flooding or tornado activity beyond those analyzed for this system, additional NRC evaluations and certifications may be required before the system may be used in those locations.

Therefore, the ability of a particular cask system to protect additional spent fuel types against postulated natural disasters is required to be subject to rigorous analyses, both generic and site-specific, before the fuel can be loaded at any given site. If the design basis of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10, cannot be shown to envelop a particular site's parameters, Holtec or another vendor would need to obtain NRC certification for another system meeting the design specifications of the subject spent fuel before it could be loaded for dry storage.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 13: One commenter suggested that the NRC was in collusion with the licensee and cited an email exchange between the licensee and a member of the NRC staff as evidence of such collusion.

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with the comment. In its capacity as a regulator, the NRC regularly engages in discussions with licensees and applicants to facilitate a mutual understanding of the need for any licensing action, as well as the scope and intent of the licensing action. The NRC strives to make as much information as possible, including these interactions, publicly available whenever possible except where legal obligations dictate otherwise, such as for proprietary or security-related sensitive information. (see NRC Management Directive 3.4, “Release of Information to the Public” (ADAMS Accession No. ML080310417)). The email exchange cited by the commenter, which is a publicly available document in ADAMS, is one such example of this type of discussion. The NRC grounds its licensing actions on thorough and documented reviews of technical documents that enable the NRC to reach findings that public health and safety, as well as the common defense and security, will be adequately protected.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 14: One commenter objected to the use of a newer American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code standard for the manganese content in a carbon steel alloy used in some components of the cask system and one commenter asserted that at the 1.5 percent manganese content in the proposed standard, the steel becomes brittle. Furthermore, the commenter contended, these standards are not specific to the nuclear industry, and cannot compensate for poor design. Therefore, the alloy formula must be tested and specific for this particular design and nuclear spent fuel use.

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments, and has provided its detailed assessment in the preliminary SER for Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15331A309). The minor change in manganese and carbon content of the proposed alloy has been endorsed by the ASME. This endorsement provides a high level of confidence in the quality and safety of the material for nuclear as well as non-nuclear applications. Any change in an ASME standard must be documented by rigorous testing under carefully controlled conditions. Based on this extensive and peer-reviewed testing, the fact that there is no change to the properties used in the original technical basis for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC, and the fact that none of the safety analyses for this CoC are affected by the minor change in manganese content, the NRC believes that further testing for this specific application is unnecessary.

The proposed increase in manganese content from 1.2 percent to 1.5 percent maintains, if not improves, the toughness properties of the SA-516 Grade 70 steel used in the HI-STORM 100 Cask System overpack. The NRC's preliminary SER for Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014 analyzed this proposed amendment and related Holtec documents and found that there is no change to the material strength, material density, or thermal properties of the SA-516 alloy steel, as indicated in the ASME 2007 and 2010 codes. In order to use the alloy approved in the updated 2007-2010 ASME codes, Holtec was required to request an amendment to use these codes for this alloy because the original HI-STORM 100 Cask System CoC references only the 1995-1997 ASME codes.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 15: A commenter stated that concrete temperature should be properly measured on a continuous basis. The same commenter also stated that each cask should be tested due to possible defects or damage during loading, as well as differences in the types and ages of spent fuel. Because conditions change over time, monitoring should be constant.

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The NRC agrees that concrete temperatures are important and should be properly measured, but disagrees that continuous measurement of these temperatures and constant monitoring are needed. Continuous measurement and constant monitoring of temperatures are unnecessary in an operating environment of very gradual temperature changes. Revision 1 of NUREG-1536, “Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility” (ADAMS Accession No. ML101040620), notes that for storage systems with internal air flow passages, the NRC has accepted periodic visual inspection of vents coupled with temperature measurements to verify proper thermal performance and detect flow blockages. The inspections are to take place within an interval that will allow sufficient time for corrective actions to be taken before the limiting accident temperature for spent fuel cladding is reached. The inspection interval should be more frequent than the time interval required for the fuel to heat up to the established accident temperature criteria, assuming a total blockage of all inlets and outlets.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 16: A commenter contended that all airflow and temperature measurements should be made “constantly . . . not one time only,” and performed “on intake and output and within the annulus and with an up to date measurement device and not an antiquated anemometer.”

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The NRC evaluated the proposed conditions for airflow and temperature measurements in its final SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML003711865) for the initial issuance of CoC No. 1014 in 2000, and did not find that constant temperature measurements were necessary. That SER noted that in addition to the mandatory initial air temperature rise test when the system is first placed in service, the overpack air inlet and outlet vents would be periodically surveyed or an optional overpack air temperature program would be implemented to verify continued operability of the heat removal system. Operating experience with this cask system since that time has given the NRC no reason to change its initial position on the need for constant temperature measurement.

Concerning the commenter's statement about the need for an up-to-date measurement device, the NRC has not specifically required the use of hot-wire anemometer or any other airflow measurement technology. The applicant may propose the use of any technology it believes will measure airflow with sufficient accuracy and reliability. The NRC is not aware of any basis to prohibit the use of hot-wire anemometer technology for measuring airflow or temperature.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment 17: The same commenter that provided Comment 16 objected that Holtec and the NRC did not provide adequate information on “other topics,” and that this must be presumed to diminish the safety of the “flimsy” Holtec cask system.

NRC Response: The commenter did not specify any grounds for pronouncing the HI-STORM 100 Cask System flimsy, or any “other topics” for which additional information might be considered adequate.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 18: A commenter contended that “measurements are not supposed to validate methods outside of experiments testing theory,” and that the requirement to “demonstrate” an airflow model with measurements implies “fraudulent” intent to “play with numbers to get what [NRC] and/or Holtec want” to show the safety of the storage cask system.

NRC Response: These comments are not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The NRC also disagrees with these comments. The NRC does not require measurements to validate methods that cannot be tested experimentally. The commenter particularly disapproved of a draft NRC requirement in an email to Holtec (ADAMS Accession No. ML15327A043) in which users of the HI-STORM 100 Cask System would be required to perform a “thermal validation test” to measure the total air mass flow rate through the cask system using direct measurements of air velocity in the inlet vents. The user would then be required to do an analysis of the cask system with these measurements “to demonstrate that the measurements validate the analytic methods” described in Chapter 4 of Holtec's Final Safety Analysis Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML14086A412), supporting its application for CoC No. 1014. The NRC has reason to require a licensee to demonstrate that an analytic method for thermal modeling of airflow through a cask is supported by real-world measurements. In making this demonstration, a licensee could “play with numbers” if it were allowed to measure anywhere it chose, but that is not the case here. The licensee is required to take measurements at NRC-specified locations.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment 19: Citing NRC regulations at 10 CFR 72.236, “Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication,” one commenter alleged that Holtec violated U.S. law because “the only protection from lethal radiation leaks is the 1/2 inch MPC, whereas `The spent fuel storage cask must be designed to provide redundant sealing of confinement systems.' ”

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The NRC also disagrees with this comment. The MPC does provide protection from radiation leaks, but it is not the only protective barrier. Radiation shielding is also provided by the HI-STORM 100 Cask System overpack that is composed of inner and outer steel shells with the annulus between them filled with concrete, which is the primary radiation shielding material. If the commenter was referring only to leakage of radioactive materials from the MPC, however, Section 7.1 of the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML003711865) for the HI-STORM 100 Cask System confirms the presence of redundant sealing of confinement systems in the canister's design:

The [MPC] confinement boundary includes the MPC shell, the bottom baseplate, the MPC lid (including the vent and drain port cover plates), the MPC closure ring, and the associated welds. . . . The MPC lid (with the vent and drain port cover plates welded to the lid) and closure ring are welded to the upper part of the MPC shell at the loading site. This provides redundant sealing of the confinement boundary. . . . The redundant closures of the MPC satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 72.236(e) for redundant sealing of confinement systems.

The MPC's confinement design has multiple related purposes. The confinement design ensures that potentially contaminated air is contained within the MPC and that the MPC remains filled with helium coolant, so that the MPC can fulfill a third purpose: to keep outside air from contacting the spent nuclear fuel for the licensed life of the system.

In addition to the redundant barriers to airborne radiation leakage in the design of the HI-STORM 100 MPC and cask system, there are procedural requirements to ensure that the system and its components function in operation as designed. In accordance with the CoC itself (ADAMS Accession No. ML15331A307), the design, purchase, fabrication, assembly, inspection, testing, operation, maintenance, repair, and modification of all structures, systems, and components that are important to safety, both for the MPC and the system as a whole, must be conducted in accordance with a Commission-approved quality assurance program that satisfies the applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 72, subpart G.

The CoC also requires that when the MPC shell is welded to its baseplate, the fabricator must perform a helium leak test of the MPC weld's confinement using a helium mass spectrometer. This weld leakage test must include the base metals of the MPC shell and baseplate. Another helium leak test must be performed on the base metal of the fabricated MPC lid. Then, in the field, a helium leak test must be performed on the vent and drain port confinement welds and cover plate base metal before the loaded MPC can be emplaced within the concrete overpack. All MPC confinement boundary leakage rate tests must be performed in accordance with ANSI N14.5 to “leaktight” criteria. If the user detects a leakage rate exceeding the acceptance criteria, the user must determine the area of leakage and repair it to meet ASME Code Section III, Subsection NB requirements. The affected area must then be re-tested until the leakage rate acceptance criterion is met.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 20: Citing NRC regulations at 10 CFR 72.236, “Specific requirements for spent fuel storage cask approval and fabrication,” a commenter asserted that Holtec violated U.S. law also because its storage cask is not designed to provide adequate heat removal capacity without active cooling systems, and “[t]he refusal to properly test [the cask's heat removal capacity] appears intentional to avoid knowing if it properly removes heat.”

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. The comment also does not explain how Holtec storage casks are not designed to meet the 10 CFR 72.236 requirement to provide adequate heat removal capacity without active cooling systems. HI-STORM 100 Cask Systems have been deployed at independent spent fuel storage installations for more than a decade without active cooling systems.

The NRC disagrees with the comment. The NRC's preliminary SER evaluated Holtec's supporting thermal analysis for Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014 and found that the HI-STORM 100 Cask System certification “continues to be designed with a heat-removal capability having verifiability and reliability consistent with its importance to safety.” The SER also found that spent fuel cladding continues to be protected against thermal degradation leading to gross ruptures, and other cask component temperatures continue to be maintained below the allowable limits for the accidents evaluated.

There has been no refusal to test the cask system's heat removal capacity. The CoC language has been revised to require CoC No. 1014, Amendment No. 10, users to submit thermal validation test and analysis results in a letter report to the NRC within 180 days of either the user's loading of the first cask or undertaking the first spent fuel transfer operation with a cask fabricated to Amendment No. 10 specifications. The revised condition also states, however, that for casks of the same system type, users may document in their 10 CFR 72.212 report a previously performed test and analysis that has demonstrated adequate validation of the analytic thermal methods. The NRC will evaluate whether this previous test and analysis continues to demonstrate adequate validation of thermal analysis methods in light of the uncertainty of airflow measurements at the previously-specified locations.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment 21: One commenter stated that the NRC has violated the Plain Writing Act of 2010 by failing to make the topics associated with this rulemaking clear, and failing to “attach . . . the relevant documents in an orderly, clear manner.”

NRC Response: The NRC disagrees with these comments. The topics associated with this rulemaking must necessarily address the CoC amendments requested by the applicant, and these are by nature highly technical. The March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13265), Federal Register notice of the direct final rule does, however, seek to explain in language as non-technical as possible the practical effects of the amendment requests for the use of the Holtec HI-STORM 100 Cask System under Amendment No. 10 of CoC No. 1014. In general, the NRC strives to write agency documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject and the intended audience.

As to the comment that documents relevant to this rulemaking were not “attached . . . in an orderly, clear manner,” the NRC followed its normal process of providing the ADAMS accession numbers to referenced documents so that interested persons may obtain access to the documents. If the commenter was referring instead to the table of references provided in the Federal Register notice for the direct final rule, the NRC also disagrees that the relevant documents were not presented in an orderly, clear manner. The order of the references starts with the applicant's amendment request, moves to the proposed revised CoC and TS documents supporting it, and concludes with the NRC's response to these submittals in the form of its SER on the proposed revisions.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment 22: One commenter stated that the percentage of the NRC's budget that must be recovered should be recovered in fines and not fees.

NRC Response: The comment is not within the scope of this rulemaking, which is limited to the specific revisions proposed in Amendment No. 10 to CoC No. 1014. Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, the NRC is required by law to recover 90 percent of its budget through fees for licensing and other actions. Therefore, any change in this requirement can only be achieved by an act of Congress.

The NRC made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

In summary, the NRC did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the direct final rule. Therefore, none of these comments required a change in the rule's effective date of May 31, 2016.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September, 2016

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-24466 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5042; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-140-AD; Amendment 39-18680; AD 2016-20-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around certain fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 15, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5042.

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-2016-5042; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19512) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive HFEC inspections for cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around certain fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

Boeing and the Airline Pilots Association, International supported the content of the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect compliance with the actions specified in the NPRM.

We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) as (c)(1) and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request for Clarification of Extent of Boeing Organization Designation Authority (ODA)

Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked for clarification that the Boeing ODA identified in paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD can provide an AMOC for any “repair, modification, or alteration” that includes the authority to approve existing repairs in the inspection area that inhibit accomplishment of the AD requirements as terminating action to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. SWA also asked if the ODA has the authority to provide alternative inspection procedures for repaired areas where the inspection in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD cannot be accomplished. Additionally, SWA asked that we clarify that the Boeing ODA identified in paragraph (i)(3) of the proposed AD is able to issue an AMOC to the proposed AD for an existing repair at the S-14 lap joint (where the location of the repair inhibits accomplishing the initial inspection), provided the repair was approved by any FAA designation authority, and there is a minimum of three fastener rows above and below the lap joint. SWA stated that neither Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015, nor the NPRM clearly state how to address existing repairs that prevent accomplishment of the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter that clarification of the extent of the authority of the Boeing ODA is necessary. The Boeing ODA has the authority to evaluate existing repairs and provide alternative inspection programs in the repaired area, including authority to approve alternative inspections as AMOCs if needed.

We infer that SWA is also asking if the Boeing ODA can issue a global AMOC for the referenced repair at the S-14 lap joint. The Boeing ODA does not have the authority to approve global AMOCs. In addition, we have not received any information from Boeing that defines such a repair that would be considered for a global AMOC. If Boeing provides supporting data, we will evaluate the data to determine if that repair and any associated inspections provide an acceptable level of safety for such an AMOC. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Change to This AD

We have determined that the end level effect of the unsafe condition in the NPRM should be changed to more closely match the service information. Therefore, we have changed“. . . reduced structural integrity” to“. . . loss of structural integrity” in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections and in paragraph (e) of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures for HFEC inspections and repair for cracking in certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,528 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 38 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,230 per inspection cycle $0 $3,230 per inspection cycle $4,935,440 per inspection cycle

We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-20-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18680; FAA-2016-5042; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-140-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 15, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

(1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?OpenDocument&Highlight=st00830se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that certain fastener locations in the window corner surround structure are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking around certain fastener locations that could cause multiple window corner skin cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and consequent loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections and Repair

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015: Do an external high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the skin around the fastener locations at the upper forward and lower aft corners of each window between station (STA) 360 and STA 540, as applicable, and at the lower forward and upper aft corners of each window between STA 727 and STA 887, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015. If any crack is found during any inspection, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Exception to the Service Bulletin Specifications

Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) 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.

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

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

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

(j) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Gaetano Settineri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6577; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1351, dated July 8, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

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

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-24197 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0866] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; Cancellation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is canceling the temporary deviation concerning the James River Bridge (US17) across the James River, mile 5.0, at Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA. The deviation was necessary to perform bridge maintenance and repairs, which have been completed. The deviation allowed the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

The temporary deviation published on September 16, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 63700) is cancelled as of October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0866] 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 cancelation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On September 16, 2016, we published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA” in the Federal Register (81 FR 63700). The temporary deviation concerned allowed the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate repairs to the aerial electrical cable connecting the north tower to the south tower. This deviation from the operating regulations was authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

On September 26, 2016, The Virginia Department of Transportation, that owns and operates the James River Bridge (US17), across the James River, mile 5.0, at Isle of Wight and Newport News, VA, notified the Coast Guard that repairs had been completed on September 24, 2016, and that the temporary deviation was no longer needed.

Dated: October 5, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-24476 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3020 [Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36] Update to Product Lists AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Commission is updating the product lists. This action reflects a publication policy adopted by Commission order. The referenced policy assumes periodic updates. The updates are identified in the body of this document. The product lists, which are re-published in their entirety, include these updates.

DATES:

Effective Date: October 11, 2016.

Applicability Dates: July 6, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 20 (MC2016-158 and CP2016-229); July 6, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 228 (MC2016-157 and CP2016-228); July 7, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 38 (MC2016-161 and CP2016-232); July 7, 2016, Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 (MC2016-160 and CP2016-231); July 7, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 229 (MC2016-159 and CP2016-230); July 8, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 214 (MC2016-131 and CP2016-167); July 13, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 230 (MC2016-162 and CP2016-235); July 13, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 231 (MC2016-163 and CP2016-236); July 19, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 21 (MC2016-165 and CP2016-239); July 19, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 39 (MC2016-164 and CP2016-238); July 19, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 (MC2016-166 and CP2016-240); July 19, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 (MC2016-167 and CP2016-241); August 1, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 58 (MC2016-170 and CP2016-248); August 1, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 59 (MC2016-171 and CP2016-249); August 1, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 40 (MC2016-169 and CP2016-247); August 15, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 (MC2016-173 and CP2016-252); August 15, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 (MC2016-174 and CP2016-253); August 15, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 30 (MC2016-175 and CP2016-254); August 17, 2016, Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service Agreement 1 (MC2016-168 and R2016-6); August 23, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 (MC2016-177 and CP2016-256); August 23, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 60 (MC2016-176 and CP2016-255); August 23, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 233 (MC2016-179 and CP2016-258); August 23, 2016, Priority Mail Express Contract 41 (MC2016-180 and CP2016-259); August 23, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 234 (MC2016-181 and CP2016-260); August 24, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 232 (MC2016-178 and CP2016-257); August 25, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 31 (MC2016-182 and CP2016-262); August 25, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 (MC2016-183 and CP2016-263); August 25, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 (MC2016-184 and CP2016-264); September 9, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 33 (MC2016-186 and CP2016-267); September 9, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 32 (MC2016-185 and CP2016-266); September 9, 2016, Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 34 (MC2016-187 and CP2016-268); September 14, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 236 (MC2016-191 and CP2016-274); September 14, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 237 (MC2016-192 and CP2016-275); September 14, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 (MC2016-189 and CP2016-272); September 14, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 235 (MC2016-190 and CP2016-273); September 14, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 (MC2016-188 and CP2016-271); September 20, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 238 (MC2016-193 and CP2016-276); September 20, 2016, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 31 (MC2016-194 and CP2016-277); September 20, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 61 (MC2016-195 and CP2016-278); September 23, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2016-198 and CP2016-282); September 23, 2016, Priority Mail Contract 239 (MC2016-199 and CP2016-283); September 23, 2016, First-Class Package Service Contract 62 (MC2016-197 and CP2016-281); September 27, 2016, Global Expedited Package Services 7 Contracts (MC2016-196 and CP2016-280).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document identifies updates to the market dominant and the competitive product lists, which appear as 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List, respectively. Publication of the updated product lists in the Federal Register is addressed in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006.

Authorization. The Commission process for periodic publication of updates was established in Docket Nos. MC2010-21 and CP2010-36, Order No. 445, April 22, 2010, at 8.

Changes. The product lists are being updated by publishing replacements in their entirety of 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List. The following products are being added, removed, or moved within the product lists:

1. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 20 (MC2016-158 and CP2016-229) (Order No. 3414), added July 6, 2016.

2. Priority Mail Contract 228 (MC2016-157 and CP2016-228) (Order No. 3415), added July 6, 2016.

3. Priority Mail Express Contract 38 (MC2016-161 and CP2016-232) (Order No. 3416), added July 7, 2016.

4. Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 (MC2016-160 and CP2016-231) (Order No. 3417), added July 7, 2016.

5. Priority Mail Contract 229 (MC2016-159 and CP2016-230) (Order No. 3418), added July 7, 2016.

6. Priority Mail Contract 214 (MC2016-131 and CP2016-167) (Order No. 3419), added July 8, 2016.

7. Priority Mail Contract 230 (MC2016-162 and CP2016-235) (Order No. 3425), added July 13, 2016.

8. Priority Mail Contract 231 (MC2016-163 and CP2016-236) (Order No. 3426), added July 13, 2016.

9. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 21 (MC2016-165 and CP2016-239) (Order No. 3437), added July 19, 2016.

10. Priority Mail Express Contract 39 (MC2016-164 and CP2016-238) (Order No. 3438), added July 19, 2016.

11. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 (MC2016-166 and CP2016-240) (Order No. 3439), added July 19, 2016.

12. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 (MC2016-167 and CP2016-241) (Order No. 3440), added July 19, 2016.

13. First-Class Package Service Contract 58 (MC2016-170 and CP2016-248) (Order No. 3452), added August 1, 2016.

14. First-Class Package Service Contract 59 (MC2016-171 and CP2016-249) (Order No. 3453), added August 1, 2016.

15. Priority Mail Express Contract 40 (MC2016-169 and CP2016-247) (Order No. 3454), added August 1, 2016.

16. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 (MC2016-173 and CP2016-252) (Order No. 3464), added August 15, 2016.

17. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 (MC2016-174 and CP2016-253) (Order No. 3465), added August 15, 2016.

18. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 30 (MC2016-175 and CP2016-254) (Order No. 3466), added August 15, 2016.

19. Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service Agreement 1 (MC2016-168 and R2016-6) (Order No. 3471), added August 17, 2016.

20. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 (MC2016-177 and CP2016-256) (Order No. 3476), added August 23, 2016.

21. First-Class Package Service Contract 60 (MC2016-176 and CP2016-255) (Order No. 3477), added August 23, 2016.

22. Priority Mail Contract 233 (MC2016-179 and CP2016-258) (Order No. 3478), added August 23, 2016.

23. Priority Mail Express Contract 41 (MC2016-180 and CP2016-259) (Order No. 3479), added August 23, 2016.

24. Priority Mail Contract 234 (MC2016-181 and CP2016-260) (Order No. 3480), added August 23, 2016.

25. Priority Mail Contract 232 (MC2016-178 and CP2016-257) (Order No. 3481), added August 24, 2016.

26. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 31 (MC2016-182 and CP2016-262) (Order No. 3483), added August 25, 2016.

27. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 (MC2016-183 and CP2016-263) (Order No. 3485), added August 25, 2016.

28. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 (MC2016-184 and CP2016-264) (Order No. 3486), added August 25, 2016.

29. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 33 (MC2016-186 and CP2016-267) (Order No. 3503), added September 9, 2016.

30. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 32 (MC2016-185 and CP2016-266) (Order No. 3504), added September 9, 2016.

31. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 34 (MC2016-187 and CP2016-268) (Order No. 3508), added September 9, 2016.

32. Priority Mail Contract 236 (MC2016-191 and CP2016-274) (Order No. 3512), added September 14, 2016.

33. Priority Mail Contract 237 (MC2016-192 and CP2016-275) (Order No. 3513), added September 14, 2016.

34. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 (MC2016-189 and CP2016-272) (Order No. 3514), added September 14, 2016.

35. Priority Mail Contract 235 (MC2016-190 and CP2016-273) (Order No. 3515), added September 14, 2016.

36. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 (MC2016-188 and CP2016-271) (Order No. 3516), added September 14, 2016.

37. Priority Mail Contract 238 (MC2016-193 and CP2016-276) (Order No. 3522), added September 20, 2016.

38. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 31 (MC2016-194 and CP2016-277) (Order No. 3523), added September 20, 2016.

39. First-Class Package Service Contract 61 (MC2016-195 and CP2016-278) (Order No. 3524), added September 20, 2016.

40. First-Class Package Service Contract 63 (MC2016-198 and CP2016-282) (Order No. 3529), added September 23, 2016.

41. Priority Mail Contract 239 (MC2016-199 and CP2016-283) (Order No. 3533), added September 23, 2016.

42. First-Class Package Service Contract 62 (MC2016-197 and CP2016-281) (Order No. 3534), added September 23, 2016.

43. Global Expedited Package Services 7 Contracts (MC2016-196 and CP2016-280) (Order No. 3542), added September 27, 2016.

The following negotiated service agreements have expired and are being deleted from the Competitive Product List:

1. Priority Mail Contract 60 (MC2013-54 and CP2013-70) (Order No. 1773).

2. Priority Mail Contract 61 (MC2013-55 and CP2013-73) (Order No. 1790).

3. Priority Mail Contract 62 (MC2013-56 and CP2013-74) (Order No. 1784).

4. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 14 (MC2013-58 and CP2013-79) (Order No. 1831).

5. Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 26 (MC2016-56 and CP2016-71) (Order No. 2990).

6. Parcel Select Contract 5 (MC2012-34 and CP2012-42) (Order No. 1416).

7. Parcel Select Contract 7 (MC2013-59 and CP2013-80) (Order No. 1832).

8. Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 5 (MC2015-57 and CP2015-85) (Order No. 2560).

The following market test has expired and is being deleted from the Competitive Product List:

1. International Merchandise Return Service Non-Published Rates (MT2013-2) (Order No. 1806).

Updated product lists. The referenced changes to the product lists are incorporated into 39 CFR Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List and 39 CFR Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3020

Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Postal Regulatory Commission amends chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 3020—PRODUCT LISTS 1. The authority citation for part 3020 continues to read as follows: Authority:

39 U.S.C. 503; 3622; 3631; 3642; 3682.

2. Revise Appendix A of Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List to read as follows: Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 3020—Market Dominant Product List (An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.) First-Class Mail * Single-Piece Letters/Postcards Presorted Letters/Postcards Flats Parcels Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International Inbound Letter Post Standard Mail (Commercial and Nonprofit) * High Density and Saturation Letters High Density and Saturation Flats/Parcels Carrier Route Letters Flats Parcels Every Door Direct Mail—Retail Periodicals * In-County Periodicals Outside County Periodicals Package Services * Alaska Bypass Service Bound Printed Matter Flats Bound Printed Matter Parcels Media Mail/Library Mail Special Services * Ancillary Services International Ancillary Services Address Management Services Caller Service Credit Card Authentication International Reply Coupon Service International Business Reply Mail Service Money Orders Post Office Box Service Customized Postage Stamp Fulfillment Services Negotiated Service Agreements * Domestic * PHI Acquisitions, Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement International * Inbound Market Dominant Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Inbound Market Dominant Exprés Service Agreement 1 Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service Agreement 1 Nonpostal Services * Alliances with the Private Sector to Defray Cost of Key Postal Functions Philatelic Sales Market Tests * 3. Revise and Appendix B of Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List to read as follows: Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 3020—Competitive Product List (An asterisk (*) indicates an organizational class or group, not a Postal Service product.) Domestic Products * Priority Mail Express Priority Mail Parcel Select Parcel Return Service First-Class Package Service Retail Ground International Products * Outbound International Expedited Services Inbound Parcel Post (at UPU rates) Outbound Priority Mail International International Priority Airmail (IPA) International Surface Air List (ISAL) International Direct Sacks—M-Bags Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service Negotiated Service Agreements * Domestic * Priority Mail Express Contract 8 Priority Mail Express Contract 16 Priority Mail Express Contract 17 Priority Mail Express Contract 18 Priority Mail Express Contract 19 Priority Mail Express Contract 20 Priority Mail Express Contract 21 Priority Mail Express Contract 22 Priority Mail Express Contract 23 Priority Mail Express Contract 24 Priority Mail Express Contract 25 Priority Mail Express Contract 26 Priority Mail Express Contract 27 Priority Mail Express Contract 28 Priority Mail Express Contract 29 Priority Mail Express Contract 30 Priority Mail Express Contract 31 Priority Mail Express Contract 32 Priority Mail Express Contract 33 Priority Mail Express Contract 34 Priority Mail Express Contract 35 Priority Mail Express Contract 36 Priority Mail Express Contract 37 Priority Mail Express Contract 38 Priority Mail Express Contract 39 Priority Mail Express Contract 40 Priority Mail Express Contract 41 Parcel Return Service Contract 5 Parcel Return Service Contract 6 Parcel Return Service Contract 7 Parcel Return Service Contract 8 Parcel Return Service Contract 9 Parcel Return Service Contract 10 Priority Mail Contract 24 Priority Mail Contract 59 Priority Mail Contract 63 Priority Mail Contract 64 Priority Mail Contract 65 Priority Mail Contract 66 Priority Mail Contract 67 Priority Mail Contract 70 Priority Mail Contract 71 Priority Mail Contract 72 Priority Mail Contract 73 Priority Mail Contract 74 Priority Mail Contract 75 Priority Mail Contract 76 Priority Mail Contract 77 Priority Mail Contract 78 Priority Mail Contract 79 Priority Mail Contract 80 Priority Mail Contract 81 Priority Mail Contract 82 Priority Mail Contract 83 Priority Mail Contract 84 Priority Mail Contract 85 Priority Mail Contract 86 Priority Mail Contract 87 Priority Mail Contract 88 Priority Mail Contract 89 Priority Mail Contract 90 Priority Mail Contract 91 Priority Mail Contract 92 Priority Mail Contract 93 Priority Mail Contract 94 Priority Mail Contract 95 Priority Mail Contract 96 Priority Mail Contract 97 Priority Mail Contract 98 Priority Mail Contract 99 Priority Mail Contract 100 Priority Mail Contract 101 Priority Mail Contract 102 Priority Mail Contract 103 Priority Mail Contract 104 Priority Mail Contract 105 Priority Mail Contract 106 Priority Mail Contract 107 Priority Mail Contract 108 Priority Mail Contract 109 Priority Mail Contract 110 Priority Mail Contract 111 Priority Mail Contract 112 Priority Mail Contract 113 Priority Mail Contract 114 Priority Mail Contract 115 Priority Mail Contract 116 Priority Mail Contract 117 Priority Mail Contract 118 Priority Mail Contract 119 Priority Mail Contract 120 Priority Mail Contract 121 Priority Mail Contract 122 Priority Mail Contract 123 Priority Mail Contract 124 Priority Mail Contract 125 Priority Mail Contract 126 Priority Mail Contract 127 Priority Mail Contract 128 Priority Mail Contract 129 Priority Mail Contract 130 Priority Mail Contract 131 Priority Mail Contract 132 Priority Mail Contract 133 Priority Mail Contract 134 Priority Mail Contract 135 Priority Mail Contract 136 Priority Mail Contract 137 Priority Mail Contract 138 Priority Mail Contract 139 Priority Mail Contract 140 Priority Mail Contract 141 Priority Mail Contract 142 Priority Mail Contract 143 Priority Mail Contract 144 Priority Mail Contract 145 Priority Mail Contract 146 Priority Mail Contract 147 Priority Mail Contract 148 Priority Mail Contract 149 Priority Mail Contract 150 Priority Mail Contract 151 Priority Mail Contract 152 Priority Mail Contract 153 Priority Mail Contract 154 Priority Mail Contract 155 Priority Mail Contract 156 Priority Mail Contract 157 Priority Mail Contract 158 Priority Mail Contract 159 Priority Mail Contract 160 Priority Mail Contract 161 Priority Mail Contract 162 Priority Mail Contract 163 Priority Mail Contract 164 Priority Mail Contract 165 Priority Mail Contract 166 Priority Mail Contract 167 Priority Mail Contract 168 Priority Mail Contract 169 Priority Mail Contract 170 Priority Mail Contract 171 Priority Mail Contract 172 Priority Mail Contract 173 Priority Mail Contract 174 Priority Mail Contract 175 Priority Mail Contract 176 Priority Mail Contract 177 Priority Mail Contract 178 Priority Mail Contract 179 Priority Mail Contract 180 Priority Mail Contract 181 Priority Mail Contract 182 Priority Mail Contract 183 Priority Mail Contract 184 Priority Mail Contract 185 Priority Mail Contract 186 Priority Mail Contract 187 Priority Mail Contract 188 Priority Mail Contract 189 Priority Mail Contract 190 Priority Mail Contract 191 Priority Mail Contract 192 Priority Mail Contract 193 Priority Mail Contract 194 Priority Mail Contract 195 Priority Mail Contract 196 Priority Mail Contract 197 Priority Mail Contract 198 Priority Mail Contract 199 Priority Mail Contract 200 Priority Mail Contract 201 Priority Mail Contract 202 Priority Mail Contract 203 Priority Mail Contract 204 Priority Mail Contract 205 Priority Mail Contract 206 Priority Mail Contract 207 Priority Mail Contract 208 Priority Mail Contract 209 Priority Mail Contract 210 Priority Mail Contract 211 Priority Mail Contract 212 Priority Mail Contract 213 Priority Mail Contract 214 Priority Mail Contract 215 Priority Mail Contract 216 Priority Mail Contract 217 Priority Mail Contract 218 Priority Mail Contract 219 Priority Mail Contract 220 Priority Mail Contract 221 Priority Mail Contract 222 Priority Mail Contract 223 Priority Mail Contract 224 Priority Mail Contract 225 Priority Mail Contract 226 Priority Mail Contract 227 Priority Mail Contract 228 Priority Mail Contract 229 Priority Mail Contract 230 Priority Mail Contract 231 Priority Mail Contract 232 Priority Mail Contract 233 Priority Mail Contract 234 Priority Mail Contract 235 Priority Mail Contract 236 Priority Mail Contract 237 Priority Mail Contract 238 Priority Mail Contract 239 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 10 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 12 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 13 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 16 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 17 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 18 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 19 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 20 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 21 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 22 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 23 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 24 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 25 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 27 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 28 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 29 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 30 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 31 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 32 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 33 Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 34 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 3 Parcel Select & Parcel Return Service Contract 5 Parcel Select Contract 2 Parcel Select Contract 8 Parcel Select Contract 9 Parcel Select Contract 10 Parcel Select Contract 11 Parcel Select Contract 12 Parcel Select Contract 13 Parcel Select Contract 14 Parcel Select Contract 15 Parcel Select Contract 16 Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates Priority Mail—Non-Published Rates 1 First-Class Package Service Contract 35 First-Class Package Service Contract 36 First-Class Package Service Contract 37 First-Class Package Service Contract 38 First-Class Package Service Contract 39 First-Class Package Service Contract 40 First-Class Package Service Contract 41 First-Class Package Service Contract 42 First-Class Package Service Contract 43 First-Class Package Service Contract 44 First-Class Package Service Contract 45 First-Class Package Service Contract 46 First-Class Package Service Contract 47 First-Class Package Service Contract 48 First-Class Package Service Contract 49 First-Class Package Service Contract 50 First-Class Package Service Contract 51 First-Class Package Service Contract 52 First-Class Package Service Contract 53 First-Class Package Service Contract 54 First-Class Package Service Contract 55 First-Class Package Service Contract 56 First-Class Package Service Contract 57 First-Class Package Service Contract 58 First-Class Package Service Contract 59 First-Class Package Service Contract 60 First-Class Package Service Contract 61 First-Class Package Service Contract 62 First-Class Package Service Contract 63 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 2 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 4 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 5 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 6 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 2 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 3 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 4 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 6 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 7 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 8 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 9 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 10 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 12 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 13 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 14 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 15 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 16 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 17 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 18 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 19 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 20 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 21 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 23 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 24 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 25 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 26 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 27 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 28 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 29 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 30 Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 31 Priority Mail & Parcel Select Contract 1 Outbound International * Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) Contracts GEPS 3 GEPS 5 GEPS 6 GEPS 7 Global Bulk Economy (GBE) Contracts Global Plus Contracts Global Plus 1C Global Plus 1D Global Plus 2C Global Plus 3 Global Reseller Expedited Package Contracts Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 1 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 2 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 3 Global Reseller Expedited Package Services 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 2 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 3 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 4 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 5 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 6 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 7 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 8 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 9 Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS)—Non-Published Rates 10 Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes—Non-Published Rates Outbound Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreement with Royal Mail Group, Ltd. Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts Priority Mail International Regional Rate Boxes Contracts 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Competitive International Merchandise Return Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 2 Inbound International * International Business Reply Service (IBRS) Competitive Contracts International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 1 International Business Reply Service Competitive Contract 3 Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Customers Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations Inbound Direct Entry Contracts with Foreign Postal Administrations 1 Inbound EMS Inbound EMS 2 Inbound Air Parcel Post (at non-UPU rates) Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post Agreement Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators Inbound Competitive Multi-Service Agreements with Foreign Postal Operators 1 Special Services * Address Enhancement Services Greeting Cards, Gift Cards, and Stationery International Ancillary Services International Money Transfer Service—Outbound International Money Transfer Service—Inbound Premium Forwarding Service Shipping and Mailing Supplies Post Office Box Service Competitive Ancillary Services Nonpostal Services * Advertising Licensing of Intellectual Property other than Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Mail Service Promotion Officially Licensed Retail Products (OLRP) Passport Photo Service Photocopying Service Rental, Leasing, Licensing or other Non-Sale Disposition of Tangible Property Training Facilities and Related Services USPS Electronic Postmark (EPM) Program Market Tests * Customized Delivery Global eCommerce Marketplace (GeM) Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24511 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0367; FRL-9952-17-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Butte County Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of particulate matter (PM) from open burning. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This rule is effective on December 12, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by November 10, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0367 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3073, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

This action addresses BCAQMD Rule 300, “Open Burning Requirements, Prohibitions and Exemptions” as amended by the district on August 27, 2015 and submitted to the EPA on March 11, 2016 by the California Air Resources Board.

On April 19, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for BCAQMD Rule 300 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

The EPA promulgated a limited approval of an earlier version of Rule 300 into the SIP on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38966). The EPA also simultaneously promulgated a limited disapproval because two provisions in the rule provided discretion to the District Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) to independently interpret the SIP without explicit and replicable procedures within the rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

PM, including PM equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM emissions.

BCAQMD Rule 300 controls PM emissions by establishing requirements on when and how to conduct various types of open burning activities, including but not limited to agricultural burning, non-agricultural burning (such as land use conversion), and residential burning. The EPA finalized a limited approval of a previous version of this rule because it is largely consistent with applicable CAA requirements. However, the EPA simultaneously promulgated a limited disapproval of the rule for two instances of APCO discretion that did not meet CAA requirements for enforceability. BCAQMD's 2015 rule revision corrects the two deficiencies identified in our previous action. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

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

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

Generally, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in moderate PM nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). BCAQMD regulates the Chico nonattainment area, which was classified as “nonattainment” for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688). On September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55225), EPA issued a determination that the area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2010-2012 monitoring period. Under EPA's Clean Data Policy and the regulations that embody it (40 CFR 51.1004(c) for PM2.5), an EPA determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard suspends the area's obligations to submit RACM for as long as the area continues to attain. Therefore, BCAQMD is not currently required to implement RACM for PM2.5. If the Chico nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment, RACM requirements for PM2.5 will no longer apply.

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

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990). 2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001). B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements.1 This approval remedies both deficiencies identified by our limited approval and limited disapproval action at 80 FR 38966, and therefore terminates the CAA sanction and Federal Implementation Plan clocks triggered by that action. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by November 10, 2016, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on December 12, 2016. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

1 Upon the effective date of this final action, BCAQMD Rule 300 would supersede existing BCAQMD Rule 300, approved at 80 FR 38966, in the applicable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the BCAQMD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, 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).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: July 21, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(423)(i)(G)(2) and (c)(474)(i)(C)(1) to read as follows:
§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(423) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) * * *

(2) Previously approved on July 8, 2015 in paragraph (c)(423)(i)(G)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(474)(i)(C)(1), Rule 300, “Open Burning Requirements, Prohibitions and Exemptions,” approved on February 24, 2011.

(474) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Butte County Air Quality Management District

(1) Rule 300, “Open Burning Requirements, Prohibitions and Exemptions” amended on August 27, 2015.

[FR Doc. 2016-24498 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199; FRL-9953-74-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the District of Columbia state implementation plan (SIP). The revision pertains to the update of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This rule is effective on December 12, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 10, 2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199 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, 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. 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:

Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 20, 2016, the District of Columbia (the District) through the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment submitted a revision to the District's SIP. The SIP revision consists of revisions to the DCMR for sulfur content of fuel oil which is used for combustion. The revisions to the DCMR reduce the sulfur content of fuel oil that can be combusted within the District and prohibit the combustion of certain higher sulfur content fuel oils.

I. Background

The combustion of fuel oil which contains sulfur leads to emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), which is a precursor to PM2.5. In addition, SO2 oxidizes to form sulfates, which are one of the largest contributors to the formation of regional haze. Sulfates cause visibility impairment, also known as regional haze, by the scattering and absorption of sunlight by fine particles. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. The District asserts these regulations will decrease SO2 emissions in the District from certain fuel combustion sources and therefore strengthen the District's SIP. The reduction to SO2 emissions helps the District to maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for SO2 and PM2.5. Additional SO2 emission reductions and subsequent reductions in sulfates from District sources combusting lower sulfur fuel will assist the District in achieving further reasonable progress towards reducing regional haze. Under section 169A of the CAA, it is a national goal to remedy and prevent regional haze in any Class I areas.1 Section 169A requires states which contain Class I areas and states from which emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas to submit SIP revisions to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal (“regional haze SIPs”). The District's regional haze program to address visibility impairment requirements in Class I areas was fully approved into the District's SIP by EPA on February 2, 2012. See 77 FR 5191.2 The District has submitted revised regulations for SIP approval to implement its low sulfur fuel oil program.

1 Class I areas are areas of national parks, wilderness areas or other areas of national importance that have visibility protection requirements.

2 The District's regional haze SIP addressing the planning period from 2008 to 2018 is consistent with EPA's requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. The SIP addressed contribution to visibility impairment related to emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors, and included measures to address emissions that would interfere with reasonable progress goals of neighboring states set to protect Class I areas. During the development of the first round of regional haze SIPs, the regional planning organization for the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states, Mid-atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), established a strategy for these states to meet the requirements of reasonable progress goals by implementing certain measures, including pursuing a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to reduce sulfur content in fuels by 2018.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

The SIP revision consists of revisions to the DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20. These revisions to the DCMR reduce the allowable sulfur content of fuel oils that are used in oil-burning combustion units in the District. These revisions require that the sulfur content of number 2 (No. 2) fuel oil be no greater than 500 parts per million (ppm); the sulfur content of No. 4 fuel oil be no greater than 2,500 ppm; and prohibit the use of No. 5 and heavier fuel oils in the District. Additionally, beginning July 1, 2018, the sulfur content of No. 2 fuel can be no greater than 15 ppm. Any fuel oil stored by the ultimate consumer in the District prior to the applicable compliance date may be used after the applicable compliance date. The revisions also include changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to the use and storage of the aforementioned fuel oils. Definitions for terminology which relate to reporting and recordkeeping requirements were added.

The updates to Chapter 1 include amendments to the definitions of American Standards of Testing Materials (ASTM) and distillate oil. The revision to Chapter 5 includes updates to the sampling and testing practices for fuel oils. The amended Chapter 5 regulations require the use of various ASTM methods for the sampling of petroleum; an ASTM standard for the determination of fuel oil grade; and various ASTM methods for the determination of sulfur content in fuel oil. Chapter 8 includes the revised sulfur content for No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oils and prohibits combustion of No. 5 and heavier fuel oils in the District. Chapter 8 also includes the aforementioned compliance provision and definitions related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements.3

3 Chapter 8 also includes provisions allowing waiver of fuel oil limits when EPA has granted fuel waivers. Chapter 8 also addresses fuel oil sulfur limits when a person, owner, or operator of a stationary source employs equipment or a process to reduce sulfur emissions from burning fuel oil.

By reducing the sulfur in fuel oils, sulfur oxide emissions and PM2.5 emissions will be reduced, which will improve visibility while also helping the District to maintain the NAAQS for SO2 and PM2.5. EPA believes these regulations strengthen the District's SIP. EPA notes that existing provisions and the adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil program in the District will lead to SO2 emission reductions and provide additional SO2 and PM2.5 emission reductions from the District to achieve further reasonable progress towards reducing regional haze in Class I areas which may be impacted by emissions from the District.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving revisions to the DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20 as meeting the requirements of the CAA in section 110 with limits on sulfur content in fuels to be combusted within the District. EPA is approving the amendments to the District's regulations for fuel oil sulfur limits for combustion units. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on December 12, 2016 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 10, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the DCMR Chapters 1, 5, and 8 of Title 20. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update of the SIP compilation.4 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

4 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action. This action which proposes to approve revisions to the District of Columbia's regulations to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: September 23, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J—District of Columbia 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries “Section 199”, “Sections 502.1 through 502.15”, “Section 801”, and “Section 899” to read as follows:
§ 52.470 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the District of Columbia SIP State citation Title/subject State
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), Title 20—Environment Chapter 1 General *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 199 Definitions and Abbreviations 08/16/15 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Added two new definitions. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 5 Source Monitoring and Testing *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sections 502.1 through 502.15 Sampling, Tests, and Measurements 08/16/15 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Updates to sampling and testing practices for fuel oils. Exceptions: Paragraphs 502.11, 502.12 and 502.14 are not part of the SIP. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 8 Asbestos, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides Section 801 Sulfur Content of Fuel Oils 08/16/15 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Updates to the sulfur content of No. 2 and No.4 fuel oils and the prohibition of the use of No. 5 fuel oil. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 899 Definitions and Abbreviations 08/16/15 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] Addition of new definitions that relate to the handling and storage of fuel oil. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-24372 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0556; FRL-9953-61-Region 7] Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plans AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Nebraska as submitted on March 6, 2014, and July 14, 2014. This action will amend the SIP to include revisions to title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, chapter 4, “Ambient Air Quality Standards”; chapter 19, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality”; and chapter 22, “Incinerators; Emission Standards”. This amendment makes the state regulation consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter 25 micrometers or less (PM2.5), Sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Carbon monoxide, Ozone, and Lead, as of the date of the state submittal. This action also makes formatting and grammatical corrections to title 129, chapters 19 and 22.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective December 12, 2016, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 10, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0556, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, 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:

    Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7391, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving revisions into the SIP to include amendments to title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations as they apply to chapter 4, “Ambient Air Quality Standards”; chapter 19, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality”; and chapter 22, “Incinerators; Emission Standards”. Chapter 4 is amended making it consistent with the Federal standards found at 40 CFR part 50, in regards to the NAAQS for all six criteria air pollutants, as of July 14, 2014. The amendments submitted on March 6, 2014, make formatting and grammatical corrections to chapters 19 and 22. For additional information on the revisions to chapter 4, 19 and 22 see the detailed discussion table in the docket.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the state's request submitted on July 14, 2014, to revise the SIP to include revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for all six criteria pollutants consistent with the Federal standards, as of the date of the state's submittal. Per the state's March 6, 2014, submittal EPA is also approving minor formatting and grammatical corrections to chapters 19 and 22.

    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. EPA does not anticipate adverse comment because the revisions to the existing rules are routine and consistent with the Federal regulations, thereby, strengthening the SIP. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to revise title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, chapters 4, 19 and 22 if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Nebraska Regulations described in the direct final amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 27, 2016. Mike Brincks, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart CC—Nebraska 2. Section 52.1420(c) is amended by revising entries for 129-4, 129-19 and 129-22 to read as follows:
    § 52.1420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Nebraska Regulations Nebraska citation Title State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation STATE OF NEBRASKA Department of Environmental Quality Title 129—Nebraska Air Quality Regulations *         *         *         *         *         *         * 129-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards 5/13/14 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] This revision to Chapter 4 amends the ambient air quality standards for PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, O3, and Pb making them consistent with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) found at 40 CFR part 50, as of the date of the state's submittal, July 14, 2014. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 129-19 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 12/9/13 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 129-22 Incinerators; Emission Standards 12/9/13 10/11/16, [Insert Federal Register citation]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-23975 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0571; FRL-9953-77-Region 7] Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits Required AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to Missouri's State Implementation Plan (SIP), Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan. The April 6, 2016, request from Missouri revises fees for permitting services provided by the air quality program, including construction permit applications and operating permit applications. Missouri also removed the basic operating permit requirement in their “Operating Permits” rule for incinerators with emissions less than the de minimis levels. While EPA has never approved the basic operating permit program into Missouri's SIP or Missouri's Operating Permits Program, one statement on incinerators in the approved SIP and Operating Permits Program is removed by the submission. This statement applied the “Operating Permits” rule to all incinerators within the State. Any permittees with incinerators already required to have either Intermediate State Operating Permits or part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting requirements. This revision does not exempt any incinerators from appropriate permitting. Likewise, any future permittees with incinerators under the former version of the SIP and Operating Permits Program would have required either an Intermediate State Operating Permit or a part 70 Operating Permit will still have the same permitting requirement under the revised SIP and Operating Permits Program. Finally the submission from Missouri makes non-substantive style changes.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective December 12, 2016, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 10, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0571, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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, 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:

    Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7588, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. What part 52 revision is EPA approving? III. What part 70 Revision is EPA approving? IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving? V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? VI. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The submission from Missouri revises 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction Permits Required, and 10 CSR 10-6.065, Operating Permits. Missouri's revisions increase fees for permitting services provided by the air quality program, including construction permit applications and operating permit applications. Missouri also removed the basic operating permit requirement, under 10 CSR 10-6.065, for incinerators with emissions less than the de minimis levels. While EPA has never approved the basic operating permit program into the Missouri's SIP or Missouri's Operating Permits Program, one statement on incinerators, 10 CSR 6.065(1)(B), in the approved SIP and Operating Permits Program is removed by the submission. This statement applied 10 CSR 10-6.065 to all incinerators within the State. Any Permittees with incinerators already required to have either Intermediate State Operating Permits or part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting requirements. This revision does not exempt any incinerators from appropriate permitting. Likewise, any future permittees with incinerators under the former version of the SIP and Operating Permits Program would have required either an Intermediate State Operating Permits or a part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting requirement under the revised SIP and Operating Permits Program. Finally the submission from Missouri makes non-substantive style changes.

    II. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?

    The revisions increase the fees charged for construction and operating permits. After stakeholder outreach, Missouri has increased fees in order to ensure that the department can continue to provide services and to keep the Air program solvent. The De minimis, the Minor, and the Temporary/Pilot construction permit filing fees increased from one hundred dollars ($100) to two hundred fifty dollars ($250). The New Source Review (NSR), the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), and the Initial Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) construction permit filing fees increased from one hundred dollars ($100) to five thousand dollars ($5,000). The Renewal PAL construction permit filing fee increased from one hundred dollars ($100) to two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). The Portable Source Relocation Request construction permit filing fee increased from two hundred dollars ($200) to three hundred dollars ($300). The processing fees for all types of construction permits, except the Portable Source Relocation Request, increased from fifty dollars per hour ($50/hr) to seventy-five dollars per hour ($75/hr). The initial and renewal Intermediate State Operating Permit and part 70 Operating Permit filing fees increased from a flat one hundred dollar ($100) fee to a variable fee based on number of units and additional complexity. The operating permit filing fees have a cap of six thousand dollars ($6,000).

    Specifically, revisions in the SIP add new fee tables within the following rule sections:

    • 10 CSR 10-6.060(10)—Permit Fees and Amendments;

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(5)—Intermediate State Operating Permits; and

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)—Part 70 Operating Permits.

    Revisions in the SIP amend the following rules to reference the new fee tables as follows:

    • 10 CSR 10-6.060(4)—Portable Equipment;

    • 10 CSR 10-6.060(10)(A)—Permit Fees and Amendments; and

    • 10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(A)—Appendix A, Permit Review Procedures.

    Revision in the SIP remove the blanket applicability of operating permits to incinerators as follows:

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(1)(B)—Applicability, Incinerators.

    Revisions in the SIP also make non-substantive style changes throughout.

    Details of Missouri's SIP revisions can be found in the Technical Support Document located in this docket.

    II. What Part 70 revision is EPA approving?

    The initial and renewal Intermediate State Operating Permit and part 70 Operating Permit filing fees increased from a flat one hundred dollar ($100) fee to a variable fee based on number of units and additional complexity. The filing fee has a cap of six thousand dollars ($6,000).

    Revisions in part 70 add new fee tables within the following rule sections:

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(5)—Intermediate State Operating Permits; and

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)—Part 70 Operating Permits.

    Revision in the SIP remove the blanket applicability of operating permits to incinerators as follows:

    • 10 CSR 10-6.065(1)(B)—Applicability, Incinerators.

    Revisions in the SIP also make non-substantive style changes throughout.

    Details of Missouri's part 70 revisions can be found in the Technical Support Document located in this docket.

    IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?

    Missouri's submission indicated that the revisions made to 10 CSR 10-6.065 “include any revisions necessary to retain 112(l) approval under the Clean Air Act.” The John S. Seitz Memo of April 13, 1993, titled “Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities,” provides guidance on revisions to state Title V programs and how they intersect with section 112 requirements. It states, “As for part 70 program revisions, no formal amendment to the initial title V program should typically be needed with respect to section 112 requirements taking effect after the effective date of the program. The State's up-front commitment and demonstrations (i.e., legal authorities and mechanisms to adopt additional section 112 requirements) coupled with EPA's ability to review individual permits and to audit part 70 programs periodically should provide reasonable assurance of adequate State implementation.” The guidance further explains that, “The State, however, remains responsible for maintaining and enhancing as necessary its authority to implement section 112, including any new regulations. In light of the demonstrations and/or commitments required for part 70 approval, the EPA will presume that a State's request for approval of its operating permits program will be an implicit request under section 112(l) for delegation of authority to implement Federally-promulgated section 112 requirements in the same form in which EPA issues them.” Our September 25, 1995, 112(l) delegation to Missouri remains in effect.

    V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The State of Missouri provided the rule changes for public notice on September 29, 2016. The State of Missouri held a public hearing on the rule changes on October 29, 2016. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    VI. What action is EPA taking?

    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. The Missouri conducted outreach with stakeholders prior to proposing the rule changes; and, conducted public notice on the rule changes. The Missouri received substantive comments on one topic, the fee for PAL renewal. Missouri revised the fee based on those comments. Based on the rulemaking history, we do not anticipate adverse comments. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP and Operating Permit Program if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri Construction Permit Required Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060, and Operating Permit Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

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

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed 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.

    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 27, 2016. Mike Brincks, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 as set forth below:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart AA—Missouri 2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by revising the entries for 10-6.060 and 10-6.065 to read as follows:
    § 52.1320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations Missouri citation Title State
  • effective date
  • EPA Approval date Explanation
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources *         *         *         *         *         *         * Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of Missouri *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.060 Construction Permits Required 3/30/16 10/11/16 and [Insert Federal Register citation] —Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD—Increments, SILs and SMCs rule (75 FR 64865, October 20, 2010) relating to SILs and SMCs that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals decision are not SIP approved. —Provisions of the 2002 NSR reform rule relating to the Clean Unit Exemption, Pollution Control Projects, and exemption from recordkeeping provisions for certain sources using the actual-to-projected-actual emissions projections test are not SIP approved. —In addition, we have not approved Missouri's rule incorporating EPA's 2007 revision of the definition of “chemical processing plants” (the “Ethanol Rule,” 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007) or EPA's 2008 “fugitive emissions rule,” 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008). —Although exemptions previously listed in 10 CSR 10-6.060 have been transferred to 10 CSR 10-6.061, the Federally-approved SIP continues to include the following exemption, “Livestock and livestock handling systems from which the only potential contaminant is odorous gas.” —Section 9, pertaining to hazardous air pollutants, is not SIP approved. —The phrase “including the revision published at 75 FR 31606-07 (effective August 2, 2010)” in subsection (8)(A) is not SIP approved. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 10-6.065 Operating Permits 3/30/16 10/11/16 and [Insert Federal Register citation] Section (4) Basic State Operating Permits, has not been approved as part of the SIP. Subparagraphs (2)(A)2.A., (2)(A)2.B., and the words “except that” in paragraph (2)(A)2 have not been approved as part of the SIP. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    4. Amend Appendix A to part 70 by adding paragraph (gg) under Missouri to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs Missouri

    (gg) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, “Operating Permits” on April 6, 2016. We are approving this rule except for Section (4) which relates to the State Basic Operating Permits; Subparagraph (2)(A)2.A.; Subparagraph(2)(A)2.B.; and the words “except that” in Paragraph (2)(A)2. The state effective date is March 30, 2016. This revision is effective December 12, 2016.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24375 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-9953-72-OAR] RIN 2060-AG12 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 32 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Determination of acceptability.

    SUMMARY:

    This determination of acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists as acceptable additional substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning sector and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors.

    DATES:

    This determination is effective on October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (Nos. A-91-42 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), William J. Clinton West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerald Wozniak by telephone at (202) 343-9624, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for the evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available at EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection including the SNAP portion at www.epa.gov/snap/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612 C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work D. Additional Information About the SNAP Program Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

    This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning and fire suppression and explosion protection sectors. New substitutes are:

    • R-448A in retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment;

    • R-449A in retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment;

    • R-449B in several refrigeration end-uses; and

    trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene in total flooding fire suppression.

    For copies of the full list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors, visit the SNAP portion of EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

    The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing today's listing decisions for these new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

    You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

    A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 1. R-448A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-448A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-40, is a weighted blend of 26 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No 754-12-1); and 7 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Solstice® N-40 (R-448A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-448A (Solstice® N-40)”

    EPA previously listed R-448A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July, 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053).

    Environmental information: R-448A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and HFO-1234ze(E) have a 100-year integrated global warming potentials (100-yr GWPs) of 675; 3,500; 1,430; one to four; 1 2 and one to six; 3 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-448A has a GWP of about 1,390. The components of R-448A are excluded from the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    1 Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op. cit.

    2 Nielsen, O. J., Javadi, M. S., Sulbaek Andersen, M. P., Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Singh, R. Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22, 2007.

    3 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Javadi et al., 2008. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-448A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-448A. The manufacturer of R-448A recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) of 890 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-448A has an ODP of zero, comparable 4 to or lower than other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

    4 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is comparable to or lower than that of HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430 and a number of HFC blends in this end-use. R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, including ammonia vapor compression with a secondary loop, CO2, R-450A, R-513A, and certain blends with GWPs ranging from zero to 920; of these substitutes, ammonia and CO2 are not listed as acceptable for use in retrofit equipment. We note that R-448A has a GWP toward the higher end of the scale of acceptable alternatives in this end-use. This end-use is a subset of retail food refrigeration and in some instances the equipment in this end use has specialized technical requirements that may limit or prevent use of acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs. In this end-use, we are not aware of significant success in the United States using alternatives with GWPs significantly lower than that for R-448A. However, if it is demonstrated in the future that lower GWP alternatives—either those currently listed or new alternatives added to the list in the future—can be used in this end-use, EPA may evaluate whether those alternatives pose lower overall risk than R-448A and other listed substitutes with similar GWPs.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-448A acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-448A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    2. R-449A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 40, is a weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.7 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 25.7 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Opteon® XP 40 (R-449A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-449A (Opteon® XP40)”

    EPA previously listed R-449A as an acceptable refrigerant in a number of other refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (e.g., July, 16, 2015, 80 FR 42053).

    Environmental information: R-449A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,5 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449A has a GWP of about 1,400. The components of R-449A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    5 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-449A, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449A. The manufacturer of R-449A recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449A has an ODP of zero, comparable 6 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in this end-use, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

    6 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is comparable to or lower than that of HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430 and a number of HFC blends in this end-use. R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, including ammonia vapor compression with a secondary loop, CO2, R-450A, R-513A, and certain blends, with GWPs ranging from zero to 920. Ammonia and CO2 are not listed as acceptable for use in retrofit equipment. We note that R-449A has a GWP toward the higher end of the scale of acceptable alternatives in this end-use. This end-use is a subset of retail food refrigeration with equipment that in some instances has specialized technical requirements that may limit or prevent use of acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs. In this end-use, we are not aware of significant success in the United States using alternatives with GWPs significantly lower than that for R-449A. However, if it is demonstrated in the future that lower GWP alternatives—either those currently listed or new alternatives added to the list in the future—can be used in this end-use, EPA may evaluate whether those alternatives pose lower overall risk than R-449A and other listed substitutes with similar GWPs. Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-449A acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-449A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    3. R-449B

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449B acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration-low-temperature stand-alone equipment (i.e., equipment designed to maintain internal temperatures at 32 °F (0 °C) or below) (new and retrofit) • Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units (new and retrofit)

    R-449B, marketed under the trade name Forane® 449B, is a weighted blend of 25.2 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.3 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 27.3 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 23.2 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Forane® 449B (R-449B) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • Risk Screen on Substitutes in Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Retail Food Refrigeration—Refrigerated Food Processing and Dispensing Equipment Substitute: R-449B (Forane® 449B)”

    Environmental information: R-449B has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,7 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449B has a GWP of about 1,410. The components of R-449B are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    7 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-449B, as formulated and even considering the worst-case of fractionation for flammability, is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449B. The manufacturer of R-449B recommends an AEL of 865 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449B has an ODP of zero, comparable 8 to or lower than the other listed substitutes in these end-uses, with ODPs ranging from zero to 0.098.

    8 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    For commercial ice machines, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449B's GWP of about 1,410, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-448A, R-449A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,390 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for commercial ice machines have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Stirling cycle, propane,9 R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    9 Propane (R-290) is listed as acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. This substitute is subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 150 g or less and thus may limit its use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449B's GWP of about 1,410, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, R-448A, R-449A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,390 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport have a lower GWP including R-450A, R-513A, CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is comparable to or lower than that of HFC-134a and a number of HFC and HFC/HFO blends in retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment. R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in new retail food refrigeration—refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment, including ammonia vapor compression with a secondary loop, CO2, R-450A, R-513A, and certain blends, with GWPs ranging from zero to 920. Ammonia and CO2 are not listed as acceptable for use in retrofit equipment. We note that R-449B has a GWP toward the higher end of the scale of acceptable alternatives in this end-use. This end-use is a subset of retail food refrigeration with equipment that in some instances has specialized technical requirements that may limit or prevent use of acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs. In this end-use, we are not aware of significant success in the United States using alternatives with GWPs significantly lower than that for R-449B. However, if it is demonstrated in the future that lower GWP alternatives—either those currently listed or new alternatives added to the list in the future—can be used in this end-use, EPA may evaluate whether those alternatives pose lower overall risk than R-449B and other listed substitutes with similar GWPs.

    R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including HFC-134a, R-407A, R-448A, R-449A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,390 to approximately 2,110. R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is higher than the GWP of some other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration-supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2, R-450A, and R-513A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 630.

    R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is comparable to the GWP of substitutes listed as acceptable for retail food refrigeration-low-temperature stand-alone equipment, including the HFO/HFC blends R-448A and R-449A with GWPs of 1,390 and 1,400, HFC-134a with a GWP of 1,430, as well as other HFC blends. R-449B's GWP of about 1,410 is higher than the GWP of some other listed substitutes in this end-use, including CO2, propane, isobutane, R-441A, R-450A, and R-513A, with GWPs ranging from one to approximately 630.10 We note that R-449B has a GWP toward the higher end of the scale of acceptable alternatives in the retail food refrigeration—low temperature stand-alone equipment end-use. This end-use is a subset of retail food refrigeration with equipment that in some instances have specialized technical requirements that may limit use of acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs. In this end-use, we are not aware of significant success in the United States using alternatives with GWPs significantly lower than that for R-449B. However, if it is demonstrated in the future that lower GWP alternatives—either those currently listed or new alternatives added to the list in the future—can be used in this end-use, EPA may evaluate whether those alternatives pose lower overall risk than R-449B and other listed substitutes with similar GWPs.

    10 Propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A are acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. These three substitutes are subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 150 g or less and thus may limit their use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    Flammability and toxicity risks are comparable to or lower than flammability and toxicity risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    EPA finds R-449B acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-449B is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-uses.

    B. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection 1. Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice® FS)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Total flooding uses in both normally occupied and unoccupied spaces.

    Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene ((E)-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, CAS Reg. No. 102687-65-0) is a chlorofluoroalkene marketed under the trade name Solstice® FS for this end-use. Solstice® FS is proposed for use in applications including data centers, telecommunication centers, power plants, manufacturing plants, historical buildings, warehouses, and engine nacelles and auxiliary power units (APUs) aboard aircraft.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118-0285 in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov. EPA has performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Normally Occupied and Unoccupied Spaces—Substitute: Trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice® FS).”

    We have previously listed trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene as a refrigerant for use in new equipment in centrifugal chillers and non-mechanical heat transfer, as a foam blowing agent, as a cleaning solvent, as an aerosol solvent, and as a carrier solvent in adhesives coatings, and inks (e.g., August 10, 2012, 77 FR 47768; October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62863).

    Environmental information: Solstice® FS has an ODP of 0.00024-0.001512.11 12 13 The submitter indicates that Solstice® FS has a GWP of 4.7-7 and an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 26 days. Solstice® FS is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)).

    11 The lower bound of the range reflects ODP values for surface emissions. The upper bound of the range takes into account predicted ODP values for higher altitude emissions at various latitudes.

    12 Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.

    13 Patten and Wuebbles, 2010. “Atmospheric Lifetimes and Ozone Depletion Potentials of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trichloropropylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene in a three-dimensional model.” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10867-10874, 2010.

    Flammability information: Solstice® FS is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include serious eye irritation, skin irritation, and frostbite. It may cause central nervous system effects such as drowsiness and dizziness. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. The potential health effects of Solstice® FS are unlikely to occur when following good industrial hygiene practices and the personnel protective equipment (PPE) and engineering control (e.g., ventilation) recommendations outlined in the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for Solstice® FS.

    To assess potential health risks from exposure to this substitute, EPA considered both occupational and end-user exposure. We evaluated potential risks from chronic occupational exposure, such as during manufacture, installation, and servicing. The AIHA has established a WEEL of 800 ppm for trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene. The WEEL represents the maximum 8-hour TWA at which a worker can be exposed regularly without adverse effects. The Solstice® FS cylinder filling process utilizes quick coupling devices to transfer the substitute from a storage supply to the agent container, which minimizes agent release and keeps potential exposures to levels significantly below the 8-hour WEEL.

    During installation or servicing of Solstice® FS total flooding systems, if the proper instructions on system installation and servicing included in manuals for the Solstice® FS systems and relevant industry standards (i.e., latest edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems and Underwriters' Laboratories (UL) 2166) are adhered to, exposure to the substitute is not likely. In the event of an accidental release of the substitute from the total flooding system, potential acute exposures may be of concern, primarily cardiac sensitization. The manufacturer's maximum design concentration of 6.8 percent covering Class C hazards (energized electrical fires) is significantly below the cardiotoxic NOAEL of 10 percent. Appropriate protective measures should be taken and proper training administered for the manufacture, clean-up and disposal of this product and for the installation and maintenance of the total flooding systems using this product.

    NFPA 2001 provides that in the case of accidental release in normally occupied spaces, required engineering controls as specified in NFPA 2001 should be employed to limit personnel exposure to clean agent discharges. Specifically, audible and visual pre-discharge alarms and a 30-60 second time delay should be employed within the protected space to indicate the operation of the system and pending discharge to ensure egress for all personnel prior to activation.

    EPA's evaluation indicates that the use of Solstice® FS is not expected to pose a significant toxicity risk to personnel or the general population. In addition, the risks it may pose after exposure are common to many total flooding agents, including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same end-use. EPA evaluated the risks associated with potential exposures to Solstice® FS during production operations as well as in the case of an inadvertent discharge of the system during maintenance activities on the fire extinguishing system. EPA's review of the human health impacts of Solstice® FS, including the summary of available toxicity studies, is in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118).14

    14 ICF, 2016. Significant New Alternatives Policy Program. Fire Extinguishing and Explosion Prevention Sector. Risk Screen on Substitutes for Total Flooding Systems in Normally Occupied and Unoccupied Spaces—Substitute: Trans-1-Chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice® FS).

    Protective gloves and tightly sealed goggles should be worn for installation and servicing activities, to protect workers in any event of potential discharge of the proposed substitute, accidental or otherwise. Filling or servicing operations should be performed in well-ventilated areas. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with NFPA 2001 standard, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the fire suppression industry. In the “Further Information” column of the listing for total flooding agents, EPA is providing the following additional information for establishments manufacturing, installing and maintaining equipment using this agent:

    • In the case that Solstice® FS is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention.

    • Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with water for 15 minutes; should frostbite occur, affected areas should be rinsed with lukewarm water, and medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists.

    • In the case of dermal exposure, the SDS recommends that person(s) should immediately wash the affected area with water and remove all contaminated clothing to avoid irritation; should frostbite occur, bathe (do not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, no hot, water. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean soft cloth; and medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists.

    • Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of Solstice® FS, the person(s) should drink a cup of water, if fully conscious, and consult a physician immediately.

    • Manufacturing space should be equipped with engineering controls, specifically an adequate exhaust ventilation system, to effectively mitigate potential occupational exposure.

    • Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE), such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case of accidental release or insufficient ventilation.

    • All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices.

    • Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent.

    • This agent should be used in accordance with the safety guidelines in the latest edition of the NFPA 2001 Standard for Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems.

    • Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA standards.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: Solstice® FS has an ODP of 0.00024-0.001512 which is comparable to or lower than the ODP of other acceptable total flooding agents with ODPs that range from zero to 0.048. Solstice® FS's GWP of 4.7-7 is significantly lower than that of some of the other alternatives listed as acceptable total flooding agents- such as HFC-227ea, other HFCs, the H-Galden hydrofluoropolyethers, and some HCFC fire suppressants, with GWPs which range from about 1,550 to 14,800. Other acceptable substitutes in this end-use have comparable GWPs ranging from zero to one, such as water, C6-perfluoroketone, and inert gases. Like a number of other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, Solstice® FS is excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s).

    The toxicity risks due to inhalation exposure are common to many total flooding agents, including those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this same end-use, such as C6-perfluoroketone. Solstice® FS is nonflammable, as are all other available total flooding agents.

    EPA finds Solstice® FS acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by Solstice® FS is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other available substitutes in the same end-use.

    II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

    1. Rulemaking

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (CFC, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

    2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-sector and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

    3. Petition Process

    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

    4. 90-Day Notification

    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

    5. Outreach

    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

    6. Clearinghouse

    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

    B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors are the following: Refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.

    C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the entity likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,15 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end users 16 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the agency.

    15 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance.

    16 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)).17 Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions may be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.18

    17 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

    18 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency generally requires a user of a substitute subject to narrowed use limits to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application.19 EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    19 In the case of the July 20, 2015, final rule, EPA established narrowed use limits for certain substitutes over a limited period of time for specific MVAC and foam applications, on the basis that other acceptable alternatives would not be available for those specific applications within broader end-uses, but acceptable alternatives were expected to become available over time, e.g., after military qualification testing for foam blowing agents in military applications or after development of improved servicing infrastructure in a destination country for MVAC in vehicles destined for export.

    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 20 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance.

    20 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of “potentially available” is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172).

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 13044 on March 18, 1994, the SNAP program evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The SNAP program compares new substitutes both to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the CAA, and to other available or potentially available alternatives for the same end-uses. The environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers include ozone depletion potential, flammability, toxicity, occupational and consumer health and safety, as well as contributions to global warming and other environmental factors. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information applicable to a substitute can change. This approach does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

    In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

    Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by OSHA). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices.

    D. Additional Information About the SNAP Program

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at: www.epa.gov/snap. For more information on the agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the initial SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. SNAP decisions and the appropriate Federal Register citations are found at: www.epa.gov/snap/snap-regulations.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Date: September 28, 2016. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) R-449B (Forane® 449B) Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm (8-hr time weighted average (TWA)) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure level (AEL) for the workplace for R-449B of 865 ppm (8-hr TWA). Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) R-449B (Forane® 449B) Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449B of 865 ppm (8-hr TWA). Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment) R-448A (Solstice® N-40) Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,390. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA). Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment) R-449A (Opteon® XP 40) Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA). Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit refrigerated food processing and dispensing equipment) R-449B (Forane® 449B) Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449B of 865 ppm (8-hr TWA). Retail food refrigeration (supermarket systems, remote condensing units, and low-temperature 2 stand-alone equipment only, new and retrofit equipment) R-449B (Forane® 449B) Acceptable R-449B has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,410. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1). The blend is nonflammable. The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449B of 865 ppm (8-hr TWA). 1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and guidance for all listed refrigerants. 2 “Low-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32 °F (0 °C). See appendix U to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection End-use Substitute Decision Further information Total flooding Trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (Solstice® FS) Acceptable Use of this agent should be in accordance with the safety guidelines in the latest edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2001 Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems. Safety features that are typical of total flooding systems such as pre-discharge alarms, time delays, and system abort switches should be provided, as directed by applicable OSHA regulations and NFPA standards. For establishments manufacturing, installing and maintaining equipment using this agent, EPA recommends the following: • In the case that Solstice® FS is inhaled, person(s) should be immediately removed and exposed to fresh air; if breathing is difficult, person(s) should seek medical attention; • Eye wash and quick drench facilities should be available. In case of ocular exposure, person(s) should immediately flush the eyes, including under the eyelids, with water for 15 minutes; should frostbite occur, affected areas should be rinsed with lukewarm water, and medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists; • In the case of dermal exposure, the SDS recommends that person(s) should immediately wash the affected area with water and remove all contaminated clothing to avoid irritation; should frostbite occur, bathe (do not rub) the affected area with lukewarm, no hot, water. If water is not available, cover the affected area with a clean soft cloth; and medical attention should be sought if irritation develops or persists. • Although unlikely, in case of ingestion of Solstice® FS, the person(s) should drink a cup of water, if fully conscious, and consult a physician immediately; • Manufacturing space should be equipped with engineering controls, specifically an adequate exhaust ventilation system, to effectively mitigate potential occupational exposure; • Employees responsible for chemical processing should wear the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as protective gloves, tightly sealed goggles, protective work clothing, and suitable respiratory protection in case of accidental release or insufficient ventilation; • All spills should be cleaned up immediately in accordance with good industrial hygiene practices;\ • Training for safe handling procedures should be provided to all employees that would be likely to handle containers of the agent or extinguishing units filled with the agent; See additional comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 1. The EPA recommends that users consult Section VIII of the OSHA Technical Manual for information on selecting the appropriate types of personal protective equipment for all listed fire suppression agents. The EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon substitutes. 2. Use of all listed fire suppression agents should conform to relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L, sections 1910.160 and 1910.162. 3. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 4. Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 5. The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24381 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0285; FRL-9945-37] Mandestrobin; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of S-2200 (here after referred to within this document as mandestrobin) in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Valent U.S.A., Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 11, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 12, 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-2014-0285, 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:

    Susan Lewis, 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 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-2014-0285 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 December 12, 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-2014-0285, 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 Tolerances

    In the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-9918-90), 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 3F8224) by Valent U.S.A., Corporation,1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, California, 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide mandestrobin, (2-[(2,5-dimethylphenoxy)methyl]-α-methoxy-N-methyl-benzeneacetamide), in or on small fruit vine climbing except fuzzy kiwifruit crop subgroup 13-07F, fruit at 5 parts per million (ppm), juice at 7 ppm, and dried fruit at 10 ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, fruit at 3 ppm; and rapeseed crop subgroup 20A, seed at 0.6 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA lowered the requested tolerance levels for grape, raisin. Tolerances for juice and dried fruit are not required. At this time, EPA is not granting a tolerance for rapeseed crop group 20A. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 mandestrobin including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with mandestrobin as 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 main target organs for mandestrobin toxicity in all mammalian species tested are the liver and gall bladder with effects ranging from hepatocyte hypertrophy and increased liver weight (usually considered not adverse in the absence of corroborative hepatic enzyme changes or histopathology) to centrilobular degeneration, hepatocyte and bile duct pigmentation, periductular inflammation and gall stones. Dogs were more sensitive to the adverse liver effects than rats; mice showed only non-adverse liver effects.

    Thyroid effects were observed in rats (increased weight, follicular cell hypertrophy, decreased serum hormone levels) at higher doses than early signs of liver effects suggesting that effects in the thyroid may be secondary to liver effects.

    Gonadal effects were observed at higher doses than the liver effects, and were more evident in dogs (immature prostate and/or testes, low sperm count, immature ovaries, decrease uterus weight) but equivocal and/or not adverse in rats. Gonadal effects did not affect the reproductive capacity of rats.

    No developmental effects were observed in rats or rabbits, and no adverse reproductive, immunotoxic, or neurotoxic effects were observed in any of the studies. No adverse effects were seen in a route-specific dermal toxicity study. Mutagenicity studies were negative. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity because there was no increase in tumor incidence in rat and mouse long-term studies. The Agency classified mandestrobin as “not likely to be a human carcinogen”.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the toxic effects caused by mandestrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in: Mandestrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Foliar Uses on Small Fruit Vine Climbing (Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit) (Subgroup 13-07F), Low Growing Berry (Subgroup 13-07G) (Except Cranberry), Turf, and Seed Treatment Uses on Corn (Field, Pop, Sweet), Sorghum Grain (Milo), and Legume Vegetables (Crop Group 6C) (Except Cowpea and Field Pea) at page 18 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0285.

    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://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

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

    Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Mandestrobin 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 (General population including infants and children) No toxicity was observed that could be attributed to a single exposure. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 92 mg/kg/day Chronic RfD = 0.92 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.92 mg/kg/day
  • Chronic Toxicity—Dog LOAEL = 181 mg/kg/day based on incidence of liver centrilobular degeneration, hepatocytehypertrophy, hepatocyte pigment, and elevated serum ALP and ALT.
    Incidental Oral Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months) UFA = 10× LOC for MOE <100 Additional supportive study: Subchronic Toxicity—Dog NOAEL = 91 mg/kg/day
  • LOAEL = 268 mg/kg/day based on incidence of liver centrilobular degeneration in both sexes and elevated serum ALP in females.
  • Inhalation Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months) UFH = 10×
  • FQPA SF = 1×
  • Dermal Short-Term (1-30 days) and Intermediate-Term (1-6 months), all populations No hazard was identified for dermal exposure; therefore a quantitative dermal assessment is not needed. Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Not likely a human carcinogen. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC = level of concern. ALP = alkaline phosphatase. ALT = alanine aminotransferase.
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to mandestrobin, EPA considered exposure from the petitioned-for tolerances only as there are no existing mandestrobin tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from mandestrobin 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. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for mandestrobin; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crops treated (PCT), and default processing factors for all proposed commodities.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that mandestrobin 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 mandestrobin. 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 mandestrobin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of mandestrobin. 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 First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mandestrobin for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 38 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 3.9 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 38 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). Mandestrobin is currently proposed for use on turf at golf courses, sod farms, recreational/athletic fields, and residential/commercial lawns. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following scenarios. For residential handlers, the worst-case scenario was determined to be short-term inhalation exposures to adults from mixing, loading, and applying mandestrobin to turf. For post-application exposures, the worst-case scenario was determined to be short-term post-application incidental oral exposure to children from hand-to-mouth activities on turf. 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 mandestrobin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and mandestrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that mandestrobin 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 of sensitivity/susceptibility in the offspring following mandestrobin exposure, including developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, and a 2-generation reproductive study in rats. Although pup weights were decreased in the rat reproductive study, this change was observed at the same dose as maternal liver effects, which included periportal/bile duct pigment, periductular inflammatory cell infiltration, and bile duct proliferation.

    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 the mandestrobin tolerances being established is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that mandestrobin is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that mandestrobin results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    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 mandestrobin in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by mandestrobin.

    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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, mandestrobin is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to mandestrobin from food and water will utilize 2.6% 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 mandestrobin 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). Mandestrobin 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 mandestrobin.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 19,000 for adults and 2,900 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for mandestrobin 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). Since the short-and intermediate-term PODs are the same and short-term exposure estimates are greater than their intermediate-term counterparts, the short-term aggregate risk assessment is protective of the intermediate-term aggregate exposure. Therefore a separate intermediate-term aggregate assessment is not necessary.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, mandestrobin 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 mandestrobin residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (RM-48C-2A, which uses high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS-MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for mandestrobin.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Based on an analysis of residue levels from crop field trials, EPA is establishing a tolerance for grape, raisin at 7 ppm, rather than the requested level of 10 ppm. The highest average field trial (HAFT) for grape and the processing factor for raisins supports a 7 ppm tolerance.

    The petitioner requested tolerances for juice and dried fruit covered under crop subgroup 13-07F, small fruit. The available processing data for grape, the representative commodity for subgroup 13-07F, indicates that residues in juice will be covered by the tolerance being established for subgroup 13-07F. At this time, the Agency is not aware of any dried commodities derived from crops in subgroup 13-07F other than raisin, for which the Agency is establishing a separate tolerance, as indicated in the paragraph above.

    After the petitioner submitted its petition for tolerances on subgroup 13-07G, it withdrew its request to include cranberry; therefore, the Agency is only establishing tolerances for subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry.

    At this time, EPA is not establishing a tolerance for rapeseed subgroup 20A. The full three year freezer storage stability data (OPPTS guideline number 860.1380) for crop field trial data are needed to support tolerances. These data are required since samples from crop field trials are often stored for a number of years prior to analysis. Therefore, it is a requirement to ensure that the residues that are found multiple years later are actually representative of the residues that would be found on the day of harvest. This ensures that the Agency has set a tolerance high enough to cover residues expected in/on the commodity of interest. Accordingly, EPA has not made a determination with regard to this petitioned-for tolerance at this time.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of mandestrobin, 2-[(2,5-dimethylphenoxy)methyl]-α-methoxy-N-methylbenzeneacetamide, in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry at 3.0 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 5.0 ppm; grape, raisin at 7.0 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Jack E. Housenger, Director, 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. Add § 180.690 to subpart C to read as follows:
    § 180.690 Mandestrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of mandestrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only mandestrobin, 2-[(2,5-dimethylphenoxy)methyl]-α-methoxy-N-methylbenzeneacetamide.

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G, except cranberry 3.0 Fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F 5.0 Grape, raisin 7.0

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]

    (d) Indirect or inadvertent tolerances. [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2016-24492 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054; FXES11130900000 167 FF09E42000] RIN 1018-BA46 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of Solidago albopilosa (White-haired Goldenrod) From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule and notice of availability of final post-delisting monitoring plan.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are removing the plant Solidago albopilosa (white-haired goldenrod) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. This action is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, which indicates that the threats to this species have been eliminated or reduced to the point that the species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This rule also announces the availability of a final post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for white-haired goldenrod.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    This final rule and the PDM plan are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Service's Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr., Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, 330 West Broadway, Suite 265, Frankfort, KY 40601; telephone (502) 695-0468. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary

    This document contains: (1) A final rule to remove Solidago albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h); and (2) a notice of availability of a final PDM plan.

    Species addressedSolidago albopilosa (white-haired goldenrod) is an upright, herbaceous plant with soft, white hairs covering its leaves and stems (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123). The species produces clusters of small, fragrant, yellow flowers from September to November. S. albopilosa is restricted to sandstone rock shelters or rocky ledges of a highly dissected region known as the Red River Gorge in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, KY.

    The Service listed Solidago albopilosa as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), primarily because of its limited range and threats associated with ground disturbance and trampling caused by unlawful archaeological activities and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and rock climbing (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988). Other identified threats included the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms and minor vegetational changes in the surrounding forest.

    When the recovery plan for S. albopilosa (white-haired goldenrod) (Recovery Plan) was completed in 1993, the Service knew of 90 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa (Service 1993, p. 2), containing an estimated 45,000 stems (each individual plant can have multiple stems (or branches); stem counts have been the focus of most survey efforts, rather than the number of individual plants, which is often not discernable) (Service 1993, p. 2). The Recovery Plan defined an occurrence as a “discrete group of plants beneath a single rock shelter or on a single rock ledge.” All of these locations were situated within the proclamation boundary of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF), and 69 occurrences (77 percent) were in Federal ownership.

    Currently, 117 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa are known, containing an estimated 174,000 stems. All extant occurrences continue to be located within the proclamation boundary of the DBNF, and 111 occurrences (95 percent) are in Federal ownership and receive management and protection through DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10). We consider 81 of the extant occurrences (69 percent) to be stable, meaning no change has been detected in their general rank or status over the last 12 years. We consider 46 of the 81 stable occurrences to be adequately protected and self-sustaining as defined by the Recovery Plan, and these occurrences account for approximately 131,000 stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total number.

    Over the past 12 years, the Service has worked closely with the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission (KSNPC) and DBNF on the management and protection of the species. Management activities have included trail diversion (away from S. albopilosa occurrences), installation of protective fencing, and placement of informational signs in rock shelters, along trails, and at trailheads. These activities and other management actions included in the DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8) have assisted in recovery of the species. Furthermore, a new cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC, which was signed on August 29, 2016, will assist in the long-term protection of the species.

    Considering the number of stable, self-sustaining, protected occurrences, the management and protection of habitats provided by DBNF's LRMP and the new cooperative management agreement, and the lack of significant threats to the species or its habitats, we conclude that Solidago albopilosa no longer meets the definition of a threatened species under the Act.

    Purpose of the Regulatory Action—The purpose of this action is to remove Solidago albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants, based on the reduction or removal of threats.

    Basis for the Regulatory Action—Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We must consider the same factors in removing a species from the List (delisting). Further, we may delist a species if the best scientific and commercial data indicate the species is neither a threatened species nor an endangered species for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer threatened or endangered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error. Here, in addition to the application of the five factors, we are delisting the species based on recovery.

    We reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information pertaining to the five threat factors for white-haired goldenrod. All 4 peer reviewers and 7 of 10 public commenters supported the proposed action to delist white-haired goldenrod. Our results are summarized as follows:

    • We consider Solidago albopilosa to be recovered because all substantial threats to this species have been eliminated or reduced and adequate regulatory mechanisms exist.

    • The species has met all recovery criteria as outlined in the Recovery Plan (there is a sufficient number of distinct, stable, self-sustaining, and adequately protected occurrences).

    Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed rule to remove Solidago albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (80 FR 52717, September 1, 2015) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species. We reopened the comment period for the proposed rule on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9798), in order to conduct peer review and provide interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We requested that all interested parties submit written comments by March 28, 2016.

    Background

    It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics directly relevant to the removal of Solidago albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

    Species Information

    The following section contains information updated from that presented in the proposed rule.

    Species Description and Life HistorySolidago albopilosa (Braun 1942) is an upright to slightly arching, herbaceous, perennial plant that attains a height of 30 to 100 centimeters (12 to 39 inches). The species is commonly multi-stemmed because it produces rhizomes (horizontal, usually underground stems) that often root below and produce new stems above. Because of this, the number of plants at a single site is often not discernable from above ground stem distributions. The long, soft, white hairs that cover the leaves and stems are the species' most distinguishing characteristic (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123). The alternate leaves of S. albopilosa are widest at their base and are prominently veined with a dark-green upper surface and a pale underside. They vary in length from 6 to 10 centimeters (2.5 to 4.0 inches), with the larger leaves closer to the base of the stem. Hairs cover both surfaces of the leaves and are most dense along the veins. The stem is cylindrical and densely covered with fine white hairs. Axillary (positioned along the main axis of the plant) clusters of small, fragrant, yellow flowers begin blooming in late August. The flower heads are composed of three to five ray florets (small flowers in the marginal part of the flower head) and more than 15 disk florets (small flowers in the central part of the flower head). The ray florets are about 6 mm long (0.24 inch), and the disk flowers are about 3 mm long (0.12 inch). The pale-brown, pubescent, oblong achenes (dry single-seed fruits) appear in October (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 123; Service 1993, p. 1).

    Solidago albopilosa flowers from September through November and sets fruit in mid-October through December. The flowers are visited by bees (Families Apidae and Halictidae), moths (Order Lepidoptera), and syrphid flies (Family Syrphidae), which are likely attracted by the fragrant, yellow flowers (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Service 1993, p. 6). Viability of the species' pollen is reported to be high (Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, pp. 129-130). Seeds are most likely dispersed by wind, but germination rates and the extent of vegetative reproduction in the wild are unknown (Service 1993, p. 6). Seedlings are observed frequently in the wild, but the percentage of seeds that germinate in the wild is unknown (Taylor 2016, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm.). Germination of seed collected from the wild has high viability in the laboratory (near 100 percent), and plants grow readily from seed (Taylor 2016, pers. comm.).

    Braun (1942, pp. 1-4) described S. albopilosa based on specimens discovered in the summer of 1940 in the Red River Gorge area of Menifee County, KY. S. albopilosa is in the family Asteraceae, and there are no synonyms for the species. Andreasen and Eshbaugh (1973, pp. 126-128) studied variation among four separate occurrences (populations) of S. albopilosa in Menifee and Powell Counties. Their population analysis of characteristics such as plant height, leaf length and width, stem pubescence, and number of ray flowers per head showed that some morphological characteristics (e.g., plant height, leaf shape and size, stem pubescence) can vary widely between populations.

    Solidago albopilosa can be distinguished from its closest relative, S. flexicaulis (broad-leaf goldenrod), by its shorter height, smaller and thinner leaves, and generally downy (hairy) appearance (the leaves of S. flexicaulis have a slick, smooth appearance) (Medley 1980, p. 6). The two species also differ in habitat preference. S. albopilosa is restricted to sandstone rock shelters or ledges, while S. flexicaulis is a woodland species that occurs on the forest floor. Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) used molecular and morphological analyses to examine the relationship between S. albopilosa and S. flexicaulis. They concluded that S. albopilosa is most closely related to S. flexicaulis; however, there was no evidence that either S. flexicaulis or S. caesia (wreath or blue-stemmed goldenrod) is a parent or has a recent close relationship with S. albopilosa as was previously speculated by Braun (1942, pp. 1-4). Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) also examined genetic diversity within the species S. albopilosa (using Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA and isozyme markers) and reported genetic variation both within and between populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among populations, and populations are not very genetically homogenous). The highest level of genetic diversity was observed among (across) versus within populations. Consequently, Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-256) recommended that conservation efforts include the maintenance of as many populations as possible to capture the full genetic diversity of the species.

    Solidago albopilosa is restricted to outcroppings of Pottsville sandstone in a rugged, highly dissected area known as the Red River Gorge in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, KY (Service 1993, p. 2; White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River Gorge is well known for its scenic beauty and outdoor recreational opportunities, and much of the area is located within the DBNF, an approximate 2,860-km2 (706,000-acre) area in eastern Kentucky that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). The Red River Gorge lies within the Northern Forested Plateau Escarpment of the Western Allegheny Plateau ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002, p. 1). The hills and ridges of this region are characterized as rugged and highly dissected, with erosion-resistant, Pennsylvanian quartzose sandstone (contains 90 percent quartz) capping the ridges and exposed layers of Mississippian limestone, shale, and siltstone on lower slopes and in the valleys.

    Solidago albopilosa occurs on the floors of sandstone rock shelters (natural, shallow, cave-like formations) and on sheltered cliffs (cliffs with overhanging ledges) at elevations between 243 and 396 m (800 and 1,300 ft) (Andreasen and Eshbaugh 1973; Service 1993, p. 5). The species may also be found on ledges or vertical walls of these habitats, but, regardless of the specific location, S. albopilosa is restricted to areas of partial shade behind the dripline (53 FR 11612; April 7, 1988) and typically does not grow in the deepest part of rock shelters (Harker et al. 1981, p. 4). Campbell et al. (1989, p. 40) noted that this plant species is known from all possible moisture regimes and aspects in these habitats, but plants on northern exposures appeared to be smaller than average. Seven of nine occurrences examined by Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 8-9) were located in easterly or northerly facing shelters, which receive minimal direct sunlight. Nieves and Day examined only a small percentage of the species' 117 known occurrences (8 percent), so further study is required to determine the importance of the solar aspect on the species' biology and distribution. Ten rock shelter habitats examined by Nieves and Day (2014, p. 7) were significantly cooler and more humid than the surrounding environment (areas outside and above the rock shelter), but the species' requirements with respect to air temperature and relative humidity are unknown.

    Typical herbaceous associates of this plant include roundleaf catchfly (Silene rotundifolia) and alumroot (Heuchera parviflora) and less commonly white baneberry (Actaea pacypoda), maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), fourleaf yam (Dioscorea quaternata), intermediate woodfern (Dryopteris intermedia), Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginiana), Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum; invasive, non-native), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and little mountain meadow-rue (Thalicturm mirabile) (Braun 1942, pp. 1-4; Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 128; Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40; White and Drozda 2006, p. 124). Associated woody species of the mixed mesophytic forest adjacent to S. albopilosa occurrences include red maple (Acer rubrum), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), bigleaf magnolia (Magnolia macrophylla), umbrella magnolia (M. tripetala), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), oaks (Quercus spp.), basswood (Tilia americana), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Andreason and Eshbaugh 1973, p. 128; Kral 1983, p. 1253; Campbell et al. 1989, p. 40).

    When the Recovery Plan was completed in 1993, 90 extant occurrences were known (Service 1993, p. 2), containing an estimated 45,000 stems (Service 1993, p. 2). All of these locations were situated within the proclamation boundary of the DBNF, and 69 occurrences (approximately 76 percent) were located on Federal lands. The remaining occurrences (21) were located on private property. Rather than try to determine what constituted a population, the Recovery Plan (Service 1993, p. 1) used “occurrence,” defining it as a “discrete group of plants beneath a single rock shelter or on a single rock ledge.” In making this definition, the Service (1993, p. 6) explained that pollinators (bees and syrphid flies) likely carried pollen between rock shelters and may even move between adjacent ravines. If there were sufficient gene flow between occurrences via pollinators, clusters of nearby rock shelters or adjacent ravines could comprise a population. However, without additional research, it was impossible to determine the species' actual population boundaries.

    Subsequently, the KSNPC completed surveys in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 4), and these surveys documented an increase in the number of S. albopilosa occurrences from 90 to 141. Despite the increased number of occurrences, the total range of S. albopilosa did not increase significantly as it was still restricted to the same general area within the Red River Gorge. KSNPC (2010, pp. 4-8) completed the first range-wide survey during the 2008 and 2009 field seasons. During this 2-year period, KSNPC ranked each occurrence based on population size and viability, habitat condition, and degree of threat. KSNPC also evaluated the stability of each occurrence by comparing their 2008-2009 survey data with data collected in previous years. The following specifications were used to rank the occurrences (KSNPC 2010, p. 21):

    A (excellent estimated viability): 2,500 or more stems in habitat with low degree of recreational impact or a minimum of 4,000 stems where the degree of recreational impact is medium or high.

    B (good estimated viability): 1,000 to 2,499 stems and some areas of habitat with a low degree of recreational impact or higher numbers of stems (2,500 to 4,000) at sites where the degree of recreational impact is medium or high.

    C (fair estimated viability): 300 to 999 stems where recreational impacts are low or higher numbers of stems (1,000 to 2,000) at sites affected by a medium or high degree of recreational impact; may also include sites with little opportunity for habitat recovery or population expansion.

    D (poor estimated viability): fewer than 300 stems in any habitat.

    H (historical): taxon or natural community has not been reliably reported in Kentucky since 1990 but is not considered extinct or extirpated.

    X (extirpated): A taxon for which habitat loss has been pervasive and/or concerted efforts by knowledgeable biologists to collect or observe specimens within appropriate habitats have failed.

    F (failed to find): occurrence not located in current survey; original mapping may be in wrong location.

    During their 2-year range wide survey, KSNPC (2010, p. 6) documented a total of 116 extant occurrences, producing ranks with the following categorical results: A-rank (11 occurrences), B (26), C (25), and D (54) (see table 1). The remaining 25 occurrences were considered to be historical, extirpated, or could not be relocated (failed to find). The goldenrod's range has been searched extensively by KSNPC and of the 116 extant occurrences, only 6 were located on private land, with the remainder located on the DBNF. There is limited private ownership in the area where this plant occurs and the species' habitat as described above has only been located in a few privately-owned occurrences and nowhere else that has been surveyed. For all extant occurrences, 79 (68 percent) were considered to be stable, including ranks of A (10 occurrences), B (21), C (18), and D (30). Stability was estimated through comparisons of historical and more recent survey data. Occurrences were considered “stable” if no change was detected in their general rank/status over the course of monitoring, stem numbers increased over the course of monitoring, and/or slight decreases in stem numbers could be attributed to natural climatic variation. Ranks were based on population size and perceived viability, habitat condition, and degree of threat. For all stable occurrences, KSNPC reported an average monitoring period of 10.2 years and an average of 3.6 monitoring events for each occurrence. Also, the level or degree of recreational impact is based on KSNPC's assessment of recreational use and threats from that use at each occurrence. For those sites where the degree of impact was higher, more stems were required to achieve a higher rank (i.e., fair to excellent viability). For example, 4 of the 11 “A” ranked occurrences had a medium/high degree of impact (equals a minimum of 4,000 stems). The rest of the 11 “A” ranked occurrences had a low degree of impact (equals 2,500 stems or more). All of the “A” ranked occurrences have proven stable (for over 11 years) with a high number of stems. Due to future conservation actions with DBNF, we expect the 4 “A” ranked occurrences with medium to high recreational impacts to remain stable (numbers of stems will remain constant or increase) and the degree of recreational impact may decrease.

    Table 1—Summary of Solidago albopilosa Ranks and Status Based on Range-Wide Surveys Completed by the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission in 2008 and 2009 [KSNPC 2010] Status Ranks of extant occurrences A B C D Total Stable 10 21 18 30 79 Declining 0 5 4 22 31 Unknown 1 0 3 2 6 Total 11 26 25 54 116

    For the remaining extant occurrences, 31 were considered to be declining and 6 were of unknown status. For the declining occurrences, ranks included B (5 occurrences), C (4), and D (22). For the unknown occurrences, ranks included A (1 occurrence), C (3), and D (2). Occurrences were considered to be declining if a negative change was detected in the general rank/status over the course of monitoring and/or there was a greater than 30 percent decline in stem count. Unknown status meant surveys of that occurrence were not performed more than once or prior surveys could not be compared to more recent surveys due to discrepancies in survey methodology.

    KSNPC and the Service completed additional surveys from June to October 2013 at 30 widely separated occurrences, resulting in the discovery of one new occurrence and revised status information for two unknown occurrences (USFWS 2014, entire). Combining these results with occurrence totals reported by KSNPC (2010, 24 pp.), there are now 81 stable occurrences with the following categorical results: A (11 occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30) (table 2). The average monitoring period increased from 10.2 to 11.1 years, with an average of 3.7 monitoring events for each occurrence. The total number of stems now stands at 174,357, compared to 45,000 when the Recovery Plan was completed.

    Table 2—Summary of Current Solidago albopilosa Ranks and Status (KSNPC 2010, 2014) Showing an Increase in A- and B-Ranked Occurrences Status Ranks of extant occurrences A B C D Total Stable 11 22 18 30 81 Declining 0 5 4 23 32 Unknown 0 0 2 2 4 Total 11 27 24 55 117

    In summary, considering recent survey efforts by KSNPC and the Service (KSNPC 2010, entire; USFWS 2014, entire), the following conditions exist for white-haired goldenrod:

    (1) A total of 117 extant occurrences are known. Of these, 81 occurrences are considered to be stable with the following categorical results: A (11 occurrences), B (22), C (18), and D (30). As of 2015, the average monitoring period per occurrence was 11.1 years, with an average of 3.7 monitoring events for each occurrence.

    (2) Fifty-one of the 81 stable occurrences (all A-, B-, and C-ranked occurrences) are considered to be self-sustaining as defined by the Recovery Plan. These occurrences are considered to be self-sustaining because there is evidence of successful reproduction and the number of stems is stable or increasing.

    (3) Forty-six of the 51 stable, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately protected as defined by the recovery plan (species is legally protected, has received adequate physical protection, and is assured of all required management).

    (4) The total number of stems now stands at approximately 174,000, and the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain approximately 131,000 stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total number.

    Recovery and Recovery Plan Implementation

    Background—Section 4(f) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, that the species be removed from the list. However, revisions to the list (adding, removing, or reclassifying a species) must reflect determinations made in accordance with sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b) of the Act. Section 4(a)(1) requires that the Secretary determine whether a species is endangered or threatened (or not) because of one or more of five threat factors. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that the determination be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Therefore, recovery criteria should help indicate when we would anticipate that an analysis of the five threat factors under section 4(a)(1) would result in a determination that the species is no longer an endangered species or threatened species because of any of the five statutory factors (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section). However, while recovery plans provide important guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and measurable criteria against which to measure progress towards recovery, they are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of or remove a species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12(h) is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered or threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.

    Recovery plans may be revised to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new, substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, measurable criteria that set a trigger for review of the species' status, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans are intended to establish goals for long-term conservation of listed species and define criteria that are designed to indicate when the substantial threats facing a species have been removed or reduced to such an extent that the species may no longer need the protections of the Act.

    There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and the species is robust enough to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may be discovered that were not known when the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be discovered that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent to which criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

    Recovery Planning and Implementation—The Recovery Plan was approved by the Service on September 28, 1993 (Service 1993, 40 pp.). The Recovery Plan includes recovery criteria intended to indicate when threats to the species have been adequately addressed, and prescribes actions necessary to achieve those criteria. We first discuss progress on completing the primary recovery actions, then discuss recovery criteria. The Recovery Plan identifies five primary actions necessary for recovering S. albopilosa:

    (1) Protect existing occurrences;

    (2) Continue inventories;

    (3) Conduct studies on life history and ecological requirements;

    (4) Maintain plants and seeds ex situ; and

    (5) Provide the public with information.

    Three of five recovery actions (1, 2, and 5) have been accomplished. Completion of the remaining actions (3 and 4) is discussed in greater detail below.

    The Service entered into a cooperative agreement with KSNPC in 1986, under section 6 of the Act, for the conservation of endangered and threatened plant species. This agreement has provided a mechanism for KSNPC to acquire Federal funds that have supported much of the recovery work described here. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and other partners have also provided matching funds under this agreement that have assisted in the species' recovery.

    Recovery Action (1): Protect Existing Occurrences

    The Recovery Plan states that an occurrence will be “adequately protected” when it is legally protected, has received adequate physical protection, and is assured of all required management (USFWS 1993, 40 pp.). Based on these criteria, we consider a total of 46 A-, B-, or C-ranked occurrences on the DBNF to be adequately protected. We base our decision regarding their level of protection on the location of these occurrences (all are in DNBF ownership, and many are in remote locations not visited by the public); trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF, and the Service; observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18); conservation actions described in DBNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); and information in our files concerning specific DBNF conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and fencing. We have chosen to exclude five, stable, self-sustaining occurrences from the list of “protected” occurrences because they are in private ownership, and no conservation agreement or plan is in place to ensure their long-term protection.

    The species' primary threat has been identified as ground disturbance and trampling associated with recreational activities (i.e., camping, hiking, and rock-climbing) within the Red River Gorge. To address these threats, the DBNF began to redirect trails and install fencing (chicken wire) around selected S. albopilosa rock shelters in February 2000. The DBNF focused on these occurrences because they were near DBNF user-defined trails and were suffering obvious recreational impacts—trampling and ground disturbance associated with camping, rock climbing, and hiking. The DBNF also placed informational signs at these shelters and at trailheads, alerting visitors to the presence of the species and warning them against potential damage to plants.

    Signs or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a total of 21 occurrences identified as being impacted in the past, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these sites annually, checking the condition of signs and fencing and making repairs as needed. To guard against future impacts, the DBNF and KSNPC have proposed the addition of new or expanded fencing at five occurrences. As stated below in this recovery section, this new and expanded fencing is included as a conservation action in the Service's signed cooperative management agreement with DBNF and KSNPC (USFWS August 2016).

    Monitoring results show that implementation of the LRMP, including specific conservation actions described above (fencing and sign placement), have had a positive effect on the species (KSNPC 2010, 24 pp.). Specifically, it has been demonstrated that disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing is low at remote occurrences, and impacts have been reduced at more visited sites. The number of stems has remained stable or increased at 20 of 21 occurrences (95 percent) where fencing or informational signs have been added. For all extant occurrences on the DBNF, 75 (68 percent) of 111 extant occurrences are considered stable to increasing, and we consider 46 occurrences to be self-sustaining (A-, B-, or C-ranked occurrences that are stable and reproducing). Based on all these factors, we consider this recovery action to be complete.

    Recovery Action (2): Continue Inventories

    There were 90 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa when the Recovery Plan was completed (Service 1993, p. 2). In subsequent years, KSNPC completed surveys within the Red River Gorge in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004, and 2005 (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-128; KSNPC 2010, p. 2), raising the number of documented S. albopilosa occurrences from 90 to 141. Surveys in other areas of Kentucky and adjacent States with suitable habitat (e.g., sandstone rock shelters) did not show evidence of additional occurrences of the species (Campbell et al. 1989, pp. 29-43; Palmer-Ball et al. 1988, pp. 19-25; Walck et al. 1996, pp. 339-341; Norris and Harmon 2000, pp. 2-3). The first range-wide survey in the Red River Gorge was completed during the field seasons of 2008 and 2009 (KSNPC 2010, pp. 4-8), and KSNPC and the Service completed follow-up surveys at 30 extant occurrences in 2013 (See the Species Information section above for detail on surveys). During these efforts, KSNPC and the Service documented a total of 117 extant occurrences, and, of these, we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked occurrences (total of 46) to be secure and self-sustaining. Because systematic searches for new occurrences have been conducted since the completion of the Recovery Plan and led to the discovery of previously unknown occurrences, we consider this recovery action to be completed.

    Recovery Action (3): Conduct Studies on Life History and Ecological Requirements

    This recovery action is incomplete (not all subactivities have been addressed completely) but significant progress has been made. Since publication of the Recovery Plan (Service 1993), studies of the species' life history and ecological requirements have included Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10), Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 246-251), White and Drozda (2006, p. 125), KSNPC (2010, p. 5), and Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 1-12). Esselman (1995, pp. 5-10) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 246-251) studied the ancestry of S. albopilosa, examined gene flow and genetic diversity within and between populations, and investigated life-history traits (i.e., seed set, importance of pollinators, self-incompatibility (the inability of a plant to produce seeds when its flowers are pollinated from its own flowers or from flowers of plants that are genetically the same)). The ancestry of S. albopilosa was unclear, but it had the most morphological and genetic similarity with S. flexicaulis. Despite this, the two species were reported as genetically different, and there was no evidence of recent gene flow. Esselman (1995, pp. 16-23) and Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 251-253) observed the highest levels of genetic diversity between populations rather than within populations. The levels of seed production appeared to be about equal to that of other goldenrods, but the amount of seed set varied between populations and appeared to increase with increasing occurrence size. Pollination experiments indicated that pollinators are necessary for seed set, and the species is self-incompatible.

    During field surveys between 1996 and 2009, KSNPC collected occurrence information throughout the species' range, recording such information as stem count, patch size, percent vegetative versus sexual reproduction, recreational disturbance (ranked from low to high), other perceived threats, and general habitat condition (White and Drozda 2006, p. 125; KSNPC 2010, p. 5). In its 2-year range-wide study, KSNPC (2010, p. 5) used a two-page plant survey form to record more detailed biological information at each occurrence: Population structure (percent stems exhibiting vegetative versus reproductive growth), occurrence size (square meters [m2]), plant height, number of stems, number of rosettes, population density, plant vigor, and an evaluation of threats (e.g., trampling, camping, invasive plants, herbivory). KSNPC (2010, p. 5) also photographed each occurrence and made sketches that showed individual patch locations within each occurrence or rock shelter.

    Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 1-12) conducted a preliminary assessment of the microclimatic and pedological (soil) conditions of 10 rock shelters inhabited by the species. They documented significant differences between the inside of rock shelters and the surrounding environment with respect to temperature and relative humidity (habitats inside rock shelters were wetter and more humid) but no significant differences with respect to soil characteristics (macronutrients and acidity/alkalinity (pH)). Most of the rock shelters they investigated were easterly or northerly facing, but their small sample size prevents any significant conclusions with respect to the importance of sunlight and solar radiation.

    Under recovery action 3.0, two of seven subactivities remain to be completed—the use of quantitative, permanent plots (3.1) and determination of specific habitat requirements (3.3). Permanent plots have not been established, but the species' known occurrences have been visited and evaluated repeatedly (average of 3.6 times) since completion of the recovery plan. These visits have allowed us to evaluate the species' status and track the number of stems and flowers. The purpose of recovery subactivity 3.1 was to evaluate demography, and we believe the visits and work done in cooperation with KSNPC provided enough population data on this plant for us to propose delisting it without establishing permanent plots. The species' specific habitat requirements (e.g., light, moisture, soils) are not well understood, but preliminary investigations into the microclimate and soil conditions of rock shelters were completed by Nieves and Day (2014, pp. 1-12), and additional research is planned (Nieves and Day 2014, pp. 11-12). In partnership with DBNF and KSNPC, we have done extensive work together to reduce threats such as disturbance. The purpose of recovery subactivity 3.3 was to learn about habitat requirements of this plant for the purposes of determining if reintroduction or artificial propagation may be necessary to help recover this plant. Solidago albopilosa occurrences have grown in number and size as recovery implementation actions have been implemented and threats have been removed or reduced. These successful actions have negated the necessity of having to reintroduce or augment plants. We will continue to learn more about the species' habitat requirements as we work with DBNF and KSNPC through post-delisting monitoring. In the course of this work, if a new threat of any kind presents itself, we have identified in the PDM plan how we will evaluate it.

    The majority of recovery subactivities (3.2, 3.4-3.7) have been addressed; information has been gained regarding the species' life history and ecological requirements; and the species' status has improved since publication of the recovery plan. We were able to obtain the intended information identified in recovery subactivity 3.3 (analyze habitat requirements) through implementation of other actions. Although the need to conduct subactivity 3.3 has been removed with positive progress in this plant's recovery program, we intend throughout post-delisting monitoring to continue to work closely with researchers as they learn more about this species and its habitat.

    Recovery Action (4): Maintain Plants and Seeds Ex Situ

    Seeds and plants of S. albopilosa have not been maintained ex situ in any museum, botanical garden, or other seed storage facility; however, an August 29, 2016, conservation agreement between the Service, the Kentucky Natural Lands Trust, and the Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT) will facilitate a seed-banking effort for S. albopilosa. Through the agreement, MOBOT has secured funding that will allow it to collect, curate, and maintain genetically diverse and representative seed-bank accessions to safeguard against future population declines. These efforts will take place as part of post-delisting monitoring activities and will involve collection of seed from across the species' range with deposition of the material at the MOBOT. Seed collection will occur in the fall of 2016. Because of the conservation agreement described above, which outlines future seed-banking activities by MOBOT, we consider this recovery action to be on a path toward completion and sufficient to contribute towards delisting.

    Recovery Action (5): Provide the Public With Information

    The KSNPC and DBNF have prepared several species factsheets and signs that have been posted at gas stations, restaurants, kiosks, and trailheads throughout the Red River Gorge. These signs are intended to educate Red River Gorge visitors about the species and its threats. Signs about S. albopilosa have also been posted in five archaeologically sensitive rock shelters to aid in the protection of historical artifacts while promoting the conservation of S. albopilosa. DBNF also displays photographs and provides information on S. albopilosa at its Gladie Cultural-Environmental Learning Center. KSNPC makes available on its Web site (http://naturepreserves.ky.gov) an S. albopilosa factsheet and several threatened and endangered species lists that include information on S. albopilosa. In June 2009, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources published 2,000 copies of a revised threatened and endangered species booklet (second edition), which contained a species account for S. albopilosa. Because of the numerous public information and education projects listed above, we consider this recovery action completed.

    Recovery Criteria

    The Recovery Plan states that S. albopilosa will be considered for delisting when 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10 years. An occurrence is considered as self-sustaining if there is evidence of successful reproduction and the number of stems is stable or increasing. An occurrence is considered to be adequately protected when it is legally protected, receives adequate physical protection, and is assured of all required management. The Recovery Plan also noted that the requirements for delisting were preliminary and could change as more information about the biology of the species was known. Based on our current understanding of the species' range, biology, and threats, we believe that the delisting criteria continue to be relevant. While the number of occurrences has increased since completion of the Recovery Plan, the species' overall range and the type of threats have not changed dramatically. Furthermore, our current knowledge of the species' biology indicates that multiple, distinct populations should be maintained in order to provide redundancy (protect against stochastic events) and preserve genetic diversity. We believe the recovery goal of 40 stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences is sufficient to address these needs. The species' current number of stable, self-sustaining, and protected occurrences (46) has exceeded this recovery goal (see discussion of Recovery Action 1 above). These occurrences are distributed across the species' range and contain more than 75 percent of the species' total number of stems.

    The criteria for delisting S. albopilosa have been met, as described below. Additionally, the level of protection currently afforded to the species and its habitat, as well as the current status of threats, are outlined below in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section.

    Currently, there are 117 extant occurrences. As described above, an occurrence is defined as a “discrete group of plants beneath a single rock shelter or on a single rock ledge,” and each occurrence is considered “geographically distinct” as described in the recovery criteria. We currently consider 81 (69 percent) of the 117 extant Solidago albopilosa occurrences to be stable, meaning no change has been detected (over an average monitoring period of 11.1 years) in their general rank or status. Of these, we consider the A-, B-, and C-ranked occurrences (total of 46) to be adequately protected and self-sustaining as defined by the Recovery Plan. We consider these occurrences to be self-sustaining for the following reasons:

    (1) The number of stems at these occurrences has been stable or increasing over an average monitoring period of 11.1 years;

    (2) these natural occurrences contain a relatively high number of stems (range of 797-9,200);

    (3) the estimated viability of these occurrences ranges from fair to excellent;

    (4) the threat level at these occurrences is generally low (average recreational impact of 2.5 or less on a scale of 1 (low impact) to 5 (high)); and

    (5) the observed reproduction (flowering stems) at these occurrences has been relatively high, averaging 75-90 percent of stems in nearly all cases (KSNPC 2010, p. 10).

    We consider these occurrences to be adequately protected because of their location (all are located on DBNF land); trends in occurrence data gathered by KSNPC, DBNF, and the Service; observations about threats reported by KSNPC (2010, pp. 5-18); conservation actions described in DBNF's LRMP; and information in our files concerning specific DBNF conservation actions, such as trail closure, placement of signs, and fencing. We do not consider the stable, D-ranked occurrences (total of 30) to be self-sustaining, primarily due to their poor estimated viability and the low number of stems (fewer than 300) observed at these sites. However, due to the existence of 46 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences, we conclude that we have met and exceeded the criterion of 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences.

    While we consider only 46 out of the 117 total extant occurrences to currently be secure (adequately protected) and self-sustaining (approximately 39 percent of the total occurrences), these occurrences contain the majority of the total number of stems of the species. The total number of stems now stands at approximately 174,000, and the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain approximately 131,000 stems, or about 75 percent of the species' total number. If we consider the five additional self-sustaining occurrences located on private property, the total number of stems increases to 140,500 stems, or about 81 percent of the species' total number. While the remaining 65 occurrences on DBNF are not currently considered self-sustaining, all of these occurrences will continue to receive protection and management under DBNF's LRMP and we expect, based on the past 10 years of monitoring, their status will likely remain stable or continue to improve.

    With respect to protection, 111 of 117 extant occurrences (95 percent) occur on the DBNF and receive management and protection through DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10). As specified in the LRMP, S. albopilosa habitats receive protection and management consideration as part of the Cliffline Community Prescription (or management) Area (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8). The Cliffline Community is defined as the area between 100-feet slope-distance from the top of the cliff and 200-feet slope-distance from the dripline of the cliffline. A cliffline is defined as a naturally occurring, exposed, and nearly vertical rock structure at least 10 feet (3.05 meters (m)) tall and 100 feet (30.05 m) long. All known S. albopilosa occurrences occur within habitats fitting this description and, therefore, are included in this Prescription Area. For the Cliffline Community area, conservation goals in the LRMP include: (1) Maintenance of the unique physical and microclimatic conditions in these habitats, (2) the recovery of S. albopilosa, and (3) the protection of these habitats against anthropogenic disturbance (USFS 2004, p. 3.6). To meet these goals, the following activities or resource uses are prohibited within the cliffline zone: Mineral, oil, or gas exploration and development (Forest Service Standard 1.C-MIN-1); road construction (1.C-ENG-1); recreational facilities (1.C-REC-1); recreational activities such as rock climbing and rappelling (C-REC-2); camping (1.C-REC-3); and campfires (1.C-REC-4). Other activities such as wildlife management (1.C-WLF) and vegetation management (1.C-VEG) are limited and strictly controlled. This Prescription Area is classified as “Unsuitable for Timber Production,” but timber harvests may occur on an unscheduled basis to attain a desired future condition. Harvest of wood products may occur only as an output in pursuing other resource objectives (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8). DBNF monitors cliffline habitats and protects them as needed through law enforcement activities, construction of fences, trail diversion, and placement of signs.

    Since the species was listed, we have worked closely with KSNPC and DBNF on the management and protection of S. albopilosa. Management activities have included trail diversion (away from S. albopilosa occurrences), installation of protective fencing, and placement of informational signs in rock shelters, along trails, and at trailheads. These activities and other management actions included in the DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8) have assisted in recovery of the species, as reflected in the large number of stable occurrences (81), self-sustaining occurrences (51 occurrences with ranks of A, B, or C), and the long period (greater than 11 years) during which this trend has been maintained. On August 29, 2016, we finalized a cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC that will provide for the long-term protection of the species. The management agreement outlines a number of conservation actions that will benefit the species:

    (1) Maintenance of current fencing;

    (2) installation and maintenance of fencing at five new occurrences;

    (3) evaluation of trail diversion, rerouting, or closure at 39 occurrences identified by KSNPC (2010, entire);

    (4) placement of new informational signs at occurrences with high visitation;

    (5) monitoring of extant occurrences;

    (6) protection of extant occurrences through DBNF patrols; and

    (7) continuation of education and outreach efforts. The cooperative management agreement will remain in place until August 2022.

    In summary, most major recovery actions are complete, and significant progress has been made on the remaining actions (life history/ecological studies and ex situ seed conservation). Completion of these actions has contributed to achieving and exceeding the recovery criteria: 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately protected and have been maintained for over 10 years. The 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences contain 75 percent of the species' total number of stems, and thus represent 75 percent of the species' total population. These secure, self-sustaining occurrences, as well as 93 percent of the species' remaining occurrences, currently receive protection and management through implementation of DBNF's LRMP. Therefore, we conclude that the goals and criteria outlined in the Recovery Plan have been achieved.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52717), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 2, 2015. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Legal notices inviting general public comment were published in the Lexington Herald-Leader and Louisville Courier Journal. We reopened the comment period on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9798), in order to conduct peer review and provide interested parties an additional opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and draft post-delisting monitoring plan. We requested that all interested parties submit written comments by March 28, 2016.

    During both comment periods for the proposed rule, we received a total of 14 comment letters or statements directly addressing the proposed action. These included 4 comment letters from peer reviewers and 10 comment letters from the general public that are posted on Federal docket no. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054. All 4 peer reviewers and 7 of 10 public commenters supported the proposed action to delist white-haired goldenrod. Three public commenters objected to the proposed action.

    Several public commenters simply expressed opposition to or support for the proposed delisting of Solidago albopilosa without providing any additional supporting information. We have noted those responses but, as stated in our proposed rule, submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that a determination as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

    State and Peer Review Comments

    In accordance with our peer review policy, which was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion on the proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring plan from four knowledgeable, independent individuals with scientific expertise that includes familiarity with Solidago albopilosa and its habitat, biological needs, threats, and recovery efforts. We received responses from all four peer reviewers. All peer reviewers supported our conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule.

    Section 4(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act states that the Secretary must give actual notice of a proposed regulation under section 4(a) to the State agency in each State in which the species is believed to occur, and invite the comments of such agency. Section 4(i) of the Act directs that the Secretary will submit to the State agency a written justification for his or her failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition. The Service submitted the proposed regulation to KNSPC, the State agency responsible for the conservation of listed plants in Kentucky. KSNPC's chief botanist provided peer review of the proposed rule.

    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the delisting of white-haired goldenrod. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary.

    Comment (1): Two peer reviewers stated that management may be needed beyond the period (5 years) covered by the post-delisting monitoring plan to address potential impacts from invasive plants and recreational activities (e.g., hiking, rock climbing). This comment relates to just our PDM plan. Both reviewers commented that cooperative efforts among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC should address any future threats to the species.

    Our response: We agree with the reviewers that invasive plants and recreational use in some areas may adversely affect S. albopilosa occurrences in the future; however, the best scientific and commercial data available to the Service demonstrate that S. albopilosa is recovered and no longer requires the protection of the Act. Nonetheless, the Service intends to work closely with all Federal and State conservation agencies during the course of post-delisting monitoring. We will follow the benchmarks in the plan for evaluating success of efforts for this plant. We also believe protections outlined by DBNF's LRMP, which are described in the Recovery Criteria section of this document, will provide long-lasting benefits to the species. DBNF's LRMP was completed in 2004 and is still in effect, and USFS LRMPs are generally revised every 10 to 15 years or when conditions change significantly. Actually, the last LRMP to cover DBNF was in effect for 18 years (1985 to 2003). Also, on August 29, 2016, we finalized a cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC that will provide for the long-term protection of the species until 2022.

    Public Comments

    Comment (2): Three commenters disagreed with the proposed delisting of white-haired goldenrod. In general, they stated that an insufficient number of protected, viable occurrences were known for delisting to be considered.

    Our response: Under the Recovery Plan, Solidago albopilosa may be considered for delisting when 40 geographically distinct, self-sustaining occurrences are adequately protected and have been maintained for 10 years. Currently, a total of 46 geographically distinct occurrences are considered to be self-sustaining (viable) and adequately protected, and these occurrences have been maintained for more than 11 years. All remaining occurrences (of all ranks) will contribute to the viability and persistence of S. albopilosa into the future. Therefore, the recovery criteria for this species have been met. In addition, threats to this plant have been removed or reduced to a point where it no longer requires protection under the Act.

    Comment (3): One commenter agreed with the delisting of Solidago albopilosa but stated that the State of Kentucky should conduct routine monitoring of rare plants, such as S. albopilosa, and pass legislation that protects these species.

    Our response: Most Solidago albopilosa occurrences (about 95 percent) are located on Federal property (DBNF) and receive management and protection under DBNF's LRMP. The remaining occurrences are located on private property and, while they could benefit from protections provided by State legislation, the Service cannot require a State to pass such legislation. With respect to monitoring and protection of rare plants like S. albopilosa, the DBNF and KSNPC have worked closely with the Service and other conservation partners over the past 20 years to implement conservation actions, including monitoring, that have benefited this and other rare species. We expect these collaborations to continue.

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We have considered all comments and information received during both comment periods for the proposed rule to delist white-haired goldenrod. In this final rule, we have made only minor changes based on comments received during the public comment period. We received supplementary information from DBNF on seed germination, seedling viability, and the potential threat posed by fungal infection. These details have been incorporated into this final rule.

    Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed status. We may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:

    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

    (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

    (C) disease or predation;

    (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

    (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

    We must consider these same five factors in delisting a species.

    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered or threatened. Determining whether the status of a species has improved to the point that it can be delisted or downlisted requires consideration of same five categories of threats identified above. This analysis is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting and the removal of the Act's protections.

    The following analysis examines all five factors currently affecting or that are likely to affect S. albopilosa within the foreseeable future. It contains updated information from that presented in the proposed rule (80 FR 52717, September 1, 2015).

    A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) identified the following habitat threats: ground disturbance and trampling associated with unlawful archaeological activities and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and rock climbing. The species occupies a scenic and unique geological area that is heavily visited by hikers, campers, rock-climbers, and other nature enthusiasts. The U.S. Forest Service estimates recreational use of the Red River Gorge at approximately 500,000 visitor days per year (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and rock climbing can pose a threat to the species through inadvertent trampling and ground disturbance of S. albopilosa habitats. Evidence of trampling and ground disturbance within rock shelters has been observed repeatedly by KSNPC and DBNF personnel (KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14).

    Habitat disturbance and trampling associated with recreational activities (camping, hiking, and rock climbing) and archaeological looting in the past have posed a significant threat to the species. The Red River Gorge is a popular recreational area (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). Many trails and recreational areas within the Gorge are located near Solidago albopilosa occurrences, and rock shelters are often targeted as rock climbing, hiking, and camping sites. Use of rock shelters and cliff lines by campers, hikers, and rock climbers has contributed to physical habitat disturbance and has led to trampling of plants in rock shelters (Service 1993, p. 7; White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). In addition to habitat disturbance caused by recreationists, the presence of Native American artifacts within the Red River Gorge has contributed to digging and archaeological looting in S. albopilosa habitats (rock shelters). Approximately 18 Solidago albopilosa occurrences have been extirpated due to human activities, and many heavily visited rock shelters have been modified to the point that these habitats are no longer suitable for the species (KSNPC 2010, pp. 6-7).

    According to the DBNF, impacts from archaeological looting are now infrequent, and these activities no longer pose a significant threat to S. albopilosa within the Red River Gorge (Taylor pers. comm. 2013). As for recreational impacts, most Solidago albopilosa occurrences are located in remote ravines of the Red River Gorge or grow along inaccessible cliff lines that are seldom visited or disturbed by campers, hikers, and rock climbers. Therefore, the threat magnitude at these sites is low.

    Occurrences located in areas with more frequent visitor use, typically areas near DBNF and user-defined trails, generally have suffered more severe habitat disturbance and trampling in the past. Site protection and habitat management efforts by DBNF, working cooperatively with KSNPC and the Service, have helped to reduce the magnitude of threats at these sites. These occurrences have benefited from their location on the DBNF and management and protective actions provided under DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10), which prevents general land disturbance and prohibits or limits logging and other DBNF-defined activities near cliffline habitats. The LRMP also protects rock shelters from vandalism and forbids removal of threatened and endangered species from these areas (see details in Recovery Criteria section).

    The DBNF monitors these sites and protects them as needed through law enforcement efforts, construction of fences, trail diversion, and placement of signs. To protect occurrences from trampling, fire-building, and digging, signs have been posted at all entry points to the Red River Gorge asking visitors not to remove or disturb historical resources and providing visitors with biological and status information on S. albopilosa. Similar signs were also placed inside at least five archaeologically significant rock shelters that contained S. albopilosa. Beginning in February 2000, DBNF began to redirect trails and install fencing (chicken wire) around selected rock shelters (those with greatest visitation) containing S. albopilosa. Signs were also placed at these shelters, alerting visitors to the presence of the species and warning them against potential damage to plants. Signs and/or fencing were placed and have been maintained at a total of 21 occurrences, and DBNF personnel continue to visit these sites annually, checking the condition of signs and fencing and making repairs as needed.

    Monitoring results show that implementation of DBNF's LRMP and the completion of additional conservation actions such as fencing and sign placement have had a positive effect on the species, the number of stems has increased, and the level of habitat disturbance and trampling associated with recreational activities has been reduced (KSNPC 2010, 24 pp.). Of the 21 occurrences on the DBNF where fencing and signs were added, 20 are considered to be stable and the 1 declining occurrence will be protected through expanded fencing. Additional evidence that these conservation efforts have improved the status of S. albopilosa occurrences on the DBNF is the large number of stable occurrences (75) and the relatively high number of secure, self-sustaining occurrences (46) observed by DBNF, KSNPC, and the Service. The 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences exceed the number identified in the recovery criteria to allow consideration of delisting.

    Additional evidence that conservation actions have had a positive effect on the species is the relatively low recreational impacts observed by KSNPC (2010, pp. 13-14) at the majority of DBNF occurrences. Recreational impacts have been assessed by KSNPC since the mid-1990s (White and Drozda 2006, pp. 124-125; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). Their qualitative ranking scheme estimates the percent disturbance of available habitat and uses a scale of 1 (little or no impact) to 5 (high impact, greater than 50 percent of available habitat disturbed) to produce a disturbance rank. Based on recent evaluations by KSNPC (KSNPC 2010, 40 pp.; White pers. comm. 2014), 70 occurrences (60 percent) are classified as low impact (rank of 1-2), 8 occurrences (7 percent) are classified as medium impact (rank of 3), and 39 occurrences (33 percent) are classified as high impact (rank of 4-5). Overall, 67 percent of DBNF's occurrences are considered to be exposed to low to medium recreational impacts. KSNPC (2010, p. 14) also noted that they did not observe many new recreational impacts during their surveys in 2008 and 2009. Most of the documented recreational impacts such as established trails, permanent structures within rock shelters (couches, chairs, fire pits), and camp sites had been in place since before S. albopilosa monitoring began in 1996 (KSNPC 2010, p. 14).

    The six occurrences on privately owned lands currently do not benefit from any formal protection or management and, therefore, could face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat disturbance) than those located on the DBNF. However, based on recent survey results by KSNPC, all six of these private occurrences have been ranked as “stable,” and five of the six are considered to be self-sustaining (A-, B-, or C-rank) (KSNPC 2010, p. 8). While these occurrences potentially could face a greater level of threats, they currently do not appear to be facing a greater level of impact, and they represent a small proportion (five percent) of the overall population of the species.

    Summary of Factor A: Impacts associated with archaeological looting and recreational activities have been well documented in the past, but current monitoring data suggest that the magnitude of these threats has sufficiently decreased. Implementation of the DBNF's LRMP and specific conservation actions such as fencing and sign placement have had a positive effect on the species and have reduced the threat associated with recreational disturbance. The recovery goal of 40 stable, self-sustaining, protected occurrences has been exceeded by 6, and these trends have held for more than 10 years. Because we expect that the lands containing the 46 secure and self-sustaining occurrences will remain permanently protected in Federal ownership and will be managed to maintain or improve current habitat conditions (see Service 2016, entire), we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is no longer a threat to the continued existence of S. albopilosa.

    B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    Both the final rule to list S. albopilosa as threatened (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) and the Recovery Plan (Service 1993, p. 7) identified overutilization for recreational purposes as a threat to the species. However, while the use of habitat for recreational purposes, as discussed under Factor A, has impacted the species in the past, there is no evidence that the plant itself is or was utilized for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. We, therefore, discuss impacts from recreational use of habitat for S. albopilosa under Factor A above.

    Summary of Factor B: We conclude that overutilization is not a threat to S. albopilosa.

    C. Disease or Predation

    The listing rule for S. albopilosa (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) did not identify disease or predation as a threat to the species. Plants are occasionally browsed by herbivores, such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), wood rats (Neotoma spp.), and caterpillars (Order Lepidoptera), but we have no information that grazing by these species represents a threat to the species (Taylor 2016, pers. comm.). In 2014, the DBNF observed a rust fungus on the leaves in one population, but the fungus was not extensive within the population and did not appear to harm the plants. The fungus may have been triggered by weather conditions in 2014 and was not observed by DBNF in 2015 (Taylor 2016, pers. comm.).

    Summary of Factor C: We continue to conclude that neither disease nor predation are threats to S. albopilosa.

    D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Populations of S. albopilosa within the DBNF are protected from damage and unauthorized taking by Federal regulation (36 CFR 261.9). This regulation would apply regardless of whether the species is listed because S. albopilosa would still be considered a sensitive, rare, or unique species on the DBNF under this Federal regulation. However, the final listing rule (53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988) identified inadequate regulatory mechanisms as a threat to S. albopilosa because limited manpower and the remoteness of many occurrences on the DBNF makes enforcement difficult. The DBNF has taken several steps to remedy this situation. As noted above, S. albopilosa receives management and protection through DBNF's LRMP and its conservation goals for the Cliffline Community Prescription Area. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and regulations and policies implementing the NFMA are the main regulatory mechanisms that guide land management on the DBNF, which contains 111 of the 117 extant occurrences of S. albopilosa. Since listing, the DBNF has included S. albopilosa and its habitat in its resource management plans. These plans are required by the NFMA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The NFMA requires revision of the Plans every 15 years; however, plans may be amended or revised as needed. Management plans are required to be in effect at all times (in other words, if the revision does not occur, the previous plan remains in effect) and to be in compliance with various Federal regulations. We expect continued implementation of the LRMP and expect that any future revisions will consider conservation of S. albopilosa and its Cliffline Community habitats.

    Specific actions that DBNF has taken under the LRMP include measures to reduce impacts of recreational activities to S. albopilosa and its habitat as discussed under Factor A. As discussed above, these and other protection and management actions taken by DBNF under their LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10) have been successful at improving the status of the species. Monitoring results from these occurrences show that these efforts have had a positive effect on the species. Specifically, disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing has been reduced in these areas, and the number of stems has increased.

    The species is listed as endangered by the State of Kentucky (KSNPC 2005), but this designation conveys no legal protection to occurrences located on private property. Consequently, occurrences on privately owned land could face higher magnitude threats (e.g., habitat disturbance) than those located on the DBNF. Based on recent survey results by KSNPC, however, only 6 of 117 extant S. albopilosa occurrences (5 percent) are located on private land, and 5 of these occurrences have been ranked as “stable” (A-, B-, or C-rank) by KSNPC (KSNPC 2010, p. 8). Therefore, based on this greater than 10-year data set, the majority of private occurrences are also stable.

    Summary of Factor D: Occurrences of S. albopilosa located on the DBNF receive protection due to their location on Federal property, and these occurrences are managed and protected under DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 1.1-1.10). This protected status and management actions included in the LRMP will continue to provide adequate regulatory protection for these occurrences. Monitoring results show that DBNF's management actions have had a positive effect on the species. Specifically, disturbance from trampling, camping, and rock climbing has been reduced and the number of stems has stabilized or increased. Based on the best available information for both private and public lands occurrences, and the fact that existing regulatory mechanisms and associated management practices will continue on public lands, we conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate.

    E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Other natural or manmade factors were first identified as a threat to Solidago albopilosa due to the species' specialized habitats (sandstone rock shelters and cliff habitats of the Red River Gorge) and the perceived vulnerability of these habitats to any physical or climatic change (52 FR 13798, April 24, 1987; 53 FR 11612, April 7, 1988). In the species' final listing rule (53 FR 11612) published in 1988, the Service concluded that even minor changes in the surrounding forest (e.g., loss of canopy trees) could impact the species through drying, erosion, and competition with sun-tolerant species. At the time, these potential changes were not considered to be an imminent threat to white-haired goldenrod, but the final listing rule identified the need for management planning that would take into account the requirements of the species to ensure its continued existence.

    Some surveys and status assessments of Solidago albopilosa identified several potential threats under Factor E. These included competition from invasive plants, the loss of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), low genetic diversity and small population size, and the effects of climate change (Service 2009a, p. 9; Service 2009b, p. 2; KSNPC 2010, pp. 13-14). KSNPC (2010, p. 14) reported several invasive plant species in habitats occupied by white-haired goldenrod, but the most common species included Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), Japanese spiraea (Spiraea japonica), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Of the invasive plant species, Japanese stilt grass was the most common species. It was observed growing in direct competition with 23 S. albopilosa occurrences. However, invasive species were absent from 94 of 117 extant S. albopilosa occurrences (about 80 percent) and 53 of 81 stable occurrences (65 percent) (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014, pp. 1-6). For the 23 occurrences in direct competition with invasive plants, most (16 of 23 (70 percent)) were stable or increased over the 10-year monitoring period (KSNPC 2010, p. 14; Service 2014, pp. 1-6).

    We do not have data that specifically address the effects of climate change with regard to invasive species attributes such as distribution or range and the relation to white haired goldenrod. There are some data showing that more common aggressive invasive species like kudzu (Pueraria lobata) may expand into greater ranges due to possible effects of climate change (Bradley et al. 2009). However, species like Japanese stilt grass are more recent invaders to this area of the Southeast, and other than the data presented above, we do not have further information or data that indicates competition from invasive plants will change in significance as a threat to the species. Our current data suggest that Japanese stilt grass is not a significant threat to S. albopilosa as 70 percent of occurrences in direct competition with Japanese stilt grass were stable or increased over the last 10 years. Therefore, we do not believe that competition from invasive plants is a significant threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future.

    The hemlock woolly adelgid (Adeleges tsugae), an aphid-like insect that is native to Asia, has been identified as a potential threat to Solidago albopilosa because it has the potential to severely damage stands of eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis) that occur near rock shelters and cliffs occupied by the species (Service 2009b, p. 2; KSNPC 2010, p. 15). The hemlock woolly adelgid was introduced in the Pacific Northwest during the 1920s and has since spread throughout the eastern United States, reaching Kentucky by 2006. The species creates an extreme amount of damage to natural stands of hemlock, specifically eastern hemlock and Carolina hemlock (Tsuga caroliniana). The Recovery action plan (Service 2009b, p. 2) concluded that the loss of eastern hemlock within the Red River Gorge could result in microclimatic changes (increased light, decreased moisture, increased leaf litter) in and near rock shelters that may negatively affect white-haired goldenrod. Despite this potential threat, KSNPC (2010, p. 15) demonstrated in their evaluation that eastern hemlock was actually a minor component of the canopy surrounding rock shelters inhabited by the species. Consequently, the eventual loss of eastern hemlocks would not represent a significant change to the canopy surrounding these rock shelters and would, therefore, not represent a significant threat to the species.

    Potential impacts that may be associated with low genetic variability such as inbreeding depression, reduced fitness, or reduced adaptive capacity (ability to respond to and adapt to changing conditions) have been identified as a potential threat to other listed plant species, but we have no information suggesting that low genetic variability affects S. albopilosa (53 FR 11614, April 7, 1988; Service 2009a, entire; KSNPC 2010, 24 pp.). Esselman and Crawford (1997, pp. 245-257) reported that S. albopilosa exhibits genetic diversity both within and between populations (genetic diversity is widely spread among populations, and populations are not genetically homogenous). The highest level of genetic diversity was observed within (as opposed to between) populations. Consequently, we do not believe that the potential effects associated with low genetic variability threaten the continued existence of S. albopilosa now or in the foreseeable future.

    Some Solidago albopilosa occurrences may be more vulnerable to extirpation due to their small population size and poor estimated viability. The low number of stems (typically less than 300), poor estimated viability, and high recreational impacts associated with D-ranked occurrences make these occurrences more vulnerable to stochastic events. Currently, 62 of the species' 117 extant occurrences (53 percent) are D-ranked. Even though these occurrences may be more vulnerable to extirpation, the overall threat to the species is minimal because these occurrences contain less than 20 percent of the species' total number of stems. Additionally, a small population size in and of itself is not indicative of being in danger of extinction, and this was likely never a naturally common or abundant species. Some Solidago albopilosa occurrences may have always had fewer plants in rock shelters with less favorable conditions (e.g., small size, drier conditions).

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2014, p. 3). Effects associated with changes in climate have been observed including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, and wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2014, p. 4). Species that are dependent on specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or at the extreme periphery of their range may be most susceptible to the impacts of climate change (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 17; Anacker and Leidholm 2012, p. 2). However, while continued change is certain, the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases. The magnitude and rate of change could be affected by many factors (e.g., circulation patterns), but we have no additional information or data regarding these factors with respect to white-haired goldenrod.

    There is evidence that some terrestrial plant populations have been able to adapt and respond to changing climatic conditions (Franks et al. 2013, entire). Both plastic (phenotypic change such as leaf size or phenology) and evolutionary (shift in allelic frequencies) responses to changes in climate have been detected. Both can occur rapidly and often simultaneously (Franks et al. 2013, p. 135). Relatively few studies are available, however, that (1) directly examine plant responses over time, (2) clearly demonstrate adaptation or the causal climatic driver of the responses, or (3) use quantitative methods to distinguish plastic versus evolutionary responses (Franks et al. 2013, p. 135).

    To generate future climate projections across the range of white-haired goldenrod, one tool we used was the National Climate Change Viewer (NCCV), a climate-visualization Web site tool developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that allows the user to visualize climate projections at the State, county, and watershed level (Adler and Hostetler 2013, entire; http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nccv.asp). Initially, the viewer was designed to provide information for States and counties on projected temperature and precipitation through the 21st century. The viewer was expanded in 2014 to provide information on associated projected changes in snowpack, soil moisture, runoff, and evaporative deficit for U.S. States and counties and for USGS Hydrologic Units or watersheds as simulated by a simple water-balance model. The model provides a way to simulate the response of the water balance to changes in temperature and precipitation in the climate models (30 separate models developed by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration). Combining the climate data with the water balance data provides further insights into the potential for climate-driven change in water resources. The viewer uses tools such as climographs (plots of monthly averages); histograms showing the distribution or spread of model simulations; monthly time series spanning 1950-2099; and tables that summarize changes (and extremes) in temperature and precipitation during these periods. The application also provides access to comprehensive, three-page summary reports for States, counties, and watersheds.

    Using the NCCV and assuming the more extreme Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP 8.5), in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unchecked through the end of the century leading to an equivalent radiative forcing of 8.5 Watts m2, we calculated projected annual mean changes for maximum temperature (+3.6 degrees Celsius (°C) (+6.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), precipitation (+0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012 in/day)), runoff (−0.25 cm/month (−0.1 in/month), snowfall (−0.5 cm (−0.2 in)), soil storage (−2.5 cm (−1.0 in)), and evaporative deficit (+0.75 cm/month (+0.3 in/month)) for the period 2050-2074 in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties (Adler and Hostetler 2013, entire). Based on these results, all three counties within the range of Solidago albopilosa will be subjected to higher maximum temperatures (annual mean increase of 3.6 °C (6.5 °F)) and slightly higher precipitation (annual mean increase of 0.02-0.03 cm/day (+0.008-0.012 in/day)) relative to the period 1950-2005. Because the average annual increase in precipitation is predicted to be only slightly higher, the increased evaporative deficit and the loss in runoff, snowfall, and soil storage is primarily a result of higher maximum and minimum temperatures. The most dramatic shift is predicted for soil storage, which will decrease significantly between mid-May and late November relative to 1950-2005. Despite the slight increase in predicted precipitation, the coincident warming means that habitats are unlikely to maintain their current moisture status.

    To evaluate the vulnerability of Solidago albopilosa to the effects of climate change, we also used NatureServe's Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) (Young et al. 2015, entire), a climate change model that uses downscaled climate predictions from tools such as Climate Wizard (Givertz et al. 2009, entire) and combines these with readily available information about a species' natural history, distribution, and landscape circumstances to predict whether it will likely suffer a range contraction and/or population reductions due to the effects of climate change. The CCVI uses an Excel platform that allows users to enter numerical or categorical weighted responses to a series of questions about risk factors related to species exposure and sensitivity to climate change. The CCVI separates vulnerability into its two primary components: A species' exposure to changes in climate within a particular assessment area and its inherent sensitivity to the effects of climate change. The tool gauges 20 scientifically documented factors and indicators of these components, as well as documented responses to climate change where they exist.

    While the Index calculates anticipated increases or declines in populations of individual species, it also accommodates inherent uncertainties about how species respond within their ecological contexts. The CCVI generated a vulnerability rating of “extremely vulnerable” to “highly vulnerable” for white-haired goldenrod, suggesting that the species' abundance and/or range extent could change substantially or possibly disappear by 2050 (Young et al. 2015, p. 44). Factors influencing the species' high vulnerability were its poor movement/dispersal ability, its connection with uncommon geologic features, and its unique hydrological niche (humid, shaded rock shelters). Byers and Norris (2011, p. 16) completed a CCVI for plants in an adjacent state, West Virginia, and concluded that top risk factors included poor dispersal ability, natural and anthropogenic barriers to dispersal, dependence on wetland habitats, restriction to areas with unique geology, and genetic bottlenecks (Byers and Norris 2011, p. 16).

    Although the CCVI model (Young et al. 2015, entire) suggested that Solidago albopilosa is greatly exposed and sensitive to climate change and could be adversely affected in future years, Anacker and Leidholm 2012 (pp. 16-17) noted that there are a number of weaknesses associated with the CCVI: (1) It is weighted too heavily towards direct exposure to climate change (projected changes to future temperature and precipitation conditions that have high levels of uncertainties); (2) some important plant attributes are missing (mating system and pollinator specificity); (3) it is very difficult to complete scoring for a given species because some information is simply lacking; and (4) some scoring guidelines are too simplistic (Anacker and Leidholm (2012, pp. 16-17). Topographic complexity was considered to be a potential complementary factor in assessing vulnerability to climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, pp. 12-16). Topographically complex areas, such as the Red River Gorge region, have been predicted to be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, pp. 15-16), so species such as Solidago albopilosa may also be less vulnerable to such effects as compared to plants that occur in areas with low topographic complexity.

    Additionally, Phillips (2010, entire) found that efforts to predict responses to climate change and to interpret both modern and paleoclimate indicators are influenced by several levels of potential amplifiers, which can either increase or exaggerate climate impacts, and/or filters, which reduce or mute impacts. He notes that climate forcings (factors that drive or “force” the climate system to change such as the energy output of the sun, volcanic eruptions, or changes in greenhouse gases) are partly mediated by ecological, hydrological, and other processes that may amplify or filter impacts on surface processes and landforms. For example, resistance or resilience of geomorphic systems may minimize the effects of changes. Thus, a given geomorphic response to climate could represent amplification and/or filtering (Phillips 2010, p. 571). Due to white-haired goldenrod's habitat specificity in rock shelters and cliff overhangs, the effects of climate change are likely muted or diminished due to this species' specific habitat conditions.

    Based on observations of climatic conditions over a period of 25 years (KSNPC (2010, p. 13), there is some biological and historical evidence to suggest that S. albopilosa is adapted to endure some of the potential effects of climate change, including more frequent droughts and an estimated 2.6-3.6 °C (4.7-6.5 °F) increase in average annual maximum temperature. Habitats within the Red River Gorge often experience multiyear droughts, and S. albopilosa occurrences can become stressed during these periods. For example, the Cumberland Plateau region of Kentucky experienced a several-year drought prior to KSNPC's 2008-2009 survey. These dry conditions continued during 2008, and KSNPC observed many drought-stressed occurrences. The following year (2009) was relatively wet, and several of these drought-stressed occurrences quickly improved (KSNPC 2010, p. 13). Despite this most recent dry period and others in the past, the species has demonstrated a resiliency to prolonged periods of drought. Although downscaling models exist at the county level (Alder and Hostetler 2013), we do not have data at the proper scale (inside rock shelters or in cliff overhangs) to determine, for example, how the species is affected by decreased relative humidity during a drought year, but periodic drought may be a normal cyclical event needed to increase production. The shaded, cooler, and more humid environment of rock shelters (Nieves and Day 2014, p. 7) and the topographic complexity of the Red River Gorge region (Anacker and Leidholm 2012, pp. 15-16) may offer some relief from drying and may contribute to the species' ability to survive these conditions.

    Although climate change is almost certain to affect terrestrial habitats in the Red River Gorge region of Kentucky (Adler and Hostetler 2013, entire), there is uncertainty about the specific effects of climate change on white-haired goldenrod. Currently, we have no evidence that climate change effects observed to date have had any adverse impact on S. albopilosa or its habitats, and we are uncertain about how projected future changes in temperature, precipitation, and other factors will influence the species. However, the best available information indicates that the effects of climate change do not represent an imminent threat now or in the foreseeable future.

    Summary of Factor E: Other potential threats such as minor vegetational changes in the surrounding forest, competition with invasive species, low genetic variability, small population size, and the effects of climate change have been identified as potential threats to S. albopilosa. Invasive species occur in only 23 of 117 extant occurrences, and most of these occurrences (16) have remained stable. We do not expect the loss of eastern hemlock to have a significant impact on the species because eastern hemlock is a minor component of the forest canopy surrounding S. albopilosa occurrences. The potential effects of low genetic diversity do not represent a threat as the species has relatively high genetic diversity. Small populations may be vulnerable to stochastic events, but these occurrences contain only a small proportion of the species' total number of stems. We do not consider climate change to be an imminent threat based on the species' current status, its demonstrated resiliency to periods of drought, and our uncertainty regarding the species' vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Based on all these factors, we find that other natural or manmade factors considered here are no longer a significant threat to S. albopilosa.

    Overall Summary of Factors Affecting White-Haired Goldenrod

    The primary factors that led to white-haired goldenrod's listing under the Act were its limited range and habitat threats associated with ground disturbance and trampling caused by unlawful archaeological activities and recreational activities such as camping, hiking, and rock climbing. Other factors included the inadequate protection of occurrences on the DBNF and potential minor vegetational changes in forests surrounding Solidago albopilosa occurrences. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the threats faced by white-haired goldenrod. These threats have been removed or ameliorated by conservation actions of multiple conservation partners for more than 20 years. These activities and other management actions included in the DBNF's LRMP (USFS 2004, pp. 3.5-3.8) have assisted in recovery of the species as reflected in the large number of stable, self-sustaining, protected occurrences (46), and the long period (greater than 11 years) during which this trend has been maintained. Furthermore, a new cooperative management agreement among the Service, DBNF, and KSNPC was signed on August 29, 2016, and will provide for the long-term protection of the species.

    Based on our assessment of factors potentially impacting the species and its habitat, the species' improved status (a sufficient number of viable occurrences), and multiple conservation efforts by the Service and its partners, we conclude that Solidago albopilosa is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

    Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to and removing species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so because of any of five factors as required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We conducted a review of the status of this species and assessed the five factors to evaluate whether Solidago albopilosa is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by Solidago albopilosa and its habitat. We reviewed the information available in our files and other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized experts and other Federal and State agencies.

    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant the threat is. If the threat is significant, it may drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.

    During our analysis, we did not identify any factors that reach a magnitude that threaten the continued existence of the species. Significant impacts at the time of listing that could have resulted in the extirpation of all or parts of populations have been eliminated or reduced since listing, and we do not expect any of these conditions to substantially change post-delisting and into the foreseeable future. We conclude that the previously recognized impacts to Solidago albopilosa from the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A), the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D), and minor vegetational changes in the surrounding forest (Factor E), have been ameliorated or reduced such that S. albopilosa is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all of its range or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We, therefore, conclude that S. albopilosa does not meet the definition of a threatened species, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

    Significant Portion of the Range Analysis Background

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that Solidago albopilosa is not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, we next consider whether there are any significant portions of its range in which Solidago albopilosa is in danger of extinction or likely to become so. We published a final policy interpreting the phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). In pertinent part, the final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; and (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time the Service makes any particular status determination.

    The procedure for analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered species or threatened species and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, as we have found here, we next determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we will continue to list the species as an endangered species or threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is no longer warranted.

    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be significant or in analyzing portions of the range in which there is no reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether substantial information indicates that: (1) The portions may be “significant” and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.” In practice, a key part of the determination that a species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of “significant” (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions would not warrant further consideration. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.

    If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and (2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in an SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range.

    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more efficient to address the “significant” question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a portion of the range is not “significant,” we do not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is “significant.”

    SPR Analysis for White-Haired Goldenrod

    Applying the process described above, in considering delisting S. albopilosa, we evaluated the range of this plant to determine if any areas could be considered a significant portion of its range. While there is some variability in the habitats occupied by S. albopilosa across its range, the basic ecological components required for the species to complete its life cycle (e.g., adequate sunlight, shade, moisture, soils) are present throughout the habitats occupied by the species. No specific location within the current range of the species provides a unique or biologically significant function that is not found in other portions of the range. The currently occupied range of S. albopilosa encompasses approximately 114 km2 (44 mi2) in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties, KY. Based on examination of information on the biology and life history of the species, we determined that there are no separate areas of the range that are significantly different from others or that are likely to be of greater biological or conservation importance than any other areas.

    We next examined whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so, in that area. Through our review of potential threats, we identified some areas where Solidago albopilosa may experience greater threats or a greater likelihood of extirpation and, therefore, may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in those areas. These include occurrences on private lands and occurrences that are not currently considered self-sustaining. The majority (94.8 percent) of Solidago albopilosa occurrences are now located on DBNF and benefit from management and conservation actions implemented under the LRMP. The remaining (6 of the 117) extant occurrences are located on private lands. As explained above, these occurrences currently do not benefit from any formal protection or management and, therefore, could face higher magnitude threats. While these occurrences do not receive any formal protection, five of the six occurrences are considered to be stable and self-sustaining, indicating a low level of current impacts to those occurrences. Although the occurrences on private lands could face greater threats in the future due to lack of formal protections, these occurrences represent only 5 percent of extant occurrences and a very small proportion of the range of the species. Additionally, even if future potential threats were to cause the loss of these occurrences, that loss would not appreciably reduce the long-term viability of the species, much less cause the species in the remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.

    We also evaluated whether the occurrences that are not considered self-sustaining could be considered a significant portion of the species' range. We have determined that 46 secure and self-sustaining occurrences presently are distributed throughout the species' range, which accounted for more than 75 percent of the total stems estimated to exist in 2013. Of the remaining 71 extant occurrences, the 6 occurrences on private lands are not considered secure (but all 6 have been shown to be stable, and 5 have been shown to be self-sustaining). These occurrences were discussed above.

    The remaining 65 occurrences are on DBNF land, and thus protected, but currently are not considered self-sustaining. Some of these occurrences have a status of declining or their status is unknown, while others are considered not self-sustaining primarily due to poor estimated viability and low number of stems observed. These occurrences could be at greater risk of extinction due to vulnerability to demographic and environmental stochasticity because of their smaller population sizes. These 65 occurrences, along with the 6 occurrences on private lands, account for the remaining 25 percent of the total stems estimated to exist in 2013. The threats to these occurrences from recreational activities are being managed and are not different from the threats affecting the 46 secure, self-sustaining occurrences.

    Because these 46 occurrences exhibit stable or increasing trends, contain a relatively high number of stems, have fair to excellent viability, and exhibit relatively high reproductive rates, we expect these occurrences to persist into the future. While most of the remaining occurrences also receive protections and are not at immediate risk of extirpation, their lower population sizes and poorer viability put them at a greater risk of extirpation. However, while these occurrences may have a greater potential to become extirpated due to demographic or environmental stochasticity, the loss of some or all of those occurrences would not cause the species in the remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so.

    In conclusion, we have determined that none of the existing or potential threats, either alone or in combination with others, are likely to cause S. albopilosa to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. On the basis of this evaluation, we conclude S. albopilosa no longer requires the protection of the Act, and remove S. albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12 (h)).

    Conservation Measures

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for all species that have been delisted due to recovery. Post-delisting monitoring (PDM) refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species that has been delisted due to recovery remains secure from the risk of extinction after the protections of the Act no longer apply. The primary goal of PDM is to ensure that the species' status does not deteriorate, and if a decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline so that proposing it as threatened or endangered is not again needed. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing under section 4(b)(7) of the Act. At the conclusion of the monitoring period, we will review all available information to determine if relisting, the continuation of monitoring, or the termination of monitoring is appropriate.

    Post-Delisting Monitoring (PDM) Plan Overview

    In August 2016, the Service finalized a final PDM plan in cooperation with DBNF and KSNPC (Service 2016, entire). The Plan:

    (1) Summarizes the species' status at the time of delisting;

    (2) Defines thresholds or triggers for potential monitoring outcomes and conclusions;

    (3) Lays out frequency and duration of monitoring;

    (4) Articulates monitoring methods including sampling considerations;

    (5) Outlines data compilation and reporting procedures and responsibilities; and

    (6) Provides a post-delisting monitoring implementation schedule including timing and responsible parties.

    We will post the final PDM plan and any future revisions if necessary on our national Web site (http://endangered.fws.gov) and on the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Office's Web site (http://www.fws.gov/frankfort).

    Effects of the Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.12 by removing Solidago albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Therefore, as of the effective date of this rule (see DATES), the prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to white-haired goldenrod. Removal of S. albopilosa from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants relieves Federal agencies from the need to consult with us under section 7 of the Act.

    Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that no tribal lands or interests are affected by this rulemaking action.

    References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2014-0054, or upon request from the Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Authors

    The primary author of this rule is Dr. Michael A. Floyd in the Service's Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Service Office (see ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

    Regulation Promulgation

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

    PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 17.12 [Amended]
    2. Amend § 17.12(h) by removing the entry for “Solidago albopilosa” under “FLOWERING PLANTS” from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. Dated: September 28, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24249 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    81 196 Tuesday, October 11, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 6 CFR Chapter I 8 CFR Chapter I 19 CFR Chapter I 33 CFR Chapter I 44 CFR Chapter I 46 CFR Chapters I and III 49 CFR Chapter XII [Docket No. DHS-2016-0072] Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations—A Focus on Burden Reduction; Request for Public Input AGENCY:

    Office of the General Counsel, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Retrospective Review Initiative and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (Department or DHS) is seeking comments from the public on specific existing significant DHS regulations that the Department should consider as candidates for streamlining or repeal. These efforts will help us ensure that DHS satisfies its statutory obligations and achieves its regulatory objectives without imposing unwarranted costs.

    DHS is seeking this input pursuant to the process identified in DHS's Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations. According to the Final Plan, DHS will initiate its retrospective review process, on a three-year cycle, by seeking input from the public. Input that will be most helpful to DHS is input that identifies specific regulations and includes actionable data supporting the nomination of specific regulations for retrospective review.

    DATES:

    Written comments are requested on or before November 10, 2016 Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0072, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charlotte Skey, Senior Regulatory Economist, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this notice by submitting written data, views, or arguments using the method identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    II. Background

    On January 18, 2011, the President issued E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve policy goals and that agencies give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. 76 FR 3821. The Executive Order required each Executive Branch agency to develop a preliminary plan to periodically review its existing regulations to determine whether any regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.

    DHS's approach to conducting retrospective review focuses on public openness and transparency and on the critical role of public input in conducting retrospective review. To that end, DHS published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register on March 14, 2011. 76 FR 13526. In that notice, DHS solicited public input on how DHS should structure its retrospective review and which DHS rules would benefit from retrospective review. On June 6, 2011, DHS published a notice of availability; request for comments announcing the availability of, and seeking comment on, its Preliminary Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations. 76 FR 32331. DHS considered this public input as it developed a Final Plan.

    On August 22, 2011, DHS issued its Final Plan for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations (Final Plan or DHS Final Plan). The DHS Final Plan is available online at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-ogc-final-retrospective-review-plan-8-22-11-final.pdf. The Final Plan established a process for identifying regulations that may be obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive. Under the Final Plan, DHS (and/or a DHS component) will publish a notice in the Federal Register every three years seeking public input regarding the regulations that should be subject to retrospective review. DHS published its previous Federal Register notice seeking such public input on February 26, 2014. 79 FR 10760. Today's notice, which requests nominations for existing significant DHS regulations that DHS should streamline or repeal, fulfills the DHS commitment to seek public input via the Federal Register on a three-year cycle.

    DHS continually evaluates its regulatory program for rules that are candidates for retrospective review; DHS does so through legally mandated retrospective review requirements (e.g., Unified Agenda reviews, and reviews under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act) and through other informal and long-established mechanisms (e.g., use of Advisory Councils, feedback from DHS field personnel, input from internal working groups, and outreach to regulated entities). This Federal Register notice supplements these existing extensive DHS retrospective review efforts.1

    1 Twice a year, DHS posts a progress report on the DHS Web site; the report provides the status of DHS regulations currently under retrospective review. DHS published its most recent progress report in July 2016, and the report is available on the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/latest-progress under “DHS July 2016 Retrospective Review Plan Report.”

    II. DHS's Regulatory Responsibility

    DHS's mission is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards. The Department carries out its mission through the Office of the Secretary and its components, including the following operational components: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, and Transportation Security Administration.

    Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) Prevent terrorism and enhance security; (2) secure and manage our borders; (3) enforce and administer our immigration laws; (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace; and (5) ensure resilience to disasters. To further these areas, DHS has responsibility for a broad range of regulations. For example, to secure and manage our borders, DHS regulates people and goods entering and exiting the United States. DHS, to combat terrorism, regulates aviation security, high-risk chemical facilities, and infrastructure protection. DHS also issues regulations to administer immigration and citizenship benefits as well as regulations covering maritime safety and environmental protection. Finally, DHS promulgates a wide range of regulations concerning disaster preparedness, response, and recovery.

    III. Request for Input A. Importance of Public Feedback

    A central tenet of the DHS Final Plan is the critical and essential role of public input in driving and focusing DHS retrospective review. Because the impacts and effects of a regulation tend to be widely dispersed in society, members of the public—especially the regulated entities of rulemakings—are likely to have useful information, data, and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of existing DHS regulations. Given this importance of public input, the primary factor for regulation selection in DHS retrospective review is public feedback.

    B. Maximizing the Value of Public Feedback

    This notice contains a list of questions, the answers to which will assist DHS in identifying those regulations that may be streamlined or repealed in order to reduce burden. DHS encourages public comment on these questions and seeks any other data commenters believe are relevant to DHS's retrospective review efforts. The DHS Final Plan provides instruction on the type of feedback that is most useful to the Department.

    DHS will afford significantly greater weight to feedback that identifies specific regulations, includes actionable data, or provides viable alternatives that meet statutory obligations and regulatory objectives. Feedback that simply states that a stakeholder feels strongly that DHS should change a regulation, but does not contain specific information on how the proposed change would impact the costs and benefits of the regulation, is much less useful to DHS. DHS is looking for new information and new economic data to support any proposed changes. [emphasis added]

    We highlight a few of those points here, noting that comments that will be most useful to DHS are those that are guided by the below principles. Commenters should consider these principles as they answer and respond to the questions in this notice.

    • For this notice, DHS is focusing on reducing the burdens of its regulations and is not seeking comment on actions that might increase the net cost of the DHS regulatory program.

    • Commenters should identify, with specificity, the regulation at issue, providing the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) cite where available.

    • Commenters should provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation why a regulation should be streamlined or repealed in order to reduce burdens, as well as specific suggestions of ways the Department can better achieve its regulatory objectives.

    • Commenters should provide specific data that document the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements. Commenters might also address how DHS can best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing regulations and whether there are existing sources of data that DHS can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of its regulations over time.

    • Particularly where comments relate to a rule's costs or benefits, comments will be most useful if there are data and experience under the rule available to ascertain the rule's actual impact. For that reason, we encourage the public to emphasize those rules that have been in effect for a sufficient amount of time to warrant a fair evaluation.

    • Comments that rehash debates over recently issued rules will be less useful.

    C. List of Questions for Commenters

    We provide the below nonexhaustive list of questions to assist members of the public in the formulation of comments, and we do not intend it to restrict the issues that commenters may address:

    (1) Are there regulations that simply make no sense or have become unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised and, if so, what are they? Are there regulations that can simply be repealed without impairing the Department's regulatory programs and, if so, what are they?

    (2) Are there regulations that have become outdated and, if so, how can DHS modernize them to accomplish our regulatory objectives at a lower cost?

    (3) Are there regulations that are still necessary, but have not operated as well as expected such that a modified, stronger, or slightly different approach is justified?

    (4) Does the Department currently collect information that it does not need or use effectively to achieve regulatory objectives?

    (5) Are there regulations that are unnecessarily complicated or that DHS could streamline to achieve regulatory objectives in more efficient ways? If so, how can DHS make them less complicated and/or more streamlined?

    (6) Are there regulations that have been overtaken by technological developments? Can DHS leverage new technologies to streamline or do away with existing regulatory requirements?

    (7) Are there any Departmental regulations that are not tailored to impose the least burden on society, consistent with achieving statutory obligations and regulatory objectives?

    (8) How can the Department best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing regulations? Are there existing sources of data the Department can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of regulations over time?

    (9) Are there regulations that are working well that minimize burden and that DHS can use as a model for other DHS regulatory programs?

    (10) Are there any regulations that create difficulty because of duplication, overlap, or inconsistency of requirements?

    The Department issues this notice solely for information and program planning purposes. Responses to this notice do not bind DHS to any further actions related to the response.

    Christina E. McDonald, Associate General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24344 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9187; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-032-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by multiple reports of damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts. This proposed AD would require repetitive general visual and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the inner rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; repetitive detailed inspections, and HFEC inspections if necessary, of the inner and outer rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also provides a modification which terminates the repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts, which could lead to structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft and possible reduced control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email: [email protected]. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9187; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149.

    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-2016-9187; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-032-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA 2016-0052, dated March 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported of finding a damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shaft, Part Number (P/N) 212-46237-01. Subsequent investigation determined that this damage occurred after parking of the aeroplane during a heavy wind gust, without having set the flight control surfaces in locked position.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EADS-CASA issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-C212-27-0001 to provide inspection instructions, and Service Bulletin (SB) SB-212-27-0058 providing modification instructions.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive inspections of the affected rudder torque tube shaft, and introduces an optional modification [replacement], which constitutes terminating action for those repetitive inspections.

    This proposed AD would require repetitive general visual and HFEC inspections of the inner rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; repetitive detailed inspections, and HFEC inspections if necessary, of the inner and outer rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; a general visual inspection to verify rudder alignment if necessary; and corrective actions if necessary. Repetitive inspections are done depending on conditions (wind conditions, gust lock engagement, and rudder deviation) identified in Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015. Damage may include bulging, dents, peeled paint, or visible corrosion. Corrective actions include replacement of the rudder torque tube shaft with a new rudder torque tube shaft and repair. The optional terminating action includes replacement of the rudder torque tube shaft with an improved rudder torque tube shaft. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9187.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following EADS CASA service information.

    • EADS CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0058, dated April 25, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the rudder torque tube shaft with an improved rudder torque tube shaft.

    • Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015. This service information describes procedures for general visual and HFEC inspections of the inner rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; detailed inspections, and HFEC inspections if necessary, of the inner and outer rudder torque tube shaft for cracks, deformation, and damage; a general visual inspection to verify rudder alignment; and corrective actions if necessary.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 49 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections Up to 33 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,805 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $2,805 per inspection cycle Up to $137,445 per inspection cycle Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Optional modification Up to 48 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,080 $48,729 Up to $52,359

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions and parts cost specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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): Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2016-9187; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-032-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DF, and C-212-DE airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damaged and cracked rudder torque tube shafts, which could lead to structural failure of the affected rudder torque tube shaft and possible reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes equipped with a rudder torque tube shaft having part number (P/N) 212-46237-01: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD; do general visual, detailed, and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the inner and outer surfaces of the rudder torque tube shaft, as applicable, for cracks, deformation, and damage, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015.

    (2) Thereafter, before further flight after the conditions identified in paragraph 3.1.1.1 of Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015, do the applicable inspections identified for each condition.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack, deformation, or damage is found, before further flight do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015. Where Airbus Defense & Space Alert Operators Transmission AOT-C212-27-0001, dated July 15, 2015, specifies to contact Airbus for corrective action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Optional Modification

    Modification of an airplane by replacing the rudder torque tube shaft P/N 212-46237-01 with an improved part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS-CASA Service Bulletin SB-212-27-0058, dated April 25, 2014, constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD for the modified airplane.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Military All Operator Letter (AOL) AOL-212-037, Revision 01, dated April 11, 2014.

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or EADS CASA's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 2016-0052, dated March 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9187.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space, Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone: +34 91 585 55 84; fax: +34 91 585 31 27; email: [email protected]. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 29, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24202 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199; FRL-9953-73-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia for the purpose of updating the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) to lower the sulfur content of fuel oil. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the District's submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0199 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:

    Asrah Khadr, (215) 814-2071, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: September 23, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24373 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0367; FRL-9952-16-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Butte County Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM) emissions from open burning. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

    DATES:

    Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0367 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972 3073, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses BCAQMD Rule 300, “Open Burning, Requirements, Prohibitions and Exemptions.” In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, we are approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule.

    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24497 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0556; FRL-9953-62-Region 7] Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plans AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Nebraska. This action will amend the SIP to include revisions to Title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 4, “Ambient Air Quality Standards”; Chapter 19, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality”; and Chapter 22, “Incinerators; Emission Standards”. This amendment makes the state regulation consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter 25 micrometers or less (PM2.5), Sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Carbon monoxide, Ozone, and Lead as of the date of the state submittal. This action also makes formatting and grammatical corrections to title 129, chapters 19 and 22.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by November 10, 2016

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0556, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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:

    Greg Crable, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7391, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document proposes to take action on the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Nebraska. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision (s) in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 27, 2016. Mike Brincks, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23977 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0571; FRL-9953-76-Region 7] Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans, Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits Required AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the Operating Permit Program, and the 112(l) plan submitted on April 6, 2016, by the State of Missouri. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are approving the State's SIP and Operating Permit Program revisions as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. The submission from Missouri revises fees for permitting services provided by the air quality program, including construction permit applications and operating permit applications. Missouri also removed the basic operating permit requirement for incinerators with emissions less than the de minimis levels in Missouri's “Operating Permits” rule. While EPA has never approved the basic operating permit program into Missouri's SIP or Missouri's Operating Permits Program, one statement on incinerators in the approved SIP and Operating Permits Program is removed by the submission. This statement applied Missouri's “Operating Permits” rule to all incinerators within the State. Any permittees with incinerators already required to have either Intermediate State Operating Permits or part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting requirements. This revision does not exempt any incinerators from appropriate permitting. Likewise, any future permittees with incinerators under the former version of the SIP and Operating Permits Program would have required either an Intermediate State Operating Permits or a part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting requirement under the revised SIP and Operating Permits Program. Finally the submission from Missouri makes non-substantive style changes.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0571, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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:

    Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7588, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document proposes to take action on the SIP and Operating Permit Program revisions submitted by the state of Missouri for 10 CSR 10-6.060, “Construction Permits Required”, and 10 CSR-6.065, “Operating Permits”. We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP and Operating Permit Program revisions in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

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

    40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 27, 2016. Mike Brincks, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24379 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252 [Docket DARS-2016-0028] RIN 0750-AJ01 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Procurement of Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2016-D006); Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2016 relating to commercial item acquisitions. The comment period on the proposed rule is extended 30 days.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on August 11, 2016 (81 FR 53101), is extended. Comments are due by November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2016-D006, using any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for “DFARS Case 2016-D006.” Select “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided to submit a comment. Please include “DFARS Case 2016-D006” on any attached documents.

    Email: [email protected] Include DFARS Case 2016-D006 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 571-372-6094.

    Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 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:

    Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-6099.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On August 11, 2016, DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 53101 to implement the requirements of sections 851 through 853 and 855 through 857 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92, enacted November 25, 2015), as well as the requirements of section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013), relating to the procurement of commercial items. The proposed rule also provides guidance to contracting officers to promote consistency and uniformity in the acquisition process.

    The comment period for the proposed rule is extended 30 days, from October 11, 2016, to November 10, 2016, to provide additional time for interested parties to comment on the proposed DFARS changes.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252

    Government procurement.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24370 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 110 [Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0272 (HM-209A)] RIN 2137-AF19 Hazardous Materials: Revisions to Hazardous Materials Grants Requirements (RRR) AGENCY:

    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    PHMSA proposes to revise its regulations pertaining to the Hazardous Materials grants program to incorporate the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and to implement new requirements set forth by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. PHMSA invites all interested persons to provide comments regarding these intended revisions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 12, 2016. To the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments as a final rule is developed.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by identification of the docket number PHMSA-2015-0272 (HM-209A) using the following methods:

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: To Docket Operations, Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you provide. All comments received will also be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS), including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact DOT's Docket Operations Office (see mail and hand delivery addresses above).

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa O'Donnell, Outreach, Training and Grants Division, Office Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 or at (202) 366-1109.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents of Supplementary Information I. Background A. Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant B. Supplemental Public Sector Training Grant C. Hazardous Materials Instructor Training Grant D. Hazardous Materials Community Safety Grant E. New Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards F. Gap in Regulations Pertaining to Hazardous Materials Grants II. Summary Review of Proposed Amendments III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for this Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13610, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies F. Paperwork Reduction Act G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact J. Privacy Act K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act M. Executive Order 13211 I. Background

    This proposed rule revises 49 CFR part 110 pertaining to the Hazardous Materials grants program to incorporate the Office of Management and Budget's Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR 200), and to implement new requirements set forth by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 (Pub.L. 114-94—December 4, 2015).

    PHMSA's Hazardous Materials grants program is comprised of four grants: Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants; Supplemental Public Sector Training (SPST) grants; Hazardous Materials Instructor Training (HMIT) grants; and the new Hazardous Materials Community Safety (HMCS) grants. Except for the HMCS grants, the HMEP, SPST, and HMIT grants are funded by registration fees collected from hazardous materials (hazmat) shippers and carriers who offer for transportation or transport certain hazmat in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce in accordance with 49 CFR part 107, subpart G.

    As a result of the implementation of 2 CFR part 200 and the FAST Act, the current regulations for the Hazardous Materials grants are outdated. The following describes each of the hazmat grants, new requirements for Federal awards, and the gaps in current regulations (49 CFR part 110).

    A. Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant

    The HMEP grant was established in 1990 by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA), Public Law 101-615. In 1993, PHMSA's predecessor, the Research and Special Programs Administration, began issuing grants to assist States, Territories, and Indian tribes to carry out emergency preparedness and training activities to ensure communities could effectively respond to transportation incidents involving hazmat. The HMEP grant award amount prior to 2009 was $12.8 million; award amounts thereafter were increased to $21.8 million.

    B. Supplemental Public Sector Training Grant

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Amendments of 1993, which among other changes, established the SPST grant to increase the number of hazardous materials training instructors available to conduct hazardous materials response training for individuals with a statutory responsibility to respond to hazardous materials accidents and incidents. From 2002 through 2008, the SPST grant authorization amount was $250,000. In fiscal year 2008, the SPST grant authorization amount was increased to $1 million annually.

    C. Hazardous Materials Instructor Training Grant

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Security Reauthorization Act of 2005, which among other changes, established the HMIT grant for training instructors to train hazardous materials employees. Instructors trained under this program are able to offer training to hazardous materials employees at locations in close proximity to the employees' places of employment. Since its inception in 2008, the HMIT grant program has awarded approximately $4 million in grant funds annually to nonprofit organizations.

    D. Hazardous Materials Community Safety Grant

    On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed into law the FAST Act, which among other changes, established the HMCS grant to nonprofit organizations for: (1) Conducting national outreach and training programs to assist communities in preparing for and responding to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids by rail; and (2) training State and local personnel responsible for enforcing the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids. Unlike the other three grants, which are funded through a shipper and carrier hazardous materials registration fee program, the HMCS grant funding source is up to $1 million in Congressional appropriations. PHMSA anticipates awarding two HMCS grants for the first time in fiscal year 2017.

    E. New Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards

    On December 19, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published guidance that streamlined the Federal government's guidance on Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal awards. This final guidance, located in 2 CFR part 200, supersedes and simplifies requirements from various OMB circulars and 49 CFR part 18. All Federal grants issued on or after December 26, 2014, were required to comply with these requirements.

    F. Gap in Regulations Pertaining to Hazardous Materials Grants

    The regulations in 49 CFR part 110 pertaining to Hazardous Materials grants have neither been updated to include reference to the HMIT, SPST, and HMCS grants to nonprofit entities, nor have they been updated to reflect the streamlined guidance for Federal awards found in 2 CFR part 200.

    II. Summary Review of Proposed Amendments

    PHMSA proposes to revise the regulations pertaining to Hazardous Materials grants in 49 CFR part 110 to bring it into alignment with the currently applicable Federal law and regulation (e.g., FAST Act and 2 CFR part 200). We propose to amend Part 110 to add language pertaining to grants made to nonprofit organizations under the HMIT, SPST, and HMCS grants. These training grants to nonprofit organizations are provided in statute but are not included in 49 CFR. We propose to remove reference to 49 CFR part 18 and replace it with reference to 2 CFR part 200, as 49 CFR part 18 has been removed and 2 CFR part 200 provides the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Federal grants. Further, PHMSA proposes to add a reference to pre-award expenditures, add a reference to territories, define “nonprofit organizations,” and require that applicants and grantees submit documents electronically rather than by mail.

    This NPRM affects the following entities, as listed in Table 1:

    Table 1—Affected Entities Affected entities Revisions • States, Territories, and Indian tribes
  • • National nonprofit fire service organizations.
  • • Nonprofit organizations that demonstrate expertise in (1) conducting a training program for hazardous materials employees; and (2) the ability to reach and involve in a training program a target population of hazardous materials employees
  • • Nonprofit organizations that demonstrate expertise in conducting national outreach and training programs to assist communities in preparing for and responding to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids by rail
  • • Nonprofit organizations that demonstrate expertise in training State and local personnel responsible for enforcing the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids
  • • Subject to 2 CFR Part 200 and electronic filing requirements.

    PHMSA seeks comments from interested stakeholders on this proposed rulemaking. PHMSA proposes the following substantive revisions:

    • Revise § 110.1 to comport with 2 CFR part 200 provisions regarding payments to non-Federal entities. 2 CFR 200.305 states that non-Federal entities other than states “must be paid in advance, provided it maintains or demonstrates the willingness to maintain both written procedures that minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and disbursement by the non-Federal entity, and financial management systems that meet the standards for fund control and accountability as established in this Part” (i.e., high-risk grantees). Additionally, while 2 CFR part 200 is silent regarding the funding techniques for states, advanced payments (as conditioned therein) to state grantees would likewise more effectively focus Federal resources on improving performance and outcomes while ensuring the financial integrity of taxpayer dollars in partnership with non-Federal stakeholders.

    • Allow for grantees to incur pre-award expenditures at their own risk in § 110.50, Disbursement of Federal funds.

    PHMSA proposes the following additional revisions:

    • Revise § 110.1 to refer to nonprofit organizations. Currently, HMIT, SPST, and HMCS grant programs, where nonprofit organizations are eligible applicants, are not referenced in the regulations.

    • Revise § 110.5 to refer to nonprofit organizations and replace reference to 49 CFR with reference to 2 CFR part 200.

    • Revise § 110.10 to amend the title to read “Administering Hazardous Materials Grants” and to add “Territories” and “nonprofit organizations.”

    • Revise § 110.20 to change the preamble language to refer to 2 CFR part 200; revise the definitions for “Indian tribe” and “Associate Administrator”; add definitions for “Nonprofit organization,” “Public sector employee,” “Tribal Emergency Planning Committee,” and “Tribal Emergency Response Commission”; and delete the definition for “Indian country.”

    • Amend § 110.30 to revise paragraph (a) and remove paragraphs (b) and (c) to update how applicants submit grant applications to PHMSA.

    • Amend the heading of § 110.40 by adding the terminology “Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant” and update the wording in paragraphs (a) and (b).

    • Revise the requirements in §§ 110.10, 110.20, 110.30, 110.70, 110.80, 110.90, 110.100, and 110.110 by updating the sections to refer to 2 CFR part 200 and making other editorial changes.

    • Revise the requirements in § 110.30 by removing reference to corresponding with PHMSA by mail.

    • Revise the requirements in § 110.70 by removing reference to financial management systems and advances.

    • Revise the requirements in § 110.90 by removing the examples of project manager requirements, which have a significant impact on the planning and training activities.

    • Revise the requirements in § 110.120 to update how to report deviations.

    • Revise the requirements in § 110.130 referring to disputes by updating the titles of the PHMSA Hazardous Materials grants staff and changing the dispute resolution officer from the Administrator to the Associate Administrator to expedite dispute resolutions should disputes occur.

    III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

    This NPRM is published under the authority of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. Section 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. Section 5107, as amended, establishes a competitive program for making grants to nonprofit organizations for conducting national outreach and training programs to assist communities in preparing for and responding to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids by rail; and training State and local personnel responsible for enforcing the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including Class 3 flammable liquids. Section 5108 permits the Secretary to collect registration fees from people transporting certain quantities of hazardous materials and deposit those fees into an account used to fund the HMEP grants program. Section 5116, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to make grants to States and Indian tribes, by combining planning and training grants, and to create supplemental training grants to national nonprofit fire service organizations. This NPRM revises the regulations as they pertain to hazardous materials grants.

    B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13610, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This NPRM is considered a non-significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034) as it does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; rather, it revises regulations to comply with current Federal statute and guidance and PHMSA policies and procedures.

    Executive Order 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) supplements and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Executive Order 13563, issued January 18, 2011, notes that our nation's current regulatory system must protect not only public health, welfare, safety, and our environment but also promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Further, this executive order urges government agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. In addition, Federal agencies are asked to periodically review existing significant regulations; retrospectively analyze rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome; and modify, streamline, expand, or repeal regulatory requirements in accordance with what has been learned.

    Executive Order 13610 (“Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”), issued May 10, 2012, urges agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to examine whether they remain justified and whether they should be modified or streamlined in light of changed circumstances, including the rise of new technologies.

    Together, these three Executive Orders require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.”

    PHMSA has evaluated the Hazardous Materials Grants regulations and has determined that they are outmoded and, in part, excessively burdensome. The current regulations are out-of-date, as they refer to obsolete regulations, and have been superseded by 2 CFR part 200. We propose updating the 49 CFR part 110 to reflect current Federal statute and guidance and PHMSA policies and procedures. PHMSA welcomes public comments on potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

    C. Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”) and the President's memorandum on “Preemption” published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (74 FR 24693). This proposed rule will preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements but does not propose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    The Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, contains an express preemption provision (49 U.S.C. 5125 (b)) that preempts State, local, and Indian tribe requirements on the following subjects:

    (1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous materials;

    (2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous materials;

    (3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;

    (4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; and

    (5) The design, manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, recondition, repair, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.

    This proposed rule pertains to entities responsible for all the covered subject areas above. If adopted as final, this rule will preempt any State, local, or Indian tribe, requirements concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal requirements are “substantively the same” as the Federal requirements. Furthermore, this proposed rule is necessary to update, clarify, and provide relief from regulatory requirements.

    The Federal hazardous materials transportation law provides at § 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, they must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. PHMSA has determined that the effective date of Federal preemption for these requirements will be one year from the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.

    D. Executive Order 13175

    This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this NPRM does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no known costs to small entities associated with this rule. The changes proposed herein are to clarify and simplify existing regulations and to comply with the current statute. The grant recipients affected by this rulemaking are States, Territories, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit organizations. Current grantees that meet the definition of `small entity' are nonprofit organizations. All of these entities currently comply with the statutory requirements that PHMSA is proposing to incorporate in the regulations; therefore, there is no added burden. Consequently, PHMSA certifies that this rulemaking does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    PHMSA currently has an approved information collection under OMB Control Number 2137-0586, entitled “Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training & Planning Grants,” with an expiration date of June 29, 2019. This NPRM may result in a minimal increase in the time spent to apply, maintain, and close out a grant application cycle; however, this minimal increase is not sufficient enough to necessitate the revision of this information collection package, in either the annual burden or cost to OMB Control Number 2137-0586 for proposed changes under Part 110.

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to an information collection unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.8(d) requires that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information and recordkeeping requests.

    PHMSA requests comments on any information collection and recordkeeping burdens associated with the proposed changes under this proposed rule.

    Requests for a copy of this information collection should be directed to Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-12), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

    Address written comments to the Dockets Unit as identified in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking. We must receive comments regarding information collection burdens prior to the close of the comment period identified in the DATES section of this rulemaking. In addition, you may submit comments specifically related to the information collection burden to the PHMSA Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, at fax number (202) 395-6974.

    G. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $155 million or more, adjusted for inflation, to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one year, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. As such, PHMSA has concluded that the NPRM does not require an Unfunded Mandates Act analysis.

    I. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), and implementing regulations by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500) require Federal agencies to consider the consequences of Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    This NPRM would revise the regulations pertaining to Hazardous Materials Grants to reflect current Federal statute and guidance and PHMSA policies and procedures. PHMSA believes the proposed revisions present little or no environmental impact on the quality of the human environment because rather than involving the transportation of hazardous materials, the changes update processes and procedures related to grants. Therefore, PHMSA has initially determined that the implementation of the proposed rule will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    In addition, PHMSA sought comment from the following modal partners:

    • Federal Aviation Administration

    • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    • Federal Railroad Administration

    • United States Coast Guard

    PHMSA did not receive any adverse comments on the amendments proposed in this NPRM from these Federal Agencies.

    PHMSA welcomes any views, data, or information related to environmental impacts that may result if the proposed requirements are adopted, as well as possible alternatives and the environmental impacts.

    J. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), which may be viewed at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf, or you may visit http://www.dot.gov.

    K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609 (“Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation”), agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or will be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public. We have assessed the effects of the proposed rule, and find that it will not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this NPRM is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.

    L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g. specification of materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. This proposed rulemaking is to comply with current Federal statute and guidance and PHMSA policies and procedures; it does not involve technical standards.

    M. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”) requires Federal agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for any “significant energy action” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Under the Executive Order, a “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates, or is expected to lead to the promulgation of, a final rule or regulation (including a notice of inquiry, advance NPRM, and NPRM) that (1)(i) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

    PHMSA has evaluated this action in accordance with Executive Order 13211. See the environmental assessment section for a more thorough discussion of environmental impacts and the supply, distribution, or use of energy. PHMSA has determined that this action will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Consequently, PHMSA has determined that this regulatory action is not a “significant energy action” within the meaning of Executive Order 13211.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 110

    Disaster assistance, Education, Grant programs—environmental protection, Grant programs—Indians, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous substances, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR chapter I is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 110—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PUBLIC SECTOR TRAINING AND PLANNING GRANTS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.97.

    2. Revise § 110.1 to read as follows:
    § 110.1 Purpose.

    This part sets forth procedures for grants to States, Territories, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit organizations to support emergency planning and training to respond to hazardous materials emergencies, particularly those involving transportation. These grants may also be used to enhance the implementation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001).

    3. Revise § 110.5 to read as follows:
    § 110.5 Scope.

    (a) This part applies to:

    (1) States and Indian tribes and contains the program requirements for public sector grants to support hazardous materials emergency planning and training efforts; and

    (2) Nonprofit organizations for grants to support training programs for public sector hazardous materials emergency responders or hazardous materials employees.

    (b) The requirements contained in 2 CFR part 200 “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements,” apply to grants issued under this Part.

    (c) Copies of standard forms and OMB circulars referenced in this Part are available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_forms or from the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Grants Chief, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590-0001.

    4. Revise § 110.10 to read as follows:
    § 110.10 Administering hazardous materials grants.

    This part applies to States, Territories, Indian tribes and nonprofit organizations.

    5. Revise § 110.20 to read as follows:
    § 110.20 Definitions.

    Unless defined in this part, all terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 5102 are used in their statutory meaning and all terms defined in 2 CFR part 200 with respect to administrative requirements for grants, are used as defined therein. Other terms used in this part are defined as follows:

    Allowable costs means those costs that are: Eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the project permitted by the appropriate Federal cost principles, and approved in the grant.

    Associate Administrator means the Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or a person designated by the Associate Administrator.

    Budget period means the period of time specified in the grant agreement during which the project manager may expend or obligate project funds.

    Cost review means the review and evaluation of costs to determine reasonableness, allocability, and allowability.

    Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.], which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians (25 U.S.C. 450b).

    Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) means a committee appointed by the State Emergency Response Commission under section 301(c) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001(c)) that includes at a minimum, representatives from each of the following groups or organizations: elected State and local officials; law enforcement, firefighting, civil defense, first aid, health, local environmental, hospital, and transportation personnel; broadcast and print media; community groups; and owners and operators of facilities subject to the emergency planning requirements.

    National curriculum means the curriculum required to be developed under 49 U.S.C. 5115 and necessary to train public sector emergency response and preparedness teams, enabling them to comply with performance standards as stated in 49 U.S.C. 5115(c).

    Nonprofit organization means a tax-exempt nonprofit organization in the U.S. as defined in 26 U.S.C. 501(c).

    Political subdivision means a county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority (including any public and Indian housing agency under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), school district, special district, intrastate district, council of governments (whether or not incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under State law), any other regional or interstate government entity, or any agency or instrumentality of a local government.

    Project means the activities and tasks identified in the grant agreement.

    Project manager means the nonprofit, State or Indian tribal official designated in a grant as the recipient agency's principal program contact with the Federal Government.

    Project officer means the Federal official designated in a grant as the program contact with the project manager. The project officer is responsible for monitoring the project.

    Project period means the length of time specified in a grant for completion of all work associated with that project.

    Public sector employee means an individual employed by a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe and who during the course of employment has responsibilities related to responding to an accident or incident involving the transportation of hazardous material, including an individual employed by a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe as a firefighter or law enforcement officer and an individual who volunteers to serve as a firefighter for a State, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe.

    State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) means the State Emergency Response Commission appointed by the Governor of each State and Territory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.

    Statement of Work means that portion of a grant that describes the purpose and scope of activities and tasks to be carried out as part of the proposed project.

    Tribal Emergency Planning Committee (TEPC) means a committee established by the TERC in each tribal region. TEPCs have the same responsibilities as LEPCs in the tribal region.

    Tribal Emergency Response Committee (TERC) means the commission responsible for carrying out the provisions of EPCRA in the same manner as a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) on federally recognized tribal lands.

    6. Revise § 110.30 to read as follows:
    § 110.30 Hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant application.

    (a) General. Applications must comply with the applicable Notice of Funding Announcements which will include or reference forms approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3502). Applicants are required to electronically submit application packages to http://www.grants.gov/. Applications must adhere to the instructions outlined in the funding announcement and grant application kit.

    (b) [Reserved]

    (c) [Reserved]

    7. Revise § 110.40 to read as follows:
    § 110.40 Activities eligible for hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant funding.

    Eligible applicants may receive funding for the following activities:

    (a) To develop, improve, and implement emergency plans required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, as well as exercises that test the emergency plan. To enhance emergency plans to include hazard analysis, as well as response procedures for emergencies involving transportation of hazardous materials.

    (b) To determine flow patterns of hazardous materials within a State, between a State and another State or Tribal lands, and develop and maintain a system to keep such information current.

    (c) To determine the need for regional hazardous materials emergency response teams.

    (d) To assess local response capabilities.

    (e) To conduct emergency response drills and exercises associated with emergency preparedness plans.

    (f) To provide for technical staff to support the planning effort.

    (g) To train public sector employees to respond to accidents and incidents involving the transportation of hazardous material.

    (h) To determine the number of public sector employees employed or used by a political subdivision who need the proposed training and to select courses consistent with national consensus standards or the National Curriculum.

    (i) To deliver comprehensive preparedness and response training to public sector employees, which may include design and delivery of preparedness and response training to meet specialized needs, and financial assistance for trainees and for the trainers, if appropriate, such as tuition, travel expenses to and from a training facility, and room and board while at the training facility.

    (j) To deliver emergency response drills and exercises associated with training, a course of study, and tests and evaluation of emergency preparedness plans.

    (k) To pay expenses associated with training by a person (including a department, agency, or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, a territory, or an Indian Tribe) and activities necessary to monitor such training including, but not limited to examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations.

    (l) To maintain staff to manage the training effort designed to result in increased benefits, proficiency, and rapid deployment of local and regional responders.

    (m) For additional activities the Associate Administrator deems appropriate to implement the scope of work for the proposed plan or project and approved in the grant.

    8. Revise § 110.50 to read as follows:
    § 110.50 Disbursement of Federal funds.

    (a) Pre-award costs. (1) Pre-award costs, as defined in 2 CFR 200.458, are those incurred prior to the effective date of the Federal award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the Federal award where such costs are necessary for the efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the Federal award and only with the written approval of the Federal awarding agency. PHMSA expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project.

    (2) A grantee may, at its own risk, incur pre-award costs to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or renewal award if such costs are necessary to conduct the project, and would be allowable under the grant if awarded.

    (3) The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on PHMSA for any of the following reasons:

    (i) the absence of appropriations;

    (ii) if an award is not subsequently made; or

    (iii) if an award is made for a lesser amount than the grantee anticipated.

    (b) Payment may not be made for a project plan unless approved in the grant award.

    (1) Payments to recipients shall follow the Federal guidelines outlined at 2 CFR § 200.305.

    (2) If a recipient agency seeks additional funds, the supplemental amendment request will be evaluated on the basis of needs, performance, and availability of funds. An existing grant is not a commitment of future Federal funding.

    9. Revise § 110.70 to read as follows:
    § 110.70 Financial administration.

    (a) Recipients must expend and account for grant funds in accordance with the standards for financial and program management of Federal grants outlined at 2 CFR 200.302.

    (b) To be allowable, costs must be eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable to the approved project in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, Cost Principles, and included in the grant award. Recipients are responsible for obtaining audits in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, Audit Requirements. Audits must be made by an independent auditor in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards covering financial and compliance audits. The Associate Administrator or a designee of the Associate Administrator may audit a recipient at any time.

    10. Revise § 110.80 to read as follows:
    § 110.80 Procurement.

    Recipients must use procurement procedures and practices that adhere to applicable State laws and regulations and Federal requirements as specified in the procurement standards of 2 CFR part 200, as well as the Department of Transportation exception outlined at 2 CFR 1201.317, as applicable.

    11. Revise § 110.90 to read as follows:
    § 110.90 Grant monitoring, reports, and records retention.

    (a) Grant monitoring. Project managers are responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of grant, subgrant, and contract-supported activities. Project managers must monitor the performance of supported activities to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and achievement of performance goals. Monitoring must cover each program, function, activity, or task covered by the grant.

    (b) Reports. (1) The recipient must submit financial and performance reports as required in the terms and conditions of the grant award. The final financial and performance reports are due 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.

    (2) All required performance reports will be listed in the terms and conditions of the Notice of Grant Award.

    (3) Financial reporting must be supplied using Standard Form 425 Federal Financial Report and submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant award.

    (c) Records retention. In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, all financial and programmatic records, supporting documents, statistical records, training materials, and other documents generated under a grant must be maintained by the project manager for three years from the date the project manager submits the final financial report. The project manager must designate a repository and single-point of contact for these purposes. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or another action involving the records has been started before the expiration of the 3-year period, the records must be retained until the action and resolution of all issues that arise from it are completed, or until the end of the regular 3-year period, whichever is later.

    12. Revise § 110.100 to read as follows:
    § 110.100 Enforcement.

    If a recipient fails to comply with any term of an award (whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, a State plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere) a noncompliance action may be taken as specified in 2 CFR 200.338 through 200.342. The recipient will have the opportunity to object and provide information and documentation challenging the suspension or termination action, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.341. Costs incurred by the recipient agency during a suspension or after termination of an award are not allowable unless the Associate Administrator authorizes it in writing. Grant awards may also be terminated in whole or in part with the consent of the recipient at any agreed upon effective date, or by the recipient upon written notification.

    13. Revise § 110.110 to read as follows:
    § 110.110 After-grant requirements.

    The Associate Administrator will close out the award upon determination that all applicable administrative actions and all required work of the grant are complete in accordance with 2 CFR part 200. The project manager must submit all financial, performance, and other reports required as a condition of the grant, within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant. This time frame may be extended by the Associate Administrator for cause.

    14. Revise § 110.120 to read as follows:
    § 110.120 Deviation from this part.

    Recipient agencies may request a deviation from the non-statutory provisions of this part. The Associate Administrator will respond to such requests in writing. If appropriate, the decision will be included in the grant agreement. Request for deviations from this part 110 must be submitted to: the Grants Chief at [email protected]

    15. Revise § 110.130 to read as follows:
    § 110.130 Disputes.

    Disputes should be resolved at the lowest level possible, beginning with the Grants Specialist, the Grants Team Lead, and the Grants Chief. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Associate Administrator will serve as the dispute resolution official, whose decision will be final.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. William Schoonover, Acting Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24418 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 160719634-6838-01] RIN 0648-XE756 Listing Endangered or Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pacific Bluefin Tuna as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    90-day petition finding, request for information, and initiation of status review.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis) as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to designate critical habitat concurrently with the listing. We find that the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. We will conduct a status review of the Pacific bluefin tuna to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information pertaining to this species.

    DATES:

    Scientific and commercial information pertinent to the petitioned action must be received by December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by “Pacific Bluefin Tuna Petition (NOAA-NMFS-2016-0100),” by either of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2016-0100, click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail or hand-delivery: Protected Resources Division, West Coast Region, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite #1100, Portland, OR 97232.

    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 http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Electronic copies of the petition and other materials are available on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov. Please direct other inquiries to Scott Rumsey, NMFS West Coast Region at [email protected], (503) 872-2791; or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources at [email protected], (301) 427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 20, 2016, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), on behalf of 13 other co-petitioners, to list the Pacific bluefin tuna as threatened or endangered under the ESA and to designate critical habitat concurrently with its listing. The petition includes general biological information about Pacific bluefin tuna including its taxonomy, range and distribution, the physical and biological characteristics of its habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. CBD contends that “Pacific bluefin tuna are severely overfished, and overfishing continues, making extinction a very real risk.” The petitioner presents information in the petition on the abundance of the species relative to unfished levels and the fishing rates from 2011-2013 which “were up to three times higher than commonly used reference point for overfishing.” The petitioner also presents information on the level of harvest of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna and what it characterizes as a species in which “reproduction is currently supported by just a few adult age classes that will soon disappear due to old age.” Copies of the petition are available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    ESA Statutory, Regulatory, Policy Provisions, and Evaluation Framework

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent practicable, that within 90 days of receipt of a petition to list a species as threatened or endangered, the Secretary of Commerce make a finding on whether that petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, and to promptly publish such finding in the Federal Register (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)). When it is found that substantial scientific or commercial information in a petition indicates the petitioned action may be warranted (a “positive 90-day finding”), we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species concerned during which we will conduct a comprehensive review of the best available scientific and commercial information. In such cases, we conclude the review with a finding as to whether, in fact, the petitioned action is warranted within 12 months of receipt of the petition. Because the finding at the 12-month stage is based on a more thorough review of the available information, as compared to the narrow scope of review at the 90-day stage, a positive 90-day finding does not prejudge the outcome of the status review.

    Under the ESA, a listing determination may address a species, which is defined to also include subspecies and, for any vertebrate species, any DPS that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A joint NMFS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (jointly, “the Services”) policy clarifies the agencies' interpretation of the phrase “distinct population segment” for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying a species under the ESA (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA sections 3(6) and 3(20), respectively, 16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and (20)). Pursuant to the ESA and our implementing regulations, we determine whether species are threatened or endangered based on any one or a combination of the following five section 4(a)(1) factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) any other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), 50 CFR 424.11(c)).

    ESA-implementing regulations issued jointly by the Services (50 CFR 424.14(b)) define “substantial information” in the context of reviewing a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted. In evaluating whether substantial information is contained in a petition, the Secretary must consider whether the petition: (1) Clearly indicates the administrative measure recommended and gives the scientific and any common name of the species involved; (2) contains detailed narrative justification for the recommended measure, describing, based on available information, past and present numbers and distribution of the species involved and any threats faced by the species; (3) provides information regarding the status of the species over all or a significant portion of its range; and (4) is accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation in the form of bibliographic references, reprints of pertinent publications, copies of reports or letters from authorities, and maps (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)).

    At the 90-day finding stage, we evaluate the petitioners' request based upon the information in the petition including its references and the information readily available in our files. We do not conduct additional research, and we do not solicit information from parties outside the agency to help us in evaluating the petition. We will accept the petitioners' sources and characterizations of the information presented if they appear to be based on accepted scientific principles, unless we have specific information in our files that indicates the petition's information is incorrect, unreliable, obsolete, or otherwise irrelevant to the requested action. Information that is susceptible to more than one interpretation or that is contradicted by other available information will not be dismissed at the 90-day finding stage, so long as it is reliable and a reasonable person would conclude it supports the petitioners' assertions. In other words, conclusive information indicating the species may meet the ESA's requirements for listing is not required to make a positive 90- day finding. We will not conclude that a lack of specific information alone necessitates a negative 90-day finding if a reasonable person would conclude that the unknown information itself suggests the species may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

    To make a 90-day finding on a petition to list a species, we evaluate whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the subject species may be either threatened or endangered, as defined by the ESA. First, we evaluate whether the information presented in the petition, along with the information readily available in our files, indicates that the petitioned entity constitutes a “species” eligible for listing under the ESA. Next, we evaluate whether the information indicates that the species faces an extinction risk that is cause for concern; this may be indicated in information expressly discussing the species' status and trends, or in information describing impacts and threats to the species. We evaluate any information on specific demographic factors pertinent to evaluating extinction risk for the species (e.g., population abundance and trends, productivity, population spatial structure and connectivity, age structure, sex ratio, diversity, current and historical range), and the potential contribution of identified demographic risks to extinction risk for the species. We then evaluate the potential links between these demographic risks and the causative impacts and threats identified in section 4(a)(1).

    Information presented on impacts or threats should be specific to the species and should reasonably suggest that one or more of these factors may be operative threats that act or have acted on the species to the point that it may warrant protection under the ESA. Broad statements about generalized threats to the species, or identification of factors that could negatively impact a species, do not constitute substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. We look for information indicating that not only is the particular species exposed to a factor, but that the species may be responding in a negative fashion. We then assess the potential significance of that negative response.

    Many petitions identify risk classifications made by nongovernmental organizations, such as the International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the American Fisheries Society, or NatureServe, as evidence of extinction risk for a species. Risk classifications by such organizations or made under other Federal or state statutes may be informative, but such classification alone will not alone provide sufficient basis for a positive 90-day finding under the ESA. For example, as explained by NatureServe, their assessments of a species' conservation status do “not constitute a recommendation by NatureServe for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act” because NatureServe assessments “have different criteria, evidence requirements, purposes and taxonomic coverage than government lists of endangered and threatened species, and therefore these two types of lists should not be expected to coincide” (http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/pdf/NatureServeStatusAssessmentsListing-Dec%202008.pdf). Additionally, species classifications under IUCN and the ESA are not equivalent; data standards, criteria used to evaluate species, and treatment of uncertainty are not necessarily the same. Thus, when a petition cites such classifications, we will evaluate the source of information that the classification is based upon in light of the ESA's standards on extinction risk and threats discussed above.

    Distribution and Life History of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna

    Pacific bluefin tuna are a pelagic, highly migratory species occupying coastal and open ocean areas up to depths of 200 meters (m). They are primarily found in subtropical and temperate waters of the North Pacific Ocean, ranging from East Asia to the west coast of North America. In the western Pacific they are most abundant between Sakhalin Island and the Philippines, but have been reported as far south as Australia and New Zealand. In the central part of the Pacific Ocean, Pacific bluefin tuna have been caught in fisheries both north and south of the equator (Bayliff 1994). In the eastern Pacific, they have been documented from Alaska to South America, but they typically range from the southern tip of Baja California, Mexico, and Point Conception, California (Bayliff 1994).

    Of the bony fishes, tuna are unique for their high metabolic rate and in their ability to maintain body temperatures several degrees higher than the surrounding water (Collette & Nauen 1983). The Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna were once considered to be subspecies of the Northern bluefin tuna, but are now considered separate species on the basis of genetic and morphological differences (Collette 1999). Pacific bluefin tuna are one of the cold-water group of tunas which have been able to extend their feeding ranges into the colder ocean waters of the temperate zone (Collette 1999).

    Pacific bluefin tuna spawning occurs in two areas of the western Pacific. They spawn between the Philippines and the Ryukyu Islands in April, May, and June, and in Japanese coastal waters of the Sea of Japan in July and August (Schaefer 2001; Tanaka et al., 2007). Pacific bluefin tuna are iteroparous spawners, meaning they may spawn more than once in their lifetime. They reach sexual maturity between the ages of 3 and 5, and can live to be at least 20 years old. Research indicates that fish spawning between Japan and the Philippines are primarily 5 year olds, while fish spawning in the Sea of Japan are mostly 3 year olds (ISC 2014).

    Pacific bluefin tuna tend to migrate north along the Japanese and Korean coasts in the summer, and south in the winter (Inagake et al., 2001; Itoh et al., 2003; Yoon et al., 2012). A variable but small portion of the age 1-3 Pacific bluefin tuna migrate eastward across the North Pacific Ocean each year, spending up to several years as juveniles off the coast of North America before returning to the western Pacific Ocean to spawn (Inagake et al., 2001). The trans-Pacific migration is believed to take 1.5-2.0 months (Baumann et al., 2015) and their migration route tends to be within the subtropical zone (Whitlock et al., 2012). In the eastern Pacific they are found primarily off the coast of Mexico, California, and Oregon (Domeier et al., 2005). While in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, Pacific bluefin tuna exhibit a seasonal pattern of northerly migrations in the summer and fall, returning to Baja California in the winter months (Kitagawa et al., 2007).

    Pacific bluefin tuna fisheries in the eastern Pacific are managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and fisheries in the western and central Pacific are managed by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Five countries harvest these fish but Japan catches the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna, followed by Mexico, the United States, Korea and Chinese Taipei (ISC 2014). Based on genetic information and spawning distribution, the Pacific bluefin tuna is managed as a single stock. Research surveys have caught larval, postlarval, and early juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna in the western Pacific Ocean, but not in the eastern Pacific Ocean, leading to the conclusion that there is a single stock of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean (IATTC 2014).

    Analysis of Petition and Information Readily Available in NMFS Files

    The petition contains information on the species, including the taxonomy, species description, geographic distribution, habitat, population status and trends, and factors contributing to the species' decline. According to the petition, four of the five causal factors in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA are adversely affecting the continued existence of the Pacific bluefin tuna: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

    In the following sections, we evaluate the information provided in the petition, as well as other pertinent information readily available in our files, to determine if the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. If it does, then we will make a positive finding on the petition and conduct a review of the species range-wide. Below, we summarize the information presented in the petition and in our files on the status of the species and the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors that may be affecting the species' risk of extinction, and determine whether a reasonable person would conclude that an endangered or threatened listing may be warranted as a result of any of these factors.

    Pacific Bluefin Tuna Status and Trends

    The International Scientific Committee (ISC), the scientific body that informs the Northern Committee to the WCPFC, uses fishery-specific catch-and-effort data from Japanese and Taiwanese fisheries to derive estimates of abundance for Pacific bluefin tuna. The ISC models generate annual estimates of total biomass, spawning stock biomass, and recruitment for each year beginning with 1952. Although there have been fisheries for Pacific bluefin tuna since at least the beginning of the 20th century in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and for several centuries in the western Pacific Ocean, the data prior to 1952, especially from the western Pacific Ocean, are of relatively poor quality (ISC 2016). For this reason, abundance estimates for Pacific bluefin tuna begin with the 1952 fishing season.

    The ISC uses an age-structured model, based on catch, size-composition, and catch-per-unit of effort data, to derive estimates of biomass. Catch of Pacific bluefin tuna is recorded as metric tons of fish and biomass is likewise expressed in metric tons. The ISC model indicates that although the total biomass fluctuated throughout the assessment period (1952 through 2014), it began to steadily decline in 1996, leveling off in 2010 (ISC 2016). During the stock assessment period, the total biomass reached a peak of 209,075 metric tons in 1960 and a low of 29,347 in 1983. The estimated total biomass of Pacific bluefin tuna for 2014 is 35,817 metric tons.

    The petition and the information in our files indicate that the abundance of Pacific bluefin tuna which are old enough to spawn (spawning stock biomass) has diminished to just 2.6 percent of its unfished biomass and less than one-third of what it was 20 years ago (ISC 2016). The unfished spawning stock biomass can roughly be defined as the theoretical spawning stock biomass without fishing and assuming no environmental or density-dependent effects. The ISC estimated the spawning stock biomass for the year 2014 was 16,557 metric tons and the unfished biomass to be approximately 636,807.

    The ISC also estimates the productivity to be relatively stable throughout the modeling period. Recruitment estimates for the most recent years can be highly uncertain due to limited information on the cohorts. However, the ISC (2016) estimated that recruitment in 2014 was relatively low and the average for the last 5 years appears to be below the long-term average. The petitioners assert that 97.6 percent of all Pacific bluefin tuna caught are between 0 and 2 years of age and that the population is supported by just a few adult age classes. The petitioners further assert that along with the dwindling number of adults, in 2014, the Pacific bluefin tuna population produced the second lowest number of juvenile fish since 1952.

    Analysis of ESA Section 4(a)(1) Factors The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The petitioners contend that Pacific bluefin tuna are at risk of extinction throughout their range due to water pollution, marine debris, oil and gas development, wind energy development, and prey depletion. The petitioners assert that Pacific bluefin tuna habitat is threatened by pollution in the form of mercury, persistent organic pollutants, plastics, radiation nuclides from Fukushima, oil spills, oil and gas development related waste products, and waste from aquaculture projects. The petitioners note that a recent study by Lowenstein et al., (2010) found mercury levels of bluefin tuna samples collected from restaurants and supermarkets exceed those permitted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2000), Health Canada (2007) and the European Commission (2008). Bluefin tuna samples in the cited study were from Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern bluefin tuna, with over half of the samples from Atlantic bluefin tuna. The petition concludes that because of the relatively high mercury content compared to other fish species, Pacific bluefin tuna are likely susceptible to physiological impacts.

    Petitioners also raised concerns about persistent organic pollutants. Persistent organic pollutants are absorbed by organisms at the base of the food chain and accumulated in the fatty tissues of consumers, becoming more concentrated as they work their way up the food chain. This process is known as biomagnification and can pose risks to predators, like bluefin tuna, which are at the top of the food chain. The petitioners cite various examples of studies that have documented biomagnification in similar species and the risks to the health of the organism. As an example, studies of Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean found unusually high levels of female proteins in males of the species (Storelli et al., 2008). Researchers believe polychlorinated biphenyls and organochlorine pesticides can mimic endogenous hormones, disrupt reproductive functions and cause developmental abnormalities (such as intersexes) in fish (De Metrio et al., 2003).

    The petitioners also raise concerns about pollution from aquaculture projects, calling attention to a proposed project off the coast of San Diego, California. Waste from aquaculture operations can include excess fish feed, dead fish, fish feces, and chemicals used to control disease and parasites (e.g. antibiotics and pesticides). Excessive fish feed, dead fish, and fish feces can lead to elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorous which in turn can cause oxygen depletion and harmful algal blooms in nearby waters. The petitioners do not provide details about how the chemicals used in aquaculture may affect the health of Pacific bluefin tuna in the wild.

    The petitioners assert that Pacific bluefin tuna may be susceptible to entanglement by marine debris and ingestion of plastic particles. Most of the reports of fish entangled in marine debris are from lost fishing gear (NOAA 2014). The petitioners note that because of the properties of plastic, small plastic pellets tend to accumulate persistent organic pollutants and contribute to the biomagnification of these pollutants in the pelagic food web.

    Oil and gas development can affect water quality through acute and chronic spills and discharge of produced water and drilling muds. The petitioners assert that the direct impacts of oil spills include behavioral alteration, suppressed growth, induced or inhibited enzyme systems and other molecular effects, physiological responses, reduced immunity to disease and parasites, histopathological lesions and other cellular effects, tainted flesh, and mortality (Holdway 2002). The petitioners further assert that oil spills can exert indirect effects on wildlife through reduction of key prey species, impacting wildlife species and ecosystems for decades (Peterson et al., 2003). The petitioners assert that produced water and drilling muds contain toxic pollutants such as mercury, lead, chromium, barium, arsenic, cadmium, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (MMS 2007). Furthermore, the petitioners note that some of the chemicals added to fracking fluids can have adverse effects on aquatic species and other wildlife (Colborn et al., 2011). In addition to water quality concerns, the petitioner asserts that oil and gas exploration and development activities produce underwater noise which degrades Pacific bluefin tuna habitat. These activities include seismic surveying, drilling, offshore structure emplacement, offshore structure removal, and production related activities, including ship and helicopter activity for providing supplies to the drilling rigs and platforms.

    The petitioners briefly describe the potential harm from wind-energy development, citing interference with migration, feeding, and collisions or entanglements during construction and operation as the primary issues.

    The final issue raised by the petitioners related to Pacific bluefin tuna habitat is prey depletion. The petitioners assert that commercial fisheries for forage fish and squid have diminished the quality of Pacific bluefin tuna habitat in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. The petitioners further note that the fishery for market squid has increased five-fold in the last three decades (Vojkovich 1998; CDFW 2014) and the fishery for sardines was recently closed because of a 91 percent decline in abundance since 2007 (Hill et al., 2015). Research results on Pacific bluefin tuna foraging ecology demonstrate that their diet varies across years (PFMC 2016).

    Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    The petitioners assert that the primary threat to the Pacific bluefin tuna is from overutilization by commercial and recreational fisheries. A common practice in fisheries management is to define biological reference points for abundance of adult fish and limit harvest levels to maintain the stock at or above the biological reference points. The fisheries commissions have not established biological reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna. However, the ISC compared the 2011-2013 estimated fisheries mortalities to standard reference points (targets for fishing effort and abundance of the population) and found that if those points were used to manage Pacific bluefin tuna, overfishing would be occurring or just at the threshold and the stock would be considered overfished (ISC 2016). The management implications of the most recent stock assessment are that the stock is at very low levels and the fishing mortality is higher than any reasonable reference point (Maunder 2016).

    The petitioners assert that the vast majority of the Pacific bluefin tuna catch are juvenile fish and the population is supported by a dwindling number of adult tuna. According to the petitioners, nearly 98 percent of all Pacific bluefin tuna caught are between 0 and 2 years of age and the population is supported by just a few adult age classes. Furthermore, the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna landed in the Western Pacific are juveniles caught in or around their nursery grounds. In the Eastern Pacific, 90 percent of the catch is estimated to be 1 to 3 years of age (IATTC 2014).

    The petitioners also assert that industrial fishing fleets are targeting adult Pacific bluefin on their spawning grounds, and that this is widely recognized as an unsustainable practice. In support of this assertion, the petitioners provide information about fisheries management for Atlantic bluefin tuna. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas established regulations in 1982 which prohibit directed fishing on bluefin tuna in their Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds.

    The petitioners assert that along with the dwindling number of adults, in 2014, the Pacific bluefin tuna population produced the second lowest number of juvenile fish since 1952. The ISC (2016) estimated that recruitment in 2014 was relatively low and the average for the last 5 years appears to be below the long-term average. Two out of the last three recruitments are the lowest levels observed since 1980 (Maunder 2016).

    Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioners assert that the existing international, regional, and national regulations do not adequately protect the Pacific bluefin tuna. The regional fisheries management organizations, the IATTC and the WCPFC have adopted management measures for Pacific bluefin tuna, but these measures may not be adequate to end overfishing. The petitioner's primary concern with the existing regulatory mechanisms is the absence of science-based biological reference points and a mandatory limit on the aggregate international catch of Pacific bluefin tuna. As noted above, the petitioners contend that Pacific bluefin tuna are at or below what should be considered a threshold for overfished.

    The IATTC staff recommended that commercial catches in 2014 be limited to an amount below 3,154 metric tons, which was the estimated commercial catch in the Eastern Pacific in 2013, and that the noncommercial catches in 2014 be limited below 221 metric tons, which is based on the same method that was applied to commercial catch to determine that recommended limit (IATTC 2014a). The petitioners note that instead of using common scientific reference points, the IATTC staff recommended catch limits based on the previous year's total catch. The petitioners also note that despite recommendations from staff, the IATTC decided to set total commercial catches for 2015 and 2016 at 6,600 metric tons, for an effective annual catch of 3,300 metric tons in each year.

    In 2014, WCPFC adopted a rebuilding plan designed to rebuild the stock to the historical median of 42,592 metric tons within 10 years (WCPFC 2014a). Estimated catches of Pacific bluefin tuna were high from 1929 to 1940 with a peak catch of approximately 47,635 metric tons in 1935 (ISC 2014). However, the WCPFC uses the year 1952 as the first year in its calculations for the historical median. The petitioners argue that the chosen historical median equates to just 6.4 percent of the historical unfished level, well below the commonly recommended rebuilding target of 20-40 percent of unfished levels for species such as bluefin tuna (Restrepo et al., 1998).

    The petitioners assert that U.S. regulations for domestic Pacific bluefin tuna fisheries are not adequate to prevent extinction. They argue that the United States has not taken adequate steps to prevent overfishing and to rebuild Pacific bluefin tuna. The petitioners note that for the 2012 and 2013 fishing seasons, NMFS implemented IATTC recommendations for commercial fisheries capping Pacific bluefin tuna annual catch at 500 metric tons—an amount above any U.S. catches since 2000. The petitioners also note that the annual catch limit for 2015 and 2016, a combined limit of 600 metric tons for both years, is more than the U.S. commercial fleet has caught in any 2-year period since 2002.

    Since 2010, U.S. recreational catch has been significantly higher than U.S. commercial catch in all but one year, and accounts for the majority of the U.S. landings. In recent years, NMFS reduced the bag limit for recreational fisheries from 10 to 2 fish per day. The petitioners argue that the bag limit does not provide an absolute limit on recreational catch because (1) the fishery is open access, meaning there is no limit on the number of fishermen who can participate in the fishery, and (2) there is no limit on the number of trips each fisherman can take. Therefore, they feel the bag limits do not provide a reliable mechanism for limiting recreational catch and preventing overfishing.

    Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The petition contends that climate change and its associated ocean impacts threaten the continued existence of Pacific bluefin tuna. Climate change is increasing ocean temperatures and surface ocean acidity, and decreasing dissolved oxygen levels. Water temperature is believed to be one of the factors which influence spawning success of Pacific bluefin tuna. The petitioners assert that climate change and its associated influence on the distribution of ocean temperatures may disrupt both migration and spawning success for Pacific bluefin tuna. The success of Pacific bluefin tuna spawning and hatching, as well as larval survival, are believed to be closely linked to water temperature. The petitioners note that Kimura et al. (2010) found the optimal temperature range for Pacific bluefin tuna larval survival to be 24 to 28 degrees Celsius, and an increase of just 3 degrees above this range to result in an immediate rise in mortality rate. The petitioners also assert that climate change may also reduce prey availability for Pacific bluefin tuna, noting that climate-associated ecosystem changes have reduced productivity in the last half-century in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (Black et al., 2014).

    The petitioners assert that although research on ocean acidification's direct effects on tuna is in its infancy, preliminary experiments hatching yellowfin tuna eggs in ocean water of varying pH, including current and predicted near future ocean pH (6.9, 7.3, 7.7, and 8.1), showed that decreasing pH (i.e., acidification) significantly increased hours until complete hatching (Bromhead et al., 2013; Frommel et al., 2016). The petitioners also cite research on other species which indicate that decreasing pH can lead to loss of the senses of sight, smell, and touch in fishes.

    The petitioners assert that climate change will decrease dissolved oxygen levels in the ocean and influence the range of suitable habitat for Pacific bluefin tuna. The petitioners also assert that scientists have already documented reduced oxygen levels in Pacific bluefin tuna habitat—in waters off Japan, and the California Current (Bograd et al., 2008; Emerson et al., 2004; McClatchie et al., 2010).

    Petition Finding

    After reviewing the information contained in the petition, as well as information readily available in our files, and based on the above analysis, we conclude the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating the petitioned action of listing the Pacific bluefin tuna as threatened or endangered may be warranted. Therefore, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA and NMFS' implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.14(b)(2)), we will commence a status review of the species. During our status review, we will first determine whether the species is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so (threatened) throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Within 12 months of the receipt of the petition (June 20, 2017), we will make a finding as to whether listing the species as endangered or threatened is warranted as required by section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA.

    Information Solicited

    As a result of this 90-day finding, we commence a status review of the Pacific bluefin tuna to determine whether listing the species is warranted. To ensure that our review of Pacific bluefin tuna is informed by the best available scientific and commercial information, we are opening a 60-day public comment period to solicit information to support our status review and 12-month finding.

    Specifically, we request information regarding: (1) Species abundance; (2) species productivity; (3) species distribution or population spatial structure; (4) patterns of phenotypic, genotypic, and life history diversity; (5) habitat conditions and associated limiting factors and threats; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and their habitats; (7) information on the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, whether protections are being implemented and whether they are proving effective in conserving the species; (8) data concerning the status and trends of identified limiting factors or threats; (9) information on targeted harvest (commercial and recreational) and bycatch of the species; (10) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk; and (11) information concerning the impacts of environmental variability and climate change on survival, recruitment, distribution, and/or extinction risk.

    In addition to the above requested information, we are interested in any information concerning protective efforts that have not yet been fully implemented or demonstrated effectiveness. Our consideration of conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, and other protective efforts will be guided by the Services “Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions” (PECE Policy; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003). The PECE Policy establishes criteria to ensure the consistent and adequate evaluation of formalized conservation efforts when making listing decisions under the ESA. This policy may also guide the development of conservation efforts that sufficiently improve a species' status so as to make listing the species as threatened or endangered unnecessary. Under the PECE Policy the adequacy of conservation efforts is evaluated in terms of the certainty of their implementation, and the certainty of their effectiveness. Criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation include whether: The necessary resources available; the necessary authority is in place; an agreement formalized (i.e., are regulatory and procedural mechanisms in place); there is a schedule for completion and evaluation; for voluntary measures, incentives to ensure necessary participation are in place; and there is agreement of all necessary parties to the measure or plan. Criteria for evaluating the certainty of effectiveness include whether the measure or plan: includes a clear description of the factors for decline to be addressed and how they will be reduced; establishes specific conservation objectives; identifies necessary steps to reduce threats; includes quantifiable performance measures for monitoring compliance and effectiveness; employs principles of adaptive management; and is certain to improve the species' status at the time of listing determination. We request that any information submitted with respect to conservation measures, regulatory mechanisms, or other protective efforts, that have yet to be implemented or show effectiveness, explicitly address the criteria in the PECE policy.

    We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.

    References Cited

    The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or on our Web page at: www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    Authority:

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 29, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24477 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 160801681-6857-01] RIN 0648-BG22 International Fisheries; Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; Silky Shark Fishing Restrictions and Fish Aggregating Device Data Collection and Identification AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulations under the Tuna Conventions Act to implement provisions of two Resolutions adopted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in 2016: Resolution C-16-01 (Collection and Analyses of Data On Fish-Aggregating Devices) and Resolution C-16-06 (Conservation Measures for Shark Species, with Special Emphasis on the Silky Shark (Carcharhinus Falciformis) for the Years 2017, 2018, and 2019). Per Resolution C-16-01, these regulations would require the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on each fish aggregating device (FAD) deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017, in the IATTC Convention Area. The vessel owner or operator would also be required to record and submit information about the FAD, as described in Annex I of the Resolution C-16-01. Per Resolution C-16-06, these regulations would prohibit the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or storing, in part or whole, carcasses of silky sharks caught by purse-seine vessels in the IATTC Convention Area. These regulations would also provide limits on the retained catch of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area. This proposed rule is necessary for the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing by November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106” in the comments.

    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. 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. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0106 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachael Wadsworth, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4036.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on the IATTC

    The United States is a member of the IATTC, which was established under the 1949 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. In 2003, the IATTC adopted the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Antigua Convention). The Antigua Convention entered into force in 2010. The United States acceded to the Antigua Convention on February 24, 2016. The full text of the Antigua Convention is available at: https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Antigua_Convention_Jun_2003.pdf.

    The IATTC consists of 21 member nations and four cooperating non-member nations and facilitates scientific research into, as well as the conservation and management of, tuna and tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. The IATTC Convention Area is defined as waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) within the area bounded by the west coast of the Americas and by 50° N. latitude, 150° W. longitude, and 50° S. latitude. The IATTC maintains a scientific research and fishery monitoring program and regularly assesses the status of tuna, sharks, and billfish stocks in the EPO to determine appropriate catch limits and other measures deemed necessary to promote sustainable fisheries and prevent the overexploitation of these stocks.

    International Obligations of the United States Under the Antigua Convention

    As a Party to the Antigua Convention and a member of the IATTC, the United States is legally bound to implement decisions of the IATTC. The Tuna Conventions Act (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State and, with respect to enforcement measures, the U.S. Coast Guard, to promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the United States' obligations under the Antigua Convention, including recommendations and decisions adopted by the IATTC. The authority of the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate such regulations has been delegated to NMFS.

    IATTC Resolution on FADs

    In 2013, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-13-04 (Collection and Analyses of Data on Fish-Aggregating Devices) in response to concerns that incomplete data was being collected on FADs and that the IATTC was unable to track the activities on a FAD through time in the Convention Area. The Commission recognized that additional information needed to be collected before Commission-wide FAD management measures could be developed. In order to fully implement Resolution C-13-04, the Commission also needed to adopt a FAD identification scheme. In 2014 and 2015, the IATTC scientific staff provided options and recommendations for a FAD identification scheme. In 2015, the Commission agreed on a method to identify FADs and adopted Resolution C-15-03, which amended Resolution C-13-04, and included this information. In 2016, the Commission further agreed on modifications to clarify the data collection requirements and revisions to some of the dates for implementing specific provisions in the Resolution. The IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-01 by consensus in July 2016. The main objective of Resolution C-16-01 is to collect data on FADs in the EPO and to identify FADs through a marking system.

    IATTC Resolution on Silky Sharks

    In 2016, the IATTC adopted Resolution C-16-06 in response to concerns for the stock status of the silky shark in the EPO. The IATTC scientific staff has provided conservation recommendations for the silky shark since 2012, and Resolution C-16-06 is consistent with the advice that the IATTC scientific staff provided in 2016. The main objective of Resolution C-16-06 is to restrict retention of silky sharks on purse seine vessels and to restrict incidental catch of silky sharks on longline vessels in the IATTC Convention Area. U.S. commercial fishing vessels in the EPO do not target silky shark; they are caught incidentally and primarily discarded.

    Proposed Regulations

    This proposed rule would implement provisions of Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06, described above, for U.S. commercial fishing vessels that fish for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area. This proposed rule includes four elements: Two elements regarding FADs and two elements regarding silky shark.

    The first element would require the owner or operator of a U.S. purse seine vessel to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on each fish aggregating device (FAD) deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017. The vessel owner or operator would be required to select one of the following two options for the unique code for each FAD: (1) Obtain a unique code from NMFS West Coast Region that NMFS has obtained from the IATTC Secretariat, as specified in Annex I of Resolution C-16-01 or (2) use an existing unique identifier associated with the FAD (e.g., the manufacturer identification code for the attached buoy).

    The vessel owner or operator would be required to ensure the characters for the unique code be at least 5 centimeters in height on the upper portion of the attached radio or satellite buoy in a location that does not cover the solar cells used to power the equipment. For FADs without attached radio or satellite buoys, the characters would be required to be marked indelibly on the uppermost or emergent top portion of the FAD. In other words, the vessel owner or operator would be required to ensure the marking is durable and will not fade or be erased (e.g., marked using an epoxy-based paint or an equivalent in terms of lasting ability) and visible at all times during daylight. In circumstances where the observer is unable to view the unique code, the captain or crew would be required to assist the observer (e.g., by providing the unique code of the FAD to the observer).

    The second element would require the vessel owner or operator of a FAD that is deployed on or after January 1, 2017, to record and submit information about the FAD to the address specified by the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch. The HMS Branch is defined as NMFS West Coast Region, Suite 4200, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802. In accordance with Annex I of Resolution C-16-01, nine data fields would be required to be recorded and submitted: (1) Position; (2) date; (3) hour; (4) FAD unique identifier; (5) FAD type (e.g., drifting natural FAD, drifting artificial FAD); (6) FAD design characteristics (dimension and material of the floating part and of the underwater hanging structure); (7) the type of activity (set, deployment, hauling, retrieving, loss, intervention on electronic equipment, other (if so, specify)); (8) if the activity is a set, the results of the set in terms of catch and bycatch; and (9) characteristics of any attached buoy or positioning equipment (positioning system, whether equipped with sonar, etc.). The IATTC Secretariat is currently working on further describing and defining each of these data fields through the development of a standard form. Owners and operators of a FAD would be required to record this information on the standard form developed by the Secretariat and provided to the owners and operators by the HMS Branch.

    The third element would prohibit the crew, operator, and owner of a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species from retaining on board, transshipping, storing, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark that is caught in the Convention Area. U.S. purse seiners do not target silky sharks; they are caught incidentally and are primarily discarded. The impacts of these proposed regulations to purse seine vessels are described in the Classification section below.

    The fourth element would require the crew, operator, and owner of a commercial longline fishing vessel of the United States to limit the retention of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area to a maximum of 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during any fishing trip that occurred in whole or in part in the IATTC Convention Area. Although Resolution C-16-06 provides that the “bycatch” of silky shark be restricted, NMFS proposes to use the term “retained catch” in these proposed regulations.

    U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area do not target, and infrequently catch, silky shark. Data from 2008 to 2015 show that any incidentally caught silky shark are released, and almost all are released alive. Silky shark are commonly released by cutting the line or dehooking the shark before it is brought onboard the vessel. Weights for silky shark are not recorded and weight estimates for sharks released while still in the water would likely not be reliable. An evaluation of total catch per longline trip where silky shark have been caught and released shows that, if the average weights of silky sharks are approximated, the amount of silky shark caught by U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO would not come close to 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during a fishing trip. NMFS is proposing to use the term “retained catch” in the proposed regulations to assist in enforcement of these regulations. The impacts of these proposed regulations to longline vessels are described in the Classification section below.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    NMFS is amending the supporting statement for the Pacific Tuna Fisheries Logbook Office of Management and Business (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements (OMB Control No. 0648-0148) to include the data collection requirements for FADs as described in the preamble. NMFS estimates the public reporting burden for this collection of information to average 10 minutes per form, time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. NMFS requests any comments on the addition of the FAD data collection form to the PRA package, including whether the paperwork would unnecessarily burden any vessel owners and operators. Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the ADDRESSES above, and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    Regarding the elements of the proposed rule pertaining to silky shark; there are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the PRA, and existing collection-of-information requirements still apply under the following Control Numbers: 0648-0593 and 0648-0214. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection-of-information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to analyze whether the proposed rule to implement provisions of Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 adopted by the IATTC in 2016 would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA is being published to aid the public in commenting upon NMFS conclusion that the proposed actions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    As described previously in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the proposed regulations would require FAD identification and data reporting as well as fishing restrictions on silky sharks. Alternatively, the failure to promulgate the proposed action would result in the provisions of these Resolutions not being implemented and would not allow the United States to satisfy its obligations as a member of the IATTC.

    On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry for all NMFS rules, subject to the RFA, published after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

    NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. All of the entities directly regulated by this regulatory action are commercial finfish fishing businesses. The new standard results in fewer commercial finfish businesses being considered small.

    The entities that would be affected by the proposed action are (1) U.S. purse seine vessels that use FADs to fish for tuna or tuna-like species in the IATTC Convention Area, and (2) U.S. purse seine and longline vessels that catch silky shark.

    As of July 2016, there are 15 large purse seine vessels (with at least 363 metric tons of fish hold volume) listed on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register. The number of U.S. large purse seine vessels on the IATTC Regional Vessel Register has increased substantially in the past two years due to negotiations regarding the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT) and the interest expressed by vessel owners that typically fish in the WCPO in relocating to the EPO. However, parties reached agreement in principle on changes to the SPTT in June 2016. U.S. large purse seine vessels fishing in the EPO primarily land yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tuna. Estimates of ex-vessel revenues for large U.S. purse seine vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area from 2005 to 2014 have been confidential and may not be publicly disclosed because of the small number of vessels in the fishery. However, in 2015, thirteen large purse seine vessels fished either exclusively in the EPO or fished in both the EPO and WCPO, and so information for 2015 is not confidential.

    For large purse seine vessels that fished exclusively in the EPO in 2015, ex-vessel price information specific to the individual vessels are not available to NMFS because these vessels did not land on the U.S. West Coast and the cannery receipts are not available through the IATTC. However, estimates for large purse seine vessels based in the WCPO that fish in both the EPO and WCPO may be used as a proxy for U.S. large purse seine vessels. The number of these U.S. purse seine vessels is approximated by the number with WCPFC Area Endorsements, which are the NMFS-issued authorizations required to use a vessel to fish commercially for HMS on the high seas in the Convention Area. As of August 2016 the number of purse seine vessels with WCPFC Area Endorsements was 42. Neither gross receipts nor ex-vessel price information specific to individual fishing vessels are available to NMFS, so NMFS applied indicative regional cannery prices—as approximations of ex-vessel prices—to annual catches of individual vessels to estimate their annual receipts. Indicative regional cannery prices are available through 2014 (developed by the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency; available at https://www.ffa.int/node/425), so NMFS estimated vessels' annual receipts during 2012-2014. Using this approach, NMFS estimates that among the affected vessels, the range in annual average receipts in 2012-2014 was $3 million to $20 million and the median was about $13 million. Thus, NMFS estimates that slightly more than half of the affected large purse seine vessels are small entities. Purse seine vessels that use FADs to fish for tuna or tuna-like species and that catch silky shark in the IATTC Convention Area are all large vessels and are both large and small entities.

    There are two components to the U.S. tuna purse seine fishery in the EPO: (1) Large purse seine vessels with at least 363 metric tons of fish hold volume (size class 6 vessels) that typically have been based in the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), and (2) coastal purse seine vessels with smaller fish hold volume that are based on the U.S. West Coast. Because only the large purse seine vessels fish with FADs and incidentally catch silky shark in the EPO, the proposed action is not expected to impact the coastal purse seine vessels. U.S. purse seiners do not target silky sharks in the EPO. Since 2005, the best available data from observers show that the incidental catches of silky shark are primarily discarded; however, a small percentage has been landed in the past ten years. For example, in 2015, a year in which more than three large purse seine vessels fished in the EPO, about 3% of the total catches of silky shark were landed and the rest were discarded either dead or alive. Since at least 2005, the observer coverage rate on class size 6 vessels in the EPO has been 100 percent.

    As of August 2016, the IATTC Regional Vessel Register lists 158 U.S. longline vessels that have the option to fish in the IATTC Convention Area. The majority of these longline vessels possess Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permits (issued under 50 CFR 665.13). Under the Hawaii longline limited access program, no more than 164 permits may be issued. In addition, there are U.S. longline vessels based on the U.S. West Coast, some of which operate solely under the Pacific HMS permit. U.S. West Coast-based longline vessels operating under the Pacific HMS permit fish primarily in the EPO and are currently restricted to fishing with deep-set longline gear outside of the U.S. West Coast EEZ. These vessels primarily target tuna species with a small percentage of swordfish and other highly migratory species taken incidentally.

    There have been less than three West Coast-based vessels operating under the HMS permit since 2005; therefore, landings and ex-vessel revenue are confidential. However, the number of Hawaii-permitted longline vessels that have landed in West Coast ports has increased from one vessel in 2006 to 14 vessels in 2014. In 2014, 621 mt of highly migratory species were landed by Hawaii permitted longline vessels with an average ex-vessel revenue of approximately $247,857 per vessel. For the longline fishery, the ex-vessel value of catches by the Hawaii longline fleet in 2012 was about $87 million. With 129 active vessels in that year, per-vessel average revenues were about $0.7 million, well below the $11 million threshold for finfish harvesting businesses. NMFS considers all longline vessels, for which data is non-confidential, that catch silky sharks in the IATTC Convention Area to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.

    U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area, whether under the Hawaii Longline Limited Access Permit or the Pacific HMS permit, do not target silky shark and all those caught incidentally are released. From 2008 to 2015, logbook records recorded by vessel owners and operators of U.S. longline vessels fishing in the IATTC Convention Area showed a total of four silky sharks caught and released on four separate trips. During this same time period, observers did not record any catch of silky shark on longline vessels using shallow-set gear. The observer data for the Hawaii deep-set longline fishery showed a de minimis amount was occasionally caught and nearly all were released alive. Since at least 2008, the observer coverage rates on shallow-set and deep-set longline vessels in the EPO have been a minimum of 100 and 20 percent, respectfully. An evaluation of total catch per longline trip where silky shark have been caught and released shows that, if the average weights of silky sharks are approximated, the amount of silky shark caught by U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO do not come close to 20% by weight of the total catch of fish during a fishing trip.

    NMFS considered a “No Action” alternative to the proposed action. Under the “No Action” alternative, the vessel owners and operators of large purse seine vessels would not mark FADs or collect data on FAD activities. In addition, large purse seine vessels would not need to release silky sharks caught in the EPO and there would be no restrictions on catch on longline vessels. Under this alternative, the United States would not implement Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 and would not satisfy international obligations as a Party to the Antigua Convention.

    Because the proposed action implements Resolutions C-16-01 and C-16-06 as agreed to by the United States, there are also not any possible additional alternatives that would be consistent with U.S obligations as a party to the Antigua Convention.

    This IRFA was developed for this action using NMFS' small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard is used in place of the U.S. SBA current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of the $11 million standard. Under this size standard, the entities for which the proposed action on FADs applies are considered large and small business. However, disproportional economic effect between small and large businesses is not expected; there will be only minimal additional time burden for owners and operators of large purse seine vessels to ensure characters of a unique code be marked indelibly on their FADs and to record data for FAD activities. And while the large purse seine vessels impacted by the proposed actions with respect to treatment of silky sharks would be required to release all silky sharks, U.S. purse seine vessels do not target silky sharks, and primarily release those caught incidentally. However, there may be some modifications to the fishing practices of these large and small entities to release all catch of silky sharks.

    NMFS considers the longline vessels for which the proposed action on silky shark applies to be small entities and the large purse seine vessels to also be large and small entities. U.S. longline vessels fishing in the EPO do not target silky shark and release all those incidentally caught. U.S. longline vessels only occasionally catch a small amount of silky sharks on fishing trips in the EPO; therefore, this proposed action is not expected to impact the fishing practices of these longline vessels.

    Thus, these proposed actions are not expected to substantially change the typical fishing practices of affected vessels. In addition, any impact to the income of U.S. vessels would be minor. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the proposed action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Management of commercial fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, domestic laws, and Fisheries Management Plans. These include, but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. NMFS strives to ensure consistency among the regulations with relevant agencies. The proposed rule would not conflict with any other statutes or regulations, Federal or otherwise.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300

    Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, International organizations, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: September 27, 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 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart C—Eastern Pacific Tuna Fisheries 1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart C, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.

    2. In § 300.21, add the definition for “Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 300.21 Definitions.

    Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Branch means: National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, Suite 4200, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach CA 90802.

    3. In § 300.24, add paragraphs (ee) through (hh) to read as follows:
    § 300.24 Prohibitions.

    (ee) Fail to ensure characters of a unique code are marked indelibly on a FAD deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017 in accordance with § 300.25 (h).

    (ff) Fail to record and report data on interactions or activities on FADs as required in § 300.25 (i).

    (gg) Use a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States to retain on board, transship, store, or land any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in contravention of § 300.27 (e).

    (hh) Use a U.S. longline vessel to catch silky shark in contravention of § 300.27 (f).

    4. In § 300.25, add paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:
    § 300.25 Eastern Pacific fisheries management.

    (h) FAD identification requirements for purse seine vessels.

    (1) For each FAD deployed or modified on or after January 1, 2017, in the IATTC Convention Area, the vessel owner or operator must either: obtain a unique code from HMS Branch; or use an existing unique identifier associated with the FAD (e.g., the manufacturer identification code for the attached buoy).

    (2) U.S. purse seine vessel owners and operators shall ensure the characters of the unique code or unique identifier be marked indelibly at least 5 centimeters in height on the upper portion of the attached radio or satellite buoy in a location that does not cover the solar cells used to power the equipment. For FADs without attached radio or satellite buoys, the characters shall be on the uppermost or emergent top portion of the FAD. The vessel owner or operator shall ensure the marking is visible at all times during daylight. In circumstances where the on-board observer is unable to view the code, the captain or crew shall assist the observer (e.g. by providing the FAD identification code to the observer).

    (i) FAD data reporting for purse seine vessels. U.S. vessel owners and operators must ensure that any interaction or activity with a FAD is reported using a standard format provided by the HMS Branch. The owner and operator shall ensure that the form is submitted to the address specified by the HMS Branch.

    5. In § 300.27 paragraphs (e) through (h) are redesignated as paragraph (g) through (j) and new paragraphs (e) and (f) are added to read as follows:
    § 300.27 Incidental catch and tuna retention requirements.

    (e) Silky shark restrictions for purse seine vessels. The crew, operator, and owner of a commercial purse seine fishing vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species is prohibited from retaining on board, transshipping, storing, or landing any part or whole carcass of a silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) that is caught in the Convention Area.

    (f) Silky shark restrictions for longline vessels. The crew, operator, and owner of a longline vessel of the United States used to fish for tuna or tuna-like species must limit the retained catch of silky sharks caught in the IATTC Convention Area to a maximum of 20 percent in weight of the total catch during each fishing trip that occurs in whole or in part in the IATTC Convention Area.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24444 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 196 Tuesday, October 11, 2016 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of October 19, 2016 Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid Meeting AGENCY:

    United States Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA).

    Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016. Time: 2:00-4:00 p.m. Location: Pavilion Room, The Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Purpose

    The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid (ACVFA) brings together USAID and private voluntary organization officials, representatives from universities, international nongovernment organizations, U.S. businesses, and government, multilateral, and private organizations to foster understanding, communication, and cooperation in the area of foreign aid.

    Agenda

    USAID Administrator Gayle Smith will make opening remarks, followed by panel discussions among ACVFA members and USAID leadership on global development trends. The full meeting agenda will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

    Stakeholders

    The meeting is free and open to the public. Registration information will be forthcoming on the ACVFA Web site at http://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization/advisory-committee.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jayne Thomisee, [email protected]

    Dated: October 3, 2016. Jayne Thomisee, Executive Director & Policy Advisor, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24525 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    United States Agency for International Development

    ACTION:

    New system of records notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is issuing new public notice for a system of records entitled “USAID-32 Reasonable Accommodation Records”. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4), to publish in the Federal Register notice of the existence and character of record systems maintained by the agency.

    DATES:

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, any comments must be received on or before November 10, 2016. Unless comments are received that would require a revision, this altered system of records will become effective on November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments:

    Electronic

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

    Email: [email protected]

    Paper

    Fax: (703) 666-5670.

    Mail: Chief Privacy Officer, United States Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The USAID Privacy Office at United States Agency for International Development, Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Information Assurance Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Reasonable Accommodation Records system covers USAID reasonable accommodation activities related to current and former USAID employees and applicants. The Rehabilitation Act requires USAID to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants and employees with disabilities if known or requested, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship on USAID. Reasonable accommodations provide modifications or adjustments to: (1) The job application process that enables a qualified applicant with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities available to persons without disabilities; (2) the work environment; and/or (3) the manner in which a position is customarily performed. The Reasonable Accommodation Records system allows USAID to collect, use, maintain, and disseminate the records needed to process, manage, and resolve reasonable accommodation requests. Records include the requests, documentation related to the request, disposition of the requests, and reasonable accommodations provided by USAID.

    Dated: July 28, 2016. Jon Brause, Chief Privacy Officer, United States Agency for International Development. USAID-32 SYSTEM NAME:

    Reasonable Accommodation Records.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523-2120.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals who are current or former USAID employees and applicants, and who have requested reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    This system of records contains information or documents compiled during the reasonable accommodation request process. These records may contain names, employment status, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, occupational series, grade level, Agency office; the details of the reasonable accommodation request or emergency assistance request, type of accommodation requested, information concerning the nature of the disability and the need for accommodation, medical documentation, sources of technical assistance consulted to identify and procure reasonable accommodations, the details of the Agency determination; and any other information related to the request.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEM OF RECORDS:

    This system is established and is maintained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 791; E.O. 13164—Requiring Federal Agencies To Establish Procedures To Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation; and E.O. 13548, Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities

    PURPOSE(S):

    The purpose of this system is to allow USAID to collect and maintain records on applicants and employees with disabilities who requested or received reasonable accommodation by the Agency as required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). This system is maintained for the purpose of processing, deciding, and implementing requests for reasonable accommodation made by USAID employees and applicants. The purpose of this system is also to track and report the processing of requests for reasonable accommodation Agency-wide to comply with applicable law and regulations and to preserve and maintain the confidentiality of medical information.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSEs OF SUCH USE:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records contained in this system of records may be disclosed outside USAID as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    (1) To the Department of Justice, (including United States Attorney Offices), or other appropriate Federal Government agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when it is necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation (1) USAID or any component thereof; (2) any employee of USAID in his/her official capacity; (3) any employee of USAID in his/her individual capacity where DOJ or USAID has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and USAID determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which USAID collected the records.

    (2) To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

    (3) To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or other federal government agencies pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    (4) To an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.

    (5) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) USAID suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Agency has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by USAID or another agency or entity) or harm to the individual that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with USAID's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    (6) To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for USAID, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use is subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to USAID officers and employees.

    (7) To an appropriate federal, state, or local law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.

    (8) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction.

    (9) To another federal agency or commission with responsibility for labor or employment relations or other issues, including equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation issues, when that agency or commission has jurisdiction over reasonable accommodation.

    (10) To appropriate third parties contracted by USAID to facilitate mediation or other dispute resolution procedures or programs.

    (11) To a Federal agency or entity that requires information relevant or related to a reasonable accommodation decision and/or its implementation.

    (12) To medical personnel and first responders, to meet a bona fide emergency, including medical emergencies.

    (13) To attorneys, union representatives, or other persons designated by USAID employees in writing to represent them in a grievance, complaint, appeal, or litigation case.

    (14) To an authorized appeal grievance examiner, formal complaints examiner, administrative judge, equal employment opportunity investigator, arbitrator or other duly authorized official engaged in investigation or settlement of a grievance, complaint, or appeal filed by an employee.

    (15) To labor organization officials when such information is relevant to personnel policies affecting employment conditions and necessary for exclusive representation by the labor organization.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    Records in this system are stored on paper and/or electronic form; and are maintained in locked cabinets and/or user-authenticated, password-protected systems.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records are retrieved by the names of the individuals about whom they are maintained and/or the number assigned to the accommodation request. In the case of electronic databases, information may be retrieved by other identifying search terms.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Information in this system is safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the Agency's automated directive system (ADS). In general, records are maintained in buildings with restricted access. The required use of password protection identification features and other system protection methods also restrict access. Access to records is restricted to those authorized USAID personnel and authorized contractors who have an official need in the performance of their official duties.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Records are retained and disposed of in accordance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Policy Guidance on Executive Order 13164: Establishing Procedures to Facilitate the Provision of Reasonable Accommodation, Directives Transmittal Number 915.003, October 20, 2000; and in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 1, Civilian Personnel Records, Item 24, Reasonable Accommodation Request Records.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:

    Reasonable Accommodation Program Manager, Office of Civil Rights and Diversity, United States Agency for International Development, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523-2120.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Same as Record Access Procedures.

    RECORDS ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    Under the Privacy Act, individuals may request access to records about themselves. If an agency or a person, who is not the individual who is the subject of the records, requests access to records about an individual, the written consent of the individual who is the subject of the records is required.

    Requesters may submit requests for records under the Privacy Act: (1) By mail to the USAID FOIA Office, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.07C-RRB, Washington, DC 20523-2701; (2) via Facsimile to 202-216-3070; (3) via email to [email protected]; (4) on the USAID Web site at www.usaid.gov/foia-requests; or (5) in person during regular business hours at USAID, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20523-2701, or at USAID overseas missions.

    Requesters using 1 through 4 may provide a written statement or may complete and submit USAID Form 507-1, Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Record Request Form, which can be obtained: (a) On the USAID Web site at www.usaid.gov/foia-requests; (b) by email request to [email protected]; or (c) by writing to the USAID FOIA Office, Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 2.07C-RRB, Washington, DC 20523-2701, and provide information that is necessary to identify the records, including the following: Requester's full name; present mailing address; home telephone; work telephone; name of subject, if other than requester; requester relationship to subject; description of type of information or specific records; and purpose of requesting information. Requesters should provide the system of record identification name and number, if known; and, to facilitate the retrieval of records contained in those systems of records which are retrieved by Social Security Numbers, the Social Security Number of the individual to whom the record pertains.

    In addition, requesters using 1 through 4 must include proof of identity information by providing copies of two (2) source documents that must be notarized by a valid (un-expired) notary public. Acceptable proof-of-identity source documents include: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card (both sides); unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.

    Requesters using 1 through 4 must also provide a signed and notarized statement that they are the person named in the request; that they understand that any falsification of their statement is punishable under the provision of 18 U.S.C. 1001 by a fine, or by imprisonment of not more than five years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisonment of not more than eight years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining records under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000.

    Requesters using 5 must provide such personal identification as is reasonable under the circumstances to verify the requester's identity, including the following: An unexpired United States passport; Social Security Card; unexpired United States Government employee identity card; unexpired driver's license or identification card issued by a state or United States possession, provided that it contain a photograph; certificate of United States citizenship; certificate of naturalization; card showing permanent residence in the United States; United States alien registration receipt card with photograph; United States military card or draft record; or United States military dependent's identification card.

    CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:

    Individuals seeking to contest or amend records maintained on himself or herself must clearly and concisely state that information is being contested, and the proposed amendment to the information sought. Requests to amend a record must follow the Record Access Procedures above.

    RECORDS SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Sources of records include individuals who have requested reasonable accommodation and supporting documentation from USAID officials, employees, and agents, and/or healthcare professionals involved in the reasonable accommodation request, response, and implementation process.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24509 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 5, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by November 10, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Research Service

    Title: Evaluation of User Satisfaction with NAL Internet Sites.

    OMB Control Number: 0518-0040.

    Summary of Collection: There is a need to measure user satisfaction with the National Agricultural Library (NAL) Internet sites in order for NAL to comply with Executive Order 12862, which directs federal agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. NAL Internet sites are a vast collection of Web pages created and maintained by component organizations of NAL, and are visited by 8.6 million people per month on average. The information generated from this research will enable NAL to evaluate the success of this new modality in response to fulfilling its legislative mandate to disseminate vital agricultural information and truly become the national digital library of agriculture.

    Need and Use of the Information: The purpose of the research is to ensure that intended audiences find the information provided on the Internet sites easy to access, clear, informative, and useful. The research will provide a means by which to classify visitors to the NAL Internet sites, to better understand how to serve them. If the information is not collected, NAL will be limited in its ability to provide accurate, timely information to its user community.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 12,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 720.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24440 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request—Assessment of the Barriers That Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Allotments AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new collection for the purpose of assessing the individual, household, and the environmental factors that limit the adequacy of the SNAP allotment.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent to: Rosemarie Downer, Food and Nutrition Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of (703) 305-2576 at (703) 305-2129 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the Office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collected should be directed to Rosemarie Downer at (703) 305-2129.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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 on the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Title: Assessment of the Barriers that Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Allotments.

    OMB Number: 0584—NEW.

    Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is intended to alleviate food insecurity among low-income households. Towards this end, it provides eligible low-income households with a monthly benefit amount (SNAP allotment) based on household size and net income to purchase foods from authorized retailers that can be prepared and eaten at home. SNAP benefits are based on the Thrifty Food Plan, which is intended to be a minimal-cost nutritionally adequate diet, but has been the subject of significant criticism for being inadequate. In 2015, about 53 percent of SNAP households experienced food insecurity, with about 23 percent of SNAP households experiencing very low food security (or severe food insecurity). While participation in SNAP for about 6 months is associated with decreased food insecurity, it does not guarantee food security or a healthy diet.

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has examined the current SNAP benefit and has raised several concerns about its adequacy. The IOM committee recommended that FNS assess the individual, household, and the environmental factors that limit the adequacy of the current SNAP allotment. To this end, FNS is conducting a survey followed by in-depth interviews with SNAP participants. The data collection activities to be undertaken subject to this notice include:

    Food and Your Household Survey: SNAP participants selected for the study will be asked questions about their food budgets, shopping patterns, knowledge and attitudes about healthy diets, barriers to purchasing foods to ensure they eat a healthy diet, coping strategies when resources are limited, participation in nutrition assistance programs, and household characteristics. First, a hard-copy survey will be mailed to SNAP participants, and they will be asked to return it in a postage-paid envelope. Those with bad addresses and those who do not respond to the mailing will be given an option to complete a telephone interview.

    In-depth interviews. To supplement the survey data, in-person in-depth interviews will be conducted with 120 SNAP participants. Interviewees will be asked open-ended questions about their food budgets, choices, options, preferences, their perceptions of a healthy diet, the extent to which they provide and receive food assistance from others in their social networks, and why they shop for food in specific locations. They will also be asked to narrate a “tour” of their kitchen and eating spaces. In-depth interview respondents will be chosen from among survey respondents based on their representation of the following analytic categories of interest: Food security, rural-urban location, geographical region, and phase of the benefit month.

    Affected Public: Respondent groups identified include individuals/households (SNAP participants).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total sample size for this collection is 6,983 individuals/households who will be contacted. Out of those, the total number of respondents who will move on to participate in part or whole is 4,800. This includes 4,800 SNAP participants for the Food and Your Household survey (with an 80 percent response rate for eligible respondents) and 120 SNAP participants who will complete the in-depth interviews (with an 80 percent response rate for eligible respondents) in addition to the SNAP survey.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Participants in the survey-only group will respond one time and those in the in-depth interview group will respond two times: once to the survey and once to the in-depth interview.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 4,920.

    Estimated Time per Response: The surveys will take an average of 30 minutes (.5 hours). In-depth interviews will take an average of 75 minutes (1.25 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2,691.34 hours.

    See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.

    Respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • SNAP Client Survey Completed 4,800 1 4,800 0.500 2,400.00 Attempted 1,793 1 1,793 0.067 120.13 Survey Total 6,593 6,593 2,520.13 In-depth Interview with SNAP Clients Recruitment Screener: Completed 216 1 216 0.083 17.93 Attempted 24 1 24 0.033 0.79 In-depth Interview: Completed 120 1 120 1.250 150.00 Attempted 30 1 30 0.083 2.49 In-depth Interviews Total 390 390 171.21 Total 6,983 6,983 2.691.34
    Dated: October 3, 2016. Telora T. Dean, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24478 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 4, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by November 10, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Forest Service

    Title: Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreements.

    OMB Control Number: 0596—NEW.

    Summary of Collection: The primary authorities allowing for the agreements are the reciprocal Fire Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 1856, and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121. The Forest Service (FS) is charged with the duty of providing fire protection for any property of the United States and is authorized to enter into a reciprocal agreement, with any fire organization maintaining fire protection facilities in the vicinity of such property, for mutual aid in furnishing fire protection for such property and for other property for which such organization normally provides fire protection.

    Need and Use of the Information: To negotiate, develop, and administer Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford Act Response Agreements, the USDA FS, Department of Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management; Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; and Bureau of Indian Affairs DOI must collect information from willing State, local, and Tribal governments from the pre-agreement to the closeout stage via telephone calls, emails, postal mail, and person-to-person meetings. The scope of information collected includes the project type, project scope, financial plan, statement of work, and cooperator's business information. Without the ability to collect the information from cooperator's FS and DOI would not be able to conduct any of the activities authorized. Agencies to this request would not be able to develop projects, make payment, monitor projects, identify financial and accounting errors, agree to roles and responsibilities, etc.

    Description of Respondents: State, local and Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 320.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 47,040.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24402 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Boundary Description and Final Map for Skagit Wild and Scenic River, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, transmitted the final map and perimeter boundary description of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River to Congress.

    DATES:

    The boundaries and classification of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River shall not become effective until ninety (90) days after they have been forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In accordance with Section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1274), the detailed perimeter boundary description and final map were forwarded on July 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents may be viewed at USDA Forest Service, Yates Federal Building, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250; at the Supervisors Office of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, WA 98201; and at the USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Office at 1220 SW. 3rd Ave., Portland, OR 97204.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information may be obtained by contacting the following office: Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 2930 Wetmore Ave., Suite 3A, Everett, WA 98201, 425-783-6000, [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Skagit Wild and Scenic River boundary is available for review at the following offices: USDA Forest Service, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers, 1601 N. Kent Street, Plaza C, Suite 4110B, Rosslyn, VA 22209; USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, 1220 SW. Third Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.

    The Skagit Wild and Scenic River was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Pub. L. 95-625) on November 10, 1978. As specified by law, the boundary will not be effective until ninety (90) days after Congress receives the transmittal.

    Dated: September 28, 2016. Dianne C. Guidry, Deputy Regional Forester.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24464 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-977] High Pressure Steel Cylinders From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on high pressure steel cylinders (steel cylinders) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective October 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 15, 2016, Norris Cylinder Company (Petitioner) submitted a request for administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel cylinders from the PRC for a single company, Beijing Tianhai Industry Co., Ltd. (BTIC).1 On June 28, 2016, BTIC also submitted a request for administrative review of the order.2 On August 11, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of an administrative review of the order for the period of review June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016.3 On September 14, 2016, Petitioner and BTIC both withdrew their requests for review.4

    1See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China Request for Administrative Review and Entry of Appearance,” June 15, 2016.

    2See Letter to the Secretary from BTIC, “Request for the Fourth Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China, A-570-977 (POR: 06/01/15-05/31/16),” June 28, 2016.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 53121 (August 11, 2016).

    4See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “Withdrawal of Request for an Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China,” (September 14, 2016); Letter to the Secretary from BTIC, “Withdrawal of Review Request in the Fourth Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on High Pressure Steel Cylinders from the People's Republic of China,” (September 14, 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 withdraw(s) 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 administrative reviews 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 in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of steel cylinders from the PRC. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of rescission of administrative review.

    Notifications

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    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 29, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24366 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-844] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain lined paper products from India. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and the review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Ltd. (Goldenpalm). We preliminarily determine that Goldenpalm received countervailable subsidies during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective October 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this administrative review is certain lined paper products from India. For a full description of the scope of this order see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results for the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Certain Lined Paper Products from India, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this CVD administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient) and that the subsidy is specific.2 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following net subsidy rate exists for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014:

    Manufacturer/exporter Net subsidy rate Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Ltd 0.92 percent ad valorem. Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department will disclose to parties to this proceeding the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), the Department will notify interested parties of the due date to submit case briefs.4 Rebuttal briefs may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs, and must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.5 Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.6 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed electronically using ACCESS.7

    3See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    4 Because the Department requires additional time to examine Goldenpalm's use of duty drawback programs during the POR, which will require post-preliminary results analysis, we will announce to parties at a later date the case brief deadlines. See the Preliminary Decision Memorandum at 9 for a discussion of the programs that require further analysis.

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    7See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must do so within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results by submitting a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Instructions

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties, in the amount shown above, for the company shown above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Subsidies Valuation Allocation Period Cross-Ownership Denominator Benchmark Interest Rates Analysis of Programs Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Countervailable Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Programs Requiring Additional Information Duty Drawback and Annex 45 Program Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Countervailable Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) Reimbursements Programs Preliminarily Determined To Be Not Used During the POR Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-24486 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Determination of No Shipments in Part; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting the eleventh administrative review (“AR”) of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture (“WBF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. This AR covers 18 companies. The Department has preliminarily determined that seven of the 18 companies, including the sole mandatory respondent, have not established their entitlement to a separate rate and are part of the PRC-wide entity. The Department has also preliminarily determined that the remaining 11 companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective October 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    After initiating this review with respect to 141 companies or company groupings,1 interested parties withdrew all review requests for 123 of the 141 companies.2 On June 8, 2016, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to the sole mandatory respondent in this review, Nantong Wangzhuang Furniture Co., Ltd. (“Nantong Wangzhuang”). Nantong Wangzhuang did not respond to the questionnaire. For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum which is hereby adopted by this notice.3

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 81 FR 11179 (March 3, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Wooden Bedroom Furniture, From the People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 62083 (September 8, 2016).

    3See “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China,” from Edward Yang, Senior Director, Office VII, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice.

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions.4 Imports of subject merchandise are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 9403.50.9042, 9403.50.9045, 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, 9403.20.0018, 9403.90.8041, 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description in the Order remains dispositive.5

    4See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“Order”).

    5 For a complete description of the scope of the Order, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and 19 CFR 351.213. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary results of review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I to this notice.

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Because U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) did not provide any information contradicting the claims of the 11 companies under review which claimed to have made no shipments, the Department preliminarily determines that these 11 companies did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.6 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.7 Consistent with the Department's practice in non-market economy (“NME”) cases, the Department is not rescinding this AR, in part, with respect to these 11 companies, but intends to complete the review with respect to the companies for which it has preliminarily found no shipments and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.8

    6 The 11 companies/company groupings are: (1) Dongguan Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd., Taicang Sunrise Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Taicang Fairmount Designs Furniture Co., Ltd., Meizhou Sunrise Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Eurosa (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Eurosa Furniture Co., (Pte) Ltd.; (3) Golden Well International (HK) Ltd.; (4) Jiangsu Tairui Structure Engineering Co., Ltd.; (5) Nanhai Jiantai Woodwork Co., Ltd., Fortune Glory Industrial Ltd. (H.K. Ltd.); (6) Rizhao Sanmu Woodworking Co., Ltd.; (7) Shenyang Shining Dongxing Furniture Co., Ltd.; (8) Wanvog Furniture (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.; (9) Woodworth Wooden Industries (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd.; (10) Yeh Brothers World Trade Inc.; and (11) Zhejiang Tianyi Scientific & Educational Equipment Co., Ltd.

    7See Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694, 65694-95 (October 24, 2011) and the “Assessment Rates” section, below.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As noted above, Nantong Wangzhuang did not respond to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that Nantong Wangzhuang did not establish its eligibility for separate rate status. In addition, six other companies for which a review was requested failed to provide separate rate applications or certifications.9 Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that these seven companies are part of the PRC-wide entity. The PRC-wide entity rate is 216.01 percent. For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    9 The six companies are: (1) Dongguan Singways Furniture Co., Ltd.; (2) Clearwise Co., Ltd.; (3) Pleasant Wave Ltd., Passwell Corp.; (4) Shanghai JianPu Export & Import Co., Ltd.; (5) Decca Furniture Ltd.; and (6) Hangzhou Cadman Trading Co., Ltd. (Exporter), Haining Changbei Furniture Co., Ltd. (Producer).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results and may submit case briefs and/or written comments, filed electronically using ACCESS, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days after the due date for case briefs, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a summary of the argument not to exceed five pages, and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).

    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice.10 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the time and date for the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.11

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    11See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this AR, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs received, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuing the final results of this review, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.12 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity, including Nantong Wangzhuang and the other six companies noted above which did not qualify for separate rate status, at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, pursuant to the Department's practice in NME cases, if we continue to determine that the 11 companies noted above had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries of subject merchandise during the POR under their case numbers will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.13

    12See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    13 For a full discussion of this practice, see Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the PRC-wide entity, which is 216.01 percent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter.

    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: October 3, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum (1) Summary (2) Background (3) Scope of the Order (4) Respondent Selection (5) Discussion of the Methodology a. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments b. Duty Absorption c. NME Country Status d. Separate Rates (6) Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-24488 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Executive-Led Power Technologies Trade Mission to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, March 12-16, 2017 AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Department of Commerce (DOC), International Trade Administration (ITA), is organizing an executive-led Power Technologies Trade Mission to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia (KSA) on March 12-16, 2017. The purpose of the trade mission is to introduce U.S. firms to KSA and UAE's expanding power technology sector, which seeks to procure power equipment, distribution, power grid, as well as spare parts, and equipment with a focus on the renewable sector, and also to assist those U.S. firms in pursuing export opportunities in this sector, by helping new-to-market companies learn about the KSA and UAE energy markets and make initial contacts, and by supporting U.S. companies already doing business in the KSA and UAE to widen and deepen their business interests.

    UAE Commercial Setting

    The UAE is a federation of the seven emirates of Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras Al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm Al-Quwain. The generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the UAE is dominated by three water and power authorities owned by each of the individual emirates: Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority (ADWEA), Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) and Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority, and by a federal authority that operates in the smaller northern emirates (FEWA).

    In Abu Dhabi, ADWEA has established a long-term program for the privatization of the electricity sector and a number of independent water and power producers have been established as joint-venture arrangements between ADWEA and various international power companies as Build—Operate—Own projects. The Dubai government is also promoting private investment in its electricity generation sector, and recently passed legislation allowing the private sector to participate in electricity generation by establishing project companies and by collaborating with third parties.

    Per the UAE Ministry of Energy, the total generated electricity in 2014 was 116, 528 GWH and consumption was about 111.685 GWH. Rapid economic and demographic growth over the past decade is pushing the UAE's electricity grid close to its limits. The UAE currently relies primarily on natural gas, but it is also adding nuclear, renewable, and coal-fired electricity generating capacity. To support its economic diversification and sustainable development, the UAE plans to meet a significant portion of its energy needs using renewable sources. According to statements made by Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei in January 2016, the UAE plans to increase its target for power generation from clean energy to 30 percent by 2030, with at least 25 percent of the country's electricity generated from both nuclear and solar.

    Below is information on various sub-sectors of the power sector in the UAE.

    Solar: In 2013, DEWA launched the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai, which was originally slated to generate 1,000MW of solar energy; however, in January 2016, DEWA announced that it would triple the project's size to 3,000MW, and then in February, the Dubai directives expanded the plant to 5,000MW by 2030 (the expected completion date). Also in 2013, Abu Dhabi's Masdar Clean Energy commissioned the 100-megawatt, grid connected concentrated solar power plant Shams One, a joint venture with Abengoa Solar and Total. Masdar also developed the 10MW solar PV plant at Masdar City and is developing a 30MW wind farm and a PV array on Sir BaniYas Island.

    Smart Grid and Smart Metering: In 2014, ADWEA achieved a milestone when it successfully deployed a Battery Energy Storage System which is connected to the Abu Dhabi electricity grid. That was one of many Smart Grid initiatives being implemented in the sector that will contribute to accomplishing the 2030 vision of having a fully integrated “Smart Utility.” Late last year, DEWA signed a contract to build a smart grid station at the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority's Green Garage in Ruwayyah.

    Selected Projects: In January 2016, DEWA announced it would tender renewable energy projects worth more than Dh27 billion (U.S. $7.3 Billion) based on an independent power producer model to leverage public-private partnerships. The DEWA 2016 budget includes a number of key projects including U.S. $.6 bn in generation, U.S. $.9 bn in power transmission, U.S. $.32 bn in power distribution and U.S. $.28 bn in water and civil works in addition to other amounts totaling U.S. $25.9 million. In addition, DEWA has released the standards for installing solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on buildings in Dubai and has invited manufacturers to submit their eligibility applications.

    KSA Commercial Setting

    The Saudi Electricity Company (SEC) is the largest producer of electricity in the KSA with current available generation capacity of around 58 GW. Other producers include the Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC), SABIC, MARAFIQ and Saudi Aramco. For the medium term, the Saudi Arabia Electricity and Cogeneration Regulatory Authority (ECRA) allow Saudi Aramco to sell excess electricity it produces back to the SEC. ECRA also projected that the Kingdom would need to invest approximately USD 140 billion through 2020 to increase SEC generation capacity to 71 GW, in which it is projected that the country will have sufficient generating capacity to meet demand. SEC plans to increase electricity generating capacity to 120 GW by 2032.

    The KSA continues to experience population growth, greater industrial diversification led by the development of petrochemical and financial cities, high demand for air conditioning, and subsidized electricity rates. As a result, the KSA requires additional production capacity of 4 GW generation capacity to come on line each year to meet growing electricity demand. Saudi Arabia generated 292.2 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity in 2013, which represents a 7 percent increase and more than double the electricity generated in 2000. The 7 percent increase in electricity generation still does not meet the 9 percent annual growth rate in the demand for electricity. For this reason, the KSA has embarked on the largest infrastructure expansion plan in the Middle East to address electricity generation, efficient distribution, the diversification of fuels, and electricity/energy conservation issues. Below is information on various sub-sectors of the power sector in the KSA.

    Solar: The KSA plans to install a staggering 54 GW of new renewable power by 2032. Solar photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) boast great long term potential in isolated areas of the Kingdom. The SEC is developing non-fossil-fuel-fired power plants as is evidenced by the integrated solar combined-cycle scheme at Dubai 1, under which two main contracts have been awarded in 2015. The project marks Saudi Arabia`s first integration of CSP in a combined cycle plant. Saudi Aramco is working with relevant corporate and national stakeholders to form joint ventures to develop, build and operate a portfolio of 300MW of solar and wind projects to displace high value hydrocarbons.

    Wind: Wind has considerable potential to be a short term solution and the KSA enjoys good wind speeds particularly in the southeast offering potential development in this sector.

    Smart Grid and Smart Metering: The SEC has taken an important step into the deployment of smart grids by defining a new functionality and a new data model for the performance of smart meters. The SEC plans to install smart meters across the country first in the industrial, construction, commercial and government sectors, and then the residential sector by 2021.

    Engineering Projects: With the SEC planning to increase electricity generating capacity to 120 GW by 2032 with approximately $140 billion of investment through 2020, the awarding and execution of a string of new power plants presents exciting opportunities to U.S. engineering companies.

    The following equipment enjoys strong export sales from the U.S. to the KSA: Gas turbines; power transformers; industrial generators; valves; compressors; pumps; spare parts; turbine filters; gas turbine inlet systems; fuel oil system skid packages (unloading, transfer, forwarding and heating skids); fuel gas system skid packages for natural gas cleaning and conditioning. Mission Goals

    The mission will help participating firms and associations or organizations gain market insights, make industry contacts, implement business strategies, and advance specific projects, with the goal of increasing U.S. exports of products and services to KSA and UAE. New opportunities exist as a result of demand approaching capacity and recent legislation that will allow private sector participation in the electricity sector. The focus of this mission is on renewable energy and not nuclear energy.

    Specifically, the mission will provide U.S. participants with first-hand market information, site visits, one-on-one meetings with potential business partners, and meetings with relevant government entities in the UAE and KSA. The mission will include participants from leading U.S. companies that provide state-of-the-art generation, transmission and distribution equipment. Participants will meet key power sector contacts in the UAE and KSA, and gain insights on relevant export opportunities. Participants will have the opportunity to explore contacts with local firms and distributors active in the UAE and KSA who are seeking to procure power equipment, distribution, power grid, as well as spare parts, equipment. Target sub-sectors of the power sector holding high potential for U.S. exporters include: Solar, Wind, Smart Electrical Engineering, Grid and Smart Metering.

    Mission Scenario

    Trade mission delegates will participate in a five-day program, including roundtables and policy meetings with officials in UAE and KSA. The delegates will also have networking opportunities to meet face-to-face with decision maker officials, potential strategic partners, local firms, industry experts and distributor systems integrators.

    Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Sunday, March 12, 2017 • Delegates arrive in Abu Dhabi • Briefing with Embassy and industry experts • Networking reception

    (All day group bus transportation included.)

    Abu Dhabi, Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Monday, March 13, 2017 • Business matchmaking sessions • Government meetings • Evening travel to Dubai

    (All day group bus transportation included.)

    Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (KSA) Tuesday, March 14, 2017 • Business matchmaking sessions • Government meetings • Delegates depart for Riyadh • Briefing with Embassy and industry experts

    (All day group bus transportation included.)

    Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (KSA) Wednesday, March 15, 2017 • Business matchmaking sessions • Government meetings • Evening travel to Dhahran

    (All day group bus transportation included.)

    Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (KSA) Thursday, March 16, 2017 • Briefing with U.S. Consulate in Dhahran • Business matchmaking sessions • Visit to Aramco • Networking reception

    (Group bus transportation to official events only, included.)

    Traded Mission concludes.

    Web site: Please visit our official mission Web site for more information: http://export.gov/trademissions/eg_main_023185.asp.

    Participation Requirements

    All parties interested in participating in the trade mission must complete and submit an application package for consideration by the Department of Commerce (DOC). All applicants will be evaluated, staggered comparative, on their ability to meet certain conditions and best satisfy the selection criteria as outlined below. A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 companies will be selected to participate from the applicant pool.

    Fees and Expenses

    After a firm or trade association/organization has been selected to participate in the event, a payment to the Department of Commerce in the form of a participation fee is required. The participation fee for the trade mission will be $5,000 for a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) 1 and $6,700 for large firms and trade associations/organizations. The fee for each additional representative (SME or large firm or/trade associations/organizations) is $750 and is subject to availability. Expenses for travel, lodging, meals, and incidentals will be the responsibility of each event delegate. Delegation members will be able to take advantage of U.S. Embassy rates for hotel rooms.

    1 An SME is defined as a firm with 500 or fewer employees or that otherwise qualifies as a small business under SBA regulations (see http://www.sba.gov/services/contractingopportunities/sizestandardstopics/index.html). Parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries will be considered when determining business size. The dual pricing reflects the Commercial Service's user fee schedule that became effective November 24, 2015 (see http://itacentral/myorg/gm/odg/osp/User%20Fees%20Resource%20Document%20Library/Marketing%20Flyer%20for%20Communicating%20with%20Clients%20(FY2016).pdf.

    Application

    All interested firms and associations may register via the following link: http://2016.export.gov/trademissions/powertechsaudiuae/.

    Exclusions

    The mission fee does not include any personal travel expenses such as lodging, most meals, local ground transportation (except for transportation to and from meetings, and airport transfers during the mission), and air transportation. Participants will, however, be able to take advantage of U.S. Government rates for hotel rooms. Electronic visas are required to participate on the mission, which are easily obtainable online. Applying for and obtaining such visas will be the responsibility of the mission participant. Government fees and processing expenses to obtain such visas are not included in the participation fee. However, the Department of Commerce will provide instructions to each participant on the procedures required to obtain necessary business visas. Further, U.S. Trade Mission members participate in the trade mission and undertake mission-related travel at their own risk. The nature of the security situation in a given foreign market at a given time cannot be guaranteed. The U.S. Government does not make any representations or guarantees as to the safety or security of participants. The U.S. Department of State issues U.S. Government international travel alerts and warnings for U.S. citizens available at https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings.html. Any question regarding insurance coverage must be resolved by the participant and its insurer of choice.

    Timeline for Recruitment and Applications

    Trade mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including, posting on the Commerce Department trade mission calendar and other Internet Web sites, email, press releases to general and trade media, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and publicity at industry meetings, symposia, conferences, and trade shows. Recruitment for the trade mission will begin immediately and conclude no later than December 31, 2016. The Department of Commerce will review applications and inform applicants of selection decisions periodically during the recruitment period. All applications received subsequent to an evaluation date will be considered at the next evaluation. However, applications received after December 31, 2016, will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

    Conditions for Participation

    An applicant must sign and submit a completed application and supplemental application materials, including adequate information on the company's products and/or services, primary market objectives, and goals for participation. If an incomplete application form is submitted or the information and material submitted does not demonstrate how the applicant satisfies the participation criteria, the Department of Commerce may reject the application, request additional information, or take the lack of information into account when evaluating the application. Each applicant must also:

    • Identify whether the products and services it seeks to export through the mission are either produced in the United States, or, if not, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have at least 51% U.S. content. In cases where the U.S. content does not exceed 50%, especially where the applicant intends to pursue investment in major project opportunities, the following factors, may be considered in determining whether the applicant's participation in the Trade Mission is in the U.S. national interest:

    ○ U.S. materials and equipment content;

    ○ U.S. labor content;

    ○ Contribution to the U.S. technology base, including conduct of research and development in the United States;

    ○ Repatriation of profits to the U.S. economy;

    ○ Potential for follow-on business that would benefit the U.S. economy;

    A trade association/organization applicant must certify to the above for all of the companies it seeks to represent on the mission.

    An applicant must also certify that:

    • The export of its goods, software, technology, and services would be in compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations, including those administered by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security;

    • It has identified any matter pending before any bureau or office of the Department of Commerce;

    • It has identified any pending litigation (including any administrative proceedings) to which it is a party that involves the Department of Commerce;

    • It and its affiliates (1) have not and will not engage in the bribery of foreign officials in connection with its involvement in this Mission, and (2) maintain and enforce a policy that prohibits the bribery of foreign officials.

    Selection Criteria for Participation

    • Suitability of the company's products or services to the market. Please note: this mission will not include nuclear power technologies given the imbalance of this sub-sector in UAE and Saudi Arabia.

    • Applicant's potential for business in the target countries, including likelihood of exports resulting from the mission.

    • Consistency of the applicant's goals and objectives with the stated scope of the mission. Balance of company size, sector or subsector, and location may also be considered during the review process. Referrals from political organizations and any documents containing references to partisan political activities (including political contributions) will be removed from an applicant's submission and not considered during the selection process.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    International Trade Administration, Melissa Blackledge, Trade Promotion Programs, Washington, DC, Tel: (202) 482-1765, Email: [email protected] U.S. Commercial Service Saudi Arabia, Douglas Wallace, U.S. Commercial Service, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tel: + 966 +11- 488-3800, Email: [email protected] U.S. Commercial Service United Arab Emirates, Dao M. Le, U.S. Commercial Service, Abu Dhabi, UAE, Tel: + 971 +2- 414-2665, Email: [email protected] Frank Spector, Trade Missions Program. [FR Doc. 2016-24479 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE783 Draft 2016 Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS reviewed the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regional marine mammal stock assessment reports (SARs) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. SARs for marine mammals in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions were revised according to new information. NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2016 SARs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The 2016 draft SARs are available in electronic form via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm.

    Copies of the Alaska Regional SARs may be requested from Marcia Muto, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE BIN 15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.

    Copies of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Regional SARs may be requested from Elizabeth Josephson, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543.

    Copies of the Pacific Regional SARs may be requested from Jim Carretta, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508.

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0101, by any of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0101, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send comments or requests for copies of reports to: Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226, Attn: Stock Assessments.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Bettridge, Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8402, [email protected]; Marcia Muto 206-526-4026, [email protected], regarding Alaska regional stock assessments; Elizabeth Josephson, 508-495-2362, [email protected], regarding Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean regional stock assessments; or Jim Carretta, 858-546-7171, [email protected], regarding Pacific regional stock assessments.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals occurring in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Exclusive Economic Zone. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

    The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available, and at least once every three years for non-strategic stocks. The term “strategic stock” means a marine mammal stock: (A) For which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level; (B) which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (C) which is listed as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. NMFS, in conjunction with the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific independent Scientific Review Groups (SRGs), reviewed the status of marine mammal stocks as required and revised reports in the Alaska, Atlantic, and Pacific regions to incorporate new information.

    NMFS solicits public comments on the draft 2016 SARs.

    Humpback Whales

    On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule revising the listing status of humpback whales under the ESA (81 FR 62259). We divided the globally listed endangered species into 14 distinct population segments (DPSs), removed the species-level listing, and in its place, listed four DPSs as endangered and one DPS as threatened. Based on their current statuses, the remaining nine DPSs did not warrant listing.

    With regard to depleted determinations for species removed from the ESA, the ESA listing rule states, “The language and structure of the MMPA's definition of depleted lead NMFS to the conclusion that a species or stock that is designated as depleted solely on the basis of its ESA listing status would cease to qualify as depleted under the terms of that definition if it is no longer listed. Therefore, a species or stock that is removed from the list of threatened and endangered species loses its depleted status when removed from the list . . . Humpback whales were considered to be depleted species-wide under the MMPA solely on the basis of the species' ESA listing. Therefore, upon the effective date of the rule, humpback whales that are listed as threatened or endangered will retain depleted status under the MMPA and humpback whales that are not listed as threatened or endangered will lose depleted status under the MMPA. However, we note that the DPSs established in this final rule that occur in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States do not necessarily equate to the existing MMPA stocks for which Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) have been published in accordance with section 117 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1386). Following publication of this rule, we will conduct a review of humpback whale stock delineations in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States to determine whether any stocks should be realigned in light of the ESA DPSs established herein. Until such time as the MMPA stock delineations are reviewed, because we cannot manage one portion of a stock as depleted and another portion as not depleted under the MMPA, we will treat existing MMPA stocks that fully or partially coincide with a listed DPS as depleted and stocks that do not fully or partially coincide with a listed DPS as not depleted for management purposes. Therefore, in the interim, we will treat the Western North Pacific, Central North Pacific, and California/Oregon/Washington stocks as depleted because they partially or fully coincide with ESA-listed DPSs, and we will treat the Gulf of Maine and American Samoa stocks as no longer depleted because they do not coincide with any ESA-listed DPS. Any changes in stock delineation or MMPA section 117 elements (such as Potential Biological Removal (PBR) or strategic status) will be reflected in future stock assessment reports, and the Scientific Review Groups and the public will be provided opportunity to review and comment.”

    In response to this revision to the humpback whale listing status, NMFS is currently evaluating the humpback whale stock delineations and whether we can align the stocks with the DPSs. This does not affect the stock delination for the current SARs, but will be reflected in future reports once the evaluation is complete.

    Alaska Reports

    In the Alaska region, SARs for 19 Alaska stocks (13 “strategic,” 6 “non-strategic”) were updated. All stocks were reviewed and the following stocks were revised for 2016: Steller sea lion, western U.S.; Steller sea lion, eastern U.S.; northern fur seal, eastern Pacific; bearded seal, Alaska; ringed seal, Alaska; beluga whale, Cook Inlet; killer whale, AT1 Transient; killer whale, eastern North Pacific Alaska resident; killer whale, eastern North Pacific Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Bering Sea Transient; harbor porpoise, Southeast Alaska; harbor porpoise, Gulf of Alaska; harbor porpoise, Bering Sea; sperm whale, North Pacific; humpback whale, Western North Pacific; humpback whale, Central North Pacific; fin whale, Northeast Pacific; right whale, Eastern North Pacific; bowhead whale, Western Arctic; narwhal, unidentified stock. Information on the remaining Alaska region stocks can be found in the final 2015 reports (Muto et al., 2016).

    Most revisions to the Alaska SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates, including revised abundance estimates for both the western and eastern U.S. Steller sea lion stocks; northern fur seal, eastern Pacific; beluga whale, Cook Inlet; bearded seal, Alaska; ringed seal, Alaska; and fin whale, Northeast Pacific stocks. The following SARs include the abundance estimates from partial surveys as the Nmin, along with statements that the underestimated Nmins are not reliable; thus they should not be used in certain management actions: Bearded seal, Alaska; ringed seal, Alaska; harbor porpoise, Southeast Alaska; and fin whale, Northeast Pacific. Additionally, Nmins determined under these circumstances will not be included in the summary tables, but will instead include a caveat placeholder which defers to the SAR text. Additionally, mortalities from permitted research activities were updated for western and eastern U.S. Steller sea lion stocks and the Alaska stock of ringed seals. Also reflected is a shift in genera classification for the ringed seal, from Phoca to Pusa.

    The eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion changed in status from “strategic” to “non-strategic.” This status change is consistent with the recent humpback whale ESA listing final rule (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016), which states that in the case of a species or stock that achieved its depleted status solely on the basis of its ESA status, the species or stock would cease to qualify as depleted under the terms of the definition set forth in MMPA section 3(1), if the species or stock is no longer listed as threatened or endangered. NMFS took the opportunity during the public comment period related to that rule to clarify our interpretation that loss of depleted status is automatic at the time of a delisting if the sole basis for the species or stocks' depleted status was an ESA listing. As a result, the eastern Steller sea lion is now considered to be not depleted and no longer qualifies as a strategic stock (as human-caused mortality or serious injury does not exceed PBR). The draft 2016 SAR reflects these changes and, accordingly, the PBR has been recalculated (using a recovery factor appropriate for a non-strategic stock) and increased from 1,645 to 2,498.

    Atlantic Reports

    In the Atlantic region (including the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. territories in the Caribbean), 18 reports for 44 stocks were updated. Of the updated stocks, 32 stocks are “strategic,” and 12 are “non-strategic.”

    All stocks were reviewed and reports for the following strategic stocks were revised for 2016: North Atlantic right whale, Western Atlantic; humpback whale, Gulf of Maine; fin whale, Western North Atlantic (WNA); sei whale, Nova Scotia; short-finned pilot whale, WNA; and 27 Gulf of Mexico bay, sound, and estuary common bottlenose dolphin stocks. Two stocks, the WNA stocks of short-finned and long-finned pilot whales, changed from “non-strategic” to “strategic” this year because the mean annual human-caused mortality and serious injury exceeds PBR; the Gulf of Maine humpback whale stock has changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic.”

    Reports for the following non-strategic stocks were revised for 2016: Minke whale, Canadian east coast; Risso's dolphin, WNA; Atlantic white-sided dolphin, WNA; short-beaked common dolphin, WNA; harbor porpoise, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy; harbor seal, WNA; gray seal, WNA; rough-toothed dolphin, Northern Gulf of Mexico; pygmy sperm whale, WNA; dwarf sperm whale, WNA; and common bottlenose dolphin, WNA offshore. Information on the remaining Atlantic region stocks can be found in the final 2015 reports (Waring et al., 2016).

    Most revisions to the Atlantic SARs included updates of abundance and/or M/SI estimates. New abundance estimates are available for the North Atlantic right whale, Western Atlantic; minke whale, Canadian east stock; short-beaked common dolphin, WNA stock; and common bottlenose dolphin, Sarasota Bay, Little Sarasota Bay. The following common bottlenose dolphin, Gulf of Mexico bay, sound, and estuary stocks no longer have usable abundance and/or PBR estimates because the survey data on which they are based are more than eight years old and no longer considered unreliable (per NMFS Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks): Choctawhatchee Bay; St. Joseph Bay; St. Vincent Sound, Apalachicola Bay, St. George Sound; Waccasassa Bay, Withalacoochee Bay, Crystal Bay; St. Joseph Sound, Clearwater Harbor; Tampa Bay; Estero Bay; Chokoloskee Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, Gullivan Bay; Whitewater Bay; and Florida Keys (Bahia Honda to Key West).

    As a result of the humpback whale ESA listing rule (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016), the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales is no longer considered ESA listed or depleted. In the previous SAR, the recovery factor was 0.1 because this stock was listed as an endangered species under the ESA. In the draft 2016 SAR, the recovery factor was revised to 0.5, the default value for stocks of unknown status relative to OSP. Values other than the defaults for any stock should usually not be used without the approval of the regional Scientific Review Group, and scientific justification for the change should be provided in the SAR. As the listing change occurred after the February 2016 SRG Meeting, NMFS has applied the default recovery factor of 0.5 to the draft 2016 SAR. As a result, the PBR increased from 2.7 to 13. Human-caused mortality and serious injury is now below PBR, and the stock has changed from “strategic” to “non-strategic.” The Atlantic SRG will discuss the recovery factor for this stock at its February 2017 meeting.

    Abundance estimates for the minke whale Canadian east stock and short-beaked common dolphin WNA stock are substantially lower than what was reported in the 2015 SARs. This is because the new estimates exclude data from the 2007 Canadian Trans-North Atlantic Sighting Survey, as they were more than eight years old. Thus, the revised estimates for these stocks should not be interpreted as a decline in abundance of these stocks, as previous estimates are not directly comparable to the new estimates.

    Pacific Reports

    In the Pacific region (waters along the west coast of the United States, within waters surrounding the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), and within waters surrounding U.S. territories in the Western Pacific), SARs were revised for 23 stocks under NMFS jurisdiction (8 “strategic” and 15 “non-strategic” stocks). All stocks were reviewed and reports for the following “strategic” stocks were revised for 2016: Hawaiian monk seal; killer whale, Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident; false killer whale, Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) Insular; false killer whale, Hawaii Pelagic; humpback whale, California/Oregon/Washington (CA/OR/WA); fin whale, CA/OR/WA; sei whale, Eastern North Pacific; and Guadalupe fur seal, Mexico to California. Reports for the following “non-strategic” stocks were revised for 2016: False killer whale, NWHI; harbor porpoise, Washington inland waters; Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA; Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA; common bottlenose dolphin, California Coastal; common bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA Offshore; striped dolphin, CA/OR/WA; short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA; long-beaked common dolphin, California; Northern right whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA; short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA; pygmy sperm whale, CA/OR/WA; dwarf sperm whale, CA/OR/WA; and minke whale, CA/OR/WA. Information on the remaining Pacific region stocks can be found in the final 2015 reports (Carretta et al., 2016a).

    Several abundance estimates for Pacific stocks were changed in the draft 2016 reports following the application of a new approach for estimating the g(0) parameter, the probability of detecting an animal that is directly on the transect line, in different survey conditions (Beaufort sea state) (Barlow 2016). An analysis found that g(0) decreases as Beaufort sea state increases, even for visually conspicuous species. The following stocks reflect these abundance (and PBR) changes: Kogia spp.; Dall's porpoise, CA/OR/WA; Northern right whale dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Pacific white-sided dolphin, CA/OR/WA; Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA; striped dolphin, CA/OR/WA; short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA; long-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA; short-finned pilot whale, CA/OR/WA; fin whale, CA/OR/WA; and minke whale, CA/OR/WA.

    A new methodology was applied to bycatch estimated for some coastal Pacific stocks. Recent work shows that estimates of carcass recovery (0.25, 95 percent confidence interval = 0.20−0.33) for an extremely-coastal dolphin population suggests that observed anthropogenic mortality values of dolphins in this region derived from strandings should be corrected to account for unobserved mortality (Carretta et al., 2016b). Therefore, within the draft SARs involving dolphins along the U.S. West Coast, human-related deaths and injuries counted from beach strandings are multiplied by a factor of four to account for the non-detection of most carcasses. This correction factor affected the M/SI for the following stocks: harbor porpoise, Washington inland waters; Risso's dolphin, CA/OR/WA; striped dolphin, CA/OR/WA; short-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA; long-beaked common dolphin, CA/OR/WA; bottlenose dolphin, California coastal; and bottlenose dolphin, CA/OR/WA offshore.

    Additional stocks with updated abundance and/or M/SI estimates include: Harbor porpoise, Washington inland waters; Guadalupe fur seal, Mexico to California; Hawaiian monk seal; killer whale, Eastern North Pacific Southern Resident; humpback whale, CA/OR/WA; sei whale, Eastern North Pacific; false killer whale, Hawaii pelagic; false killer whale, MHI Insular; and false killer whale, NWHI.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24404 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE944 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a public hearing via webinar pertaining to Amendment 30 to the Coastal Migratory Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region. The amendment addresses alternatives for changing the recreational fishing year for Atlantic cobia (Georgia through New York).

    DATES:

    The public hearing will be held via webinar on Tuesday, October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The public hearing will be conducted via webinar accessible via the internet from the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net. The hearing will begin at 6 p.m. Registration for the webinar is required. Registration information will be posted on the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net as it becomes available. Any graphics, including maps, drawings or images to be shown during public comment should be emailed to Mike Collins at [email protected] prior to the public hearing.

    Amendment 30 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic FMP

    This amendment includes one action to modify the recreational fishing year for Atlantic cobia. In combination with the proposed changes to slow the rate of recreational harvest in Framework Amendment 4, the action in Amendment 30 is expected to reduce the likelihood of exceeding the annual catch limit and triggering accountability measures before the most popular time to recreationally fish for Atlantic cobia (May through September), and also to provide fair access to the Atlantic cobia resource for all participants.

    During the webinar, Council staff will present an overview of the amendment and will be available for informal discussions and to answer questions via webinar. Members of the public will have an opportunity to go on record to record their comments for consideration by the Council.

    Special Accommodations

    The hearing is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the hearing.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24453 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE948 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Recreational Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, Four Home Depot Drive, Plymouth, MA 02360; phone: (508) 830-0200.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Recreational Advisory Panel will discuss Framework Adjustment 56—Specifications and Management Measures. They will also discuss recreational measures and draft impact analysis and make recommendations to the Groundfish Committee. They will discuss preliminary FY2016 data, if available. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24455 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE766 Marine Mammals; File No. 19669 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a permit has been issued to Chicago Zoological Society [Michael J. Adkesson, D.V.M., Responsible Party], 3300 South Golf Rd., Brookfield, Illinois 60513 to receive, import, and export specimens from South American fur seal (Arctocephalus australis) and South American sea lion (Otaria flavescens) for scientific research.

    ADDRESSES:

    The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shasta McClenahan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 29, 2016, notice was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 59190) that a request for a permit to receive, import, and export specimens for scientific research had been submitted by the above-named applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant will receive, import, and export biological samples taken for scientific research that continues the long term evaluation and monitoring of pinniped population health at the Punta San Juan reserve and marine protected area in Peru. The permit is valid through October 1, 2021.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24400 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE915 Marine Mammals; File No. 20658 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Joseph Wilson, 1st Augustine's Yard, Gaunts Lane, Bristol, BS1 5DE, United Kingdom, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography of killer (Orcinus orca) and minke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) whales.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman or Shasta McClenahan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to film killer and minke whales in McMurdo Sound and the Ross Sea for the production of a documentary film for Disneynature studio. Up to 60 killer and minke whales per year could be targeted and disturbed during aerial filming. The permit is requested for two years.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24401 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE945 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Workshop AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) is sponsoring a workshop to review methods used to reconstruct historical groundfish catches off Washington, Oregon, and California. The workshop is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Historical Catch Reconstruction Workshop will commence at 1 p.m. PST, Tuesday, November 1, 2016 and continue until 5:30 p.m. or as necessary to complete business for the day. The workshop will reconvene on Wednesday, November 2 and Thursday, November 3, starting at 8:30 a.m. PST each day and continuing as necessary to complete business for the day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Historical Catch Reconstruction Workshop will be held at the Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel, Garden A-B Room, 8235 NE Airport Way, Portland, OR 97220; telephone: (503) 281-2500.

    Council address: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384; telephone: (503) 820-2280.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John DeVore, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2413.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the Historical Catch Reconstruction Workshop is to review proposed methods for reconstructing the historical catches of groundfish off Washington, Oregon, and California. Data stewards and others who are familiar with catch accounting systems will participate in the workshop. Recommended methods for reconstructing historical groundfish catches will be made available for use in groundfish stock assessments in 2017 and beyond. Public comments during the workshop will be received from attendees at the discretion of the chair.

    Although non-emergency issues not identified in the workshop agenda may come before the workshop participants for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this workshop. Formal action at the workshop will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the workshop participants' intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 10 days prior to the workshop date.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24454 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled September 11th Day of Service and Remembrance (September 11) and Martin Luther King Jr Day of Service (MLK) Application Instructions for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Patti Stengel, at 202-606-6745 or email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2016 at Vol. 81 No. 133 FR 45135. This comment period ended September 12, 2016. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: Applicants for MLK Day and September 11 will submit an application following the application instructions. Applicants may apply for MLK Day, September 11, or both. The application is required to be considered for grant funding support from MLK Day or September 11. CNCS will use the information collection to select grantee organizations through a competitive process.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Day of Service Application Instructions.

    OMB Number: TBD.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: The public affected are applicant organizations for September 11 and MLK Day of Service.

    Total Respondents: 70.

    Frequency: At most, the frequency is annual. The Day of Service competition will result in three year grants. Awarded applicants will also use these instructions to apply annually for continuation funding.

    Average Time per Response: 20 hours.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,400 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kim Mansaray, Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24403 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board (DHB) will take place.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, November 1, 2016 9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. (Open Session) 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Administrative Session) 12:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (Open Session) ADDRESSES:

    Defense Health Headquarters (DHHQ), Pavilion Salons B-C, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (escort required; see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Acting Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is CAPT Juliann Althoff, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539, [email protected] For meeting information, please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6670, Fax: (703) 681-9539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site, http://www.health.mil/About-MHS/Other-MHS-Organizations/Defense-Health-Board/Meetings.

    Purpose of the Meeting

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military medicine, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and health care delivery.

    Agenda

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the Defense Health Board meeting is open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on November 1, 2016. The DHB anticipates receiving progress updates from the Health Care Delivery Subcommittee on the pediatric health care services tasking, Public Health Subcommittee on its review of improving Defense Health Program medical research processes, and a subset of the Board on the Deployment Health Centers review. In addition, the DHB anticipates receiving information briefings on Pediatric Care in the Military Health System; the DHB history and the vision for the DHB; a Defense Suicide Prevention Office update; and a DHB Scholars Presentation to honor the innovative research being conducted in the Military Health System and to celebrate the efforts of early career investigators. Any changes to the agenda can be found at the link provided in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 to register. Additional details will be provided to all registrants.

    Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements

    Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and the procedures described in this notice.

    Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written statements should not be longer than two type-written pages and address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

    If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

    The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24451 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Announcement of an Open Meeting AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Education, President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and agenda of the meeting of the President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans (PACEEAA). The notice also describes the functions of the PACEEAA. Notice of the meeting is required by § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. Due to challenges associated with assembling the quorum required to carry out necessary functions prior to the end of the administration, and to ensure the availability and attendance of the chair to lead the meeting, this meeting notice is submitted late.

    DATES:

    The PACEEAA meeting will be held October 10, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST at Mason & Rook Hotel, 1430 Rhode Island Ave NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Monique Toussaint. [email protected] (202) 260-0964.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Statutory Authority and Function: The PACEEAA is established under Executive Order 13621, dated July 26, 2012 and extended by Executive Order 13708 dated September 30, 2015. The PACEEAA is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the PACEEAA is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education on matters pertaining to the educational attainment of the African American community, including: (1) The development, implementation, and coordination of educational programs and initiatives at the Department and other agencies to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for African Americans of all ages; (2) efforts to increase the participation of the African American community and institutions that serve the African American community in the Department's programs and in education programs at other agencies; (3) efforts to engage the philanthropic, business, nonprofit, and education communities in a national dialogue on the mission and objectives of this order; and (4) the establishment of partnerships with public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit stakeholders to meet the mission and policy objectives of its Executive Order.

    Meeting Agenda October 10, 2016

    9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. EST PACEEAA Updates and Initiative Resources

    11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EST Policy, Program, and Transition Updates

    12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. EST PACEEAA Member Deliberation & Discussion

    1:00 p.m.-3:30 p.m. EST PACEEAA Led Engagements

    3:30 p.m. EST Remarks from Secretary John King

    4:00 p.m. EST Adjournment

    Submission of written public comments: The Committee invites written comments, which will be taken into consideration by the Committee. Include in the subject line “Written Public Comments”. Send an email to [email protected] The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number, of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Please do not send material directly to PACEEAA members.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the PACEEAA's Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the FACA, the public may also inspect the materials at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 260-0964 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify Monique Toussaint.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Authority:

    PACEEEAA—Executive Order 13621, dated July 26, 2012 and extended by Executive Order 13708 dated September 30, 2015.

    Ted Mitchell, Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24487 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0035] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and Programs AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0035. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Herman Bounds, 202-453-6128.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Accrediting Agencies Reporting Activities for Institutions and Programs.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 8,050.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 2,689.

    Abstract: Sections 496(a)(7), (a)(8), (c)(7), and (c)(8) of the Higher Education Act (HEA), and federal regulations at 34 CFR 602.26 and 602.27(a)(6) and (a)(7) contain certain requirements for reporting by recognized accrediting agencies to the Department on the institutions and programs the agencies accredit. The proposed information collection outlines categories of terminology used by accrediting agencies to describe actions and statuses, and provides guidance to federally recognized accrediting agencies on the information to be reported to the Department under 34 CFR 602.26 and 602.27(a)(6) and (a)(7). Some of the reporting discussed is required; some is requested. This collection specifies which is which. It also discusses the channel for reporting this information, whether requested or required, and for reporting information the accrediting agency may wish to submit voluntarily to ensure that the Department's Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs is accurate and comprehensive.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24448 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 9088-050] Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P., Sugar River Power LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On September 15, 2016, Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P. (transferor) and Sugar River Power LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license of the Lower Village Project No. 9088. The project is located on the Sugar River in Sullivan County, New Hampshire.

    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Lower Village Project from Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P. to Sugar River Power LLC.

    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Mr. John Webster, General Partner, Lower Village Hydroelectric Associates, L.P., P.O. Box 178, South Berwick, ME 03908, Email: [email protected] For transferee: Mr. Robert King, Manager, Sugar River Power LLC, 42 Hurricane Road, Keene, NH 03431, Phone: 603-352-3444, Email: [email protected] and Ms. Elizabeth W. Whittle, Nixon Peabody, LLP, 799 Ninth Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-585-8338, Email: [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735, [email protected]

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-9088-050.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24470 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14796-000 GreenGenStorage LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 19, 2016, GreenGenStorage LLC filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mokelumne Pumped Storage Project, to be located on the North Fork Mokelumne River, Bear River, and Cole Creek, in Amador and Calaveras County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The project concept envisions the construction of a pumped storage generating facility consisting of: (1) The existing Salt Springs Reservoir (part of PG&E's currently licensed Mokelumne River Project No. 137) as the lower pool; (2) an upper reservoir using either the existing Upper Bear or Lower Bear River reservoirs (also part of PG&E's Mokelumne River Project); (3) a 16,000-foot to 20,000-foot power tunnel connecting the upper reservoir, pump turbines, and the lower reservoir; (4) an underground powerhouse containing the pump-turbines and motor-generators; (5) an approximately 3,000-foot-long transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. GreenGenStorage states that based on preliminary analyses, the project would have from one to three 380-megawatt generating units and an average annual electricity production of between 523 and 742 gigawatt-hours. GreenGenStorage plans to conduct studies to help further refine the range of suitable generation capabilities and other project characteristics.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Edward Cooper, Managing Director and Project Manager, GreenGenStorage LLC, P.O. Box 537, Summerland, CA 93067, (805) 450-2867 or [email protected]

    FERC Contact: John M. Mudre; phone: (202) 502-8902 or [email protected]

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14796-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14796) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24474 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CD16-23-000] California American Water, Southern Division; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On September 28, 2016, the California American Water, Southern Division filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Highland Tank Pressure Reducing Valve Modernization Project would have an installed capacity of 177 kilowatts (kW) and would be located in the Highland Tank Pressure Reducing Station on an existing 24-inch-diameter water supply pipe. The project would be located near the City of San Diego in San Diego County, California.

    Applicant Contact: Mark Reifer, California American Water, Southern Division, 8657 Grand Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, Phone No. (626) 614-2517.

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No. (202) 502-6062, email: [email protected]

    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed project would consist of: (1) A proposed 10-foot long, 14-inch-diameter intake pipe off the 24-inch main pipeline, (2) a proposed powerhouse bypassing the existing pressure reducing valve station, containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 177-kW, (3) a proposed 350-foot-long 14-inch diameter outlet pipe returning to the 24-inch main pipeline, and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 916.650 megawatt-hours.

    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

    Table 1—Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Statutory provision Description Satisfies
  • (Y/N)
  • FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by HREA The conduit is a tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by HREA The facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for the generation of electric power and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended by HREA The facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts Y FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended by HREA On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is not licensed, or exempted from the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA Y

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria, Commission staff has preliminarily determined that the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility under 16 U.S.C. 823a, and is exempted from the licensing requirements of the FPA.

    Comments and Motions To Intervene: The deadline for filing comments contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.

    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the “COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through 385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.1 All comments contesting Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.

    1 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2015).

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD16-23-000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected] For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24472 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No.: P-12635-002] Moriah Hydro Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.

    b. Project No.: P-12635-002.

    c. Date filed: February 13, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Moriah Hydro Corporation.

    e. Name of Project: Mineville Energy Storage Project.

    f. Location: The project would be located in an abandoned subterranean mine complex 1 in the town of Moriah, Essex County, New York. No federal lands are occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

    1 The existing mine complex is composed of the interconnected Old Bed, Bonanza open pit, and Harmony mines.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: James A. Besha, President, Moriah Hydro Corporation, c/o Albany Engineering Corporation, 5 Washington Square, Albany, New York 12205, (518) 456-7712.

    i. FERC Contact: Chris Millard (202) 502-8256 or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-12635-002.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The proposed project consists of: (1) An upper reservoir located within the upper portion of the mine between elevations 495 and 1,095 feet above mean seal level (msl), with a surface area of 4 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (2) a lower reservoir in the lower portion of the mine between elevations −1,075 and −1,555 feet msl, with a surface area of 5.1 acres and a storage capacity of 2,448 acre-feet; (3) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long upper reservoir shaft connecting the upper reservoir to the high-pressure penstock located below the powerhouse chamber floor; (4) a 14-foot-diameter and 2,955-foot-long lower reservoir shaft connecting the lower reservoir and the lower reservoir ventilation tunnel; (5) two 6-foot-diameter emergency evacuation shafts located between the powerhouse chamber and the electrical equipment chamber; (6) a 25-foot-diameter main shaft extending 2,955 feet from the surface down to the powerhouse chamber; (7) 15-foot-diameter high- and low-pressure steel penstocks embedded beneath the powerhouse chamber floor; (8) a 320-foot-long by 80-foot-wide powerhouse chamber, containing 100 reversible pump-turbine units, each with a nameplate generating capacity of 2.4 megawatts; (9) a 274-foot-long by 36-foot-wide underground electrical equipment chamber adjacent to the powerhouse chamber; (10) an inclined electrical tunnel connecting the electrical equipment chamber to a new 115-kilovolt (kV) substation constructed adjacent to an existing single circuit 115-kV transmission line located about one horizontal mile from the underground powerhouse chamber; and (11) appurtenant facilities. The project would operate as a closed-loop system to meet energy demands and grid control requirements. The project would have an average annual generation of 421 gigawatt-hours (GWh). The average pumping power used by the project would be 554 GWh.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.

    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.

    Anyone may submit a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24471 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14585-001] Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Dynegy Estero Bay Wave Park, LLC, permittee for the proposed Estero Bay Wave Park Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on October 28, 2014, and would have expired on November 1, 2017.1 The project would have been located in coastal waters between 2.5 and 3.0 miles off the coast of San Luis Obispo County, California, and on land near the town of Morro Bay.

    1 149 FERC ¶ 62,059.

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14585 will remain in effect until the close of business, November 3, 2016. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.2 New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit surrender is effective.

    2 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2016).

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24475 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14584-001] Dynegy Point Estero Wave Park, LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Dynegy Point Estero Wave Park, LLC, permittee for the proposed Point Estero Wave Park Project, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on October 28, 2014, and would have expired on November 1, 2017.1 The project would have been located in the Pacific Ocean between 2.5 and 3.0 miles off the coast of San Luis Obispo County, California, and on land near the town of Morro Bay.

    1 149 FERC ¶ 62,058.

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14584 will remain in effect until the close of business, November 3, 2016. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.2 New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit surrender is effective.

    2 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2016).

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24473 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14680-002] Water Street Land, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing With the Commission, Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and Conditions, and Recommendations, and Establishing an Expedited Schedule for Processing

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing

    b. Project No.: 14680-002

    c. Date filed: July 13, 2016

    d. Applicant: Water Street Land, LLC

    e. Name of Project: Natick Pond Dam Hydroelectric Project

    f. Location: On the Pawtuxet River, in the Towns of Warwick and West Warwick, Kent County, Rhode Island. No federal lands would be occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708 (2012), amended by the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, Public Law 113-23, 127 Stat. 493 (2013).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Rob Cioe, Water Street Land, LLC, P.O. Box 358, North Kingstown, RI 02852; (480) 797-3077.

    i. FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502-8969, or email at [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations: Due to the small size and location of this project and the close coordination with state and federal agencies during preparation of the application, the 60- day timeframe in 18 CFR 4.34(b) is shortened. Instead, motions to intervene and protests, comments, terms and conditions, and recommendations are due 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14680-002.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The proposed Natick Pond Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An existing 265-foot-long granite block dam with a 19.3-foot-high, 166-foot-long spillway; (2) an existing 58-foot to 125.3-foot-wide, 1-foot- to 28-foot-deep earth embankment; (3) an existing 44-foot-long, 4-foot- to 20-foot-high south granite block training wall; (4) an existing 1,244-foot-long, 18-foot- to 41.25-foot-high granite block and cobble stone north training wall; (5) an existing 4-foot-wide, 6-foot-high granite block low level outlet; (6) an existing 46.0-acre impoundment (Natick Pond) with a normal surface elevation of about 48.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (7) a new 97-foot-long, 32.2-foot-wide, 6.6-foot-deep concrete intake channel; (8) four new 7.6-foot-high, 11.1-foot-wide steel sluice gates each with new 8.3-foot-high, 32.2-foot-wide steel trashracks with 6-inch clear bar spacing; (9) a new 20.8-foot-high, 23.7-foot-long, 27.7-foot-wide concrete powerhouse; (10) two new 12-foot-high, 92-foot-long, 28-foot-wide concrete turbine bays containing two 42.7-foot-long, 9.2-foot-diameter Archimedes screw turbine-generator units each rated at 180 kilowatts (kW) for a total installed capacity of 360 kW; (11) a new 43-foot long, 29-foot-wide, 5-foot-deep tailrace; (12) a new 54-foot-long, 4.5-foot-wide aluminum eel passage facility; (13) a new water-level sensor and automatic sluice gate controller; (14) a new 40-foot-long, 480-volt below-ground transmission line connecting the powerhouse electrical panel to a new 15-kilovolt-amp (kVA) step-up transformer connecting a new 220-foot-long, 12.47-kilovolt above-ground transmission line to National Grid's distribution system; and (15) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the proposed Natick Pond Dam Project would be about 1,800 megawatt-hours. The applicant proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river mode. There are no federal or state lands associated with the project.

    m. Due to the applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies during pre-filing consultation, and agency recommended preliminary terms and conditions, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the exemption process. Based on a review of the application, resource agency consultation letters including the preliminary 30(c) terms and conditions, and comments filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public scoping meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, recreation and land use, aesthetic, and cultural and historic resources.

    n. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.

    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.

    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMPETING APPLICATION,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” or “TERMS AND CONDITIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    p. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according to the following procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Notice of the availability of the EA February 2017. Dated: October 5, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24604 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9954-01-OA] Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee Teleconference AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a policy-oriented committee that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.

    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss specific recommendations that were drafted by the Committee at the May 2016 meeting and finalize any outstanding comments. Recommendations regarding soil health and outreach, when finalized, will be transmitted to the Agency and made available to the public.

    DATES:

    The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee will hold a public teleconference on October 27th, 2016 from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. EPA North Building, 1200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 2317, Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lena Ferris, Acting Designated Federal Officer, [email protected], 202-564-8831, US EPA, Office of the Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public wishing to gain access to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written statement to the FRRCC must contact Lena Ferris, Acting Designated Federal Officer, at [email protected], or 202-564-8831 by October 25th, 2016.

    General Information: The agenda and meeting materials will be available at www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc. General information about the FRRCC can be found on the same Web site.

    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations please contact Lena Ferris, Acting Designated Federal Officer, at [email protected], or 202-564-8831 as soon as possible to allow EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Lena Ferris, Acting Designated Federal Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24490 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0785; FRL-9953-39] 2017 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is seeking applications for the 2017 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards. In 2015, EPA developed the Partner of the Year Awards to recognize Safer Choice stakeholders who have advanced the goals of the Pollution Prevention Act and the Safer Choice program by reducing pollution at its source through safer chemistry. At the 2017 Partner of the Year Awards, as at the two prior awards, Safer Choice will recognize stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: Formulators/Product Manufacturers of both Consumer and Institutional/Industrial (I/I) products, Purchasers and Distributors, Retailers, Supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations), and Innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers). All applications and accompanying materials must be received by Friday, December 16, 2016. Award winners will be recognized at a ceremony in late spring 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Chen Wen, Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8849; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Safer Choice program partner or stakeholder. 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:

    NAICS Code Affected industry 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing. 325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing. 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing. 325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing. 325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and Chemical Manufacturing. 325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing. 561210 Facilities Support Services. 561720 Janitorial Services. 561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services. 611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools. 8123 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services. 921190 Other General Government Support. B. How can I get related information?

    The full Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards announcement and award application materials can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-choice-partner-year-awards.

    C. 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-2015-0785, 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?

    EPA is seeking applications for the 2017 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards. In 2015, EPA developed the Partner of the Year Awards to recognize Safer Choice stakeholders who have advanced the goals of the Pollution Prevention Act and the Safer Choice program by reducing pollution at its source through safer chemistry. The Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards recognize program participants for advancing the goal of chemical safety through exemplary participation in or promotion of the Safer Choice Program. Safer Choice Program participants are continually driving innovation to make chemical products safer. Our program currently labels more than 2,000 products, used by consumers, institutions and industry that meet our Safer Choice Standard. The 2017 Partner of the Year Awards will be the third annual event, with recognition for Safer Choice stakeholder organizations from five broad categories: (1) Formulators/Product Manufacturers of both Consumer and Institutional/Industrial (I/I) products, (2) Purchasers and Distributors, (3) Retailers, (4) Supporters (e.g., non-governmental organizations, including environmental and health advocates, trade associations, academia, sports teams, and others), and (5) Innovators (e.g., chemical manufacturers, technology developers, and others).

    The award application and instructions are available at https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-choice-partner-year-awards. Interested applicants may also register for webinars on the award application process by visiting the Web site. All applications and accompanying materials must be received by Friday, December 16, 2016. Award winners will be recognized at a ceremony in late spring 2017.

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 3, 2016. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24494 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, October 13, 2016, 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

    PLACE:

    Jacqueline A. Berrien Training Center on the First Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507.

    STATUS:

    The meeting will be open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Open Session 1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and 2. Big Data and Employment Discrimination

    Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. Seating is limited and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 minutes before the meeting in order to be processed through security and escorted to the meeting room. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides information about Commission meetings on its Web site, www.eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded announcement a week in advance on future Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. This Notice Issued October 6, 2016. Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24661 Filed 10-6-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10498 AztecAmerica Bank; Berwyn, Illinois

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10498 AztecAmerica Bank, Berwyn, Illinois (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of AztecAmerica Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24437 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10281 Independent National Bank, Ocala, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10281 Independent National Bank, Ocala, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Independent National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24434 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10159 Valley Capital Bank, N.A., Mesa, Arizona

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10159 Valley Capital Bank, N.A., Mesa, Arizona (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Valley Capital Bank, N.A. (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24433 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10492 DuPage National Bank; West Chicago, Illinois

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10492 DuPage National Bank, West Chicago, Illinois (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of DuPage National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 01, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24436 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10490 Bank of Jackson County; Graceville, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10490 Bank of Jackson County, Graceville, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Bank of Jackson County (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective October 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24435 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 1, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Farmers and Merchants Bancorp, Inc., Hannibal, Missouri, to become a bank holding company by acquiring F&M Bank and Trust Company, Hannibal, Missouri.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Sunflower Reincorporation Sub, Inc., Salina, Kansas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Sunflower Financial, Inc., and thereby acquire Sunflower Bank, NA, both in Salina, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 4, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24376 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 201 Ethics in Government Act Access Form AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for agency and public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    After this first round notice and public comment period, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plans to submit a proposed modified OGE Form 201 Ethics in Government Act access form to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OGE Form 201 is used by persons requesting access to executive branch public financial disclosure reports and other covered records.

    DATES:

    Written comments by the public and agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received by December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to OGE, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]. (Include reference to “OGE Form 201 Paperwork Comment” in the subject line of the message.)

    FAX: 202-482-9237, Attn: Brandon Steele.

    Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Government Ethics, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Suite 500, Attention: Brandon Steele, Assistant Counsel, Washington, DC 20005-3917.

    Instructions: Comments may be posted on OGE's Web site, www.oge.gov. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandon Steele at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9209; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email: [email protected]. An electronic copy of the OGE Form 201 version used to manually submit access requests to OGE or other executive branch agencies by mail or FAX is available in the Forms Library section of OGE's Web site at http://www.oge.gov. A paper copy may also be obtained, without charge, by contacting Mr. Steele. An automated version of the OGE Form 201, also available on OGE's Web site, enables the requester to electronically fill out, submit and receive access to financial reports and certain related records for individuals who have been nominated by the President to executive branch positions requiring Senate confirmation, and individuals who have declared their candidacy for the Office of the President of the United States.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Request to Inspect or Receive Copies of Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports or Other Covered Records.

    Agency Form Number: OGE Form 201.

    OMB Control Number: 3209-0002.

    Type of Information Collection: Extension with modifications of a currently approved collection.

    Type of Review Request: Regular.

    Respondents: Individuals requesting access to executive branch public financial disclosure reports and other covered records.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1003.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 170 hours.

    Abstract: The OGE Form 201 collects information from, and provides certain information to, persons who seek access to OGE Form 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports, including OGE Form 278-T Periodic Transaction Reports, and other covered records. The form reflects the requirements of the Ethics in Government Act, subsequent amendments pursuant to the STOCK Act, and OGE's implementing regulations that must be met by a person before access can be granted. These requirements include the address of the requester, as well as any other person on whose behalf a record is sought, and acknowledgement that the requester is aware of the prohibited uses of executive branch public disclosure financial reports. See 5 U.S.C. appendix 105(b) and (c) and 402 (b)(1) and 5 CFR 2634.603(c) and (f). Executive branch departments and agencies are encouraged to utilize the OGE Form 201 for individuals seeking access to public financial disclosure reports and other covered documents. OGE permits departments and agencies to use or develop their own forms as long as the forms collect and provide all of the required information.

    OGE is proposing modifications to the automated version of the OGE Form 201, available only through the OGE Web site at www.oge.gov. Initially launched in March 2012, the automated version of the access form originally enabled a requestor to obtain immediately upon Web site submission of the completed form, those financial disclosure reports of individuals who have been nominated by the President to executive branch positions requiring Senate confirmation. OGE recently modified the technological process used to provide the information and no longer allows requesters to immediately download reports upon submission of the automated OGE Form 201. Instead, the forms are first reviewed by an OGE employee for completeness before the information is sent to the requester either by email or mail, according to the requester's preference. Adding this step helps ensure that the requirements of section 105(b) of the Ethics in Government Act are met before public financial disclosure reports are released. Because of this change in procedure, a requester using the automated OGE Form 201 now has the option of either providing a mailing address including street, city, state, and country information (as was previously required) or providing an email address plus city, state, and country information. Depending on which information the requester chooses to provide, the requested public financial disclosure reports will be either emailed or mailed to the requester. This change will not affect the estimated time of response to complete the form.

    OGE also intends to update the maximum civil monetary penalty for improperly obtaining or using a public financial disclosure report on both the automated and nonautomated versions of the form, in accordance with 5 CFR 2634.703.

    Request for Comments: OGE is publishing this first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for a proposed modified OGE Form 201 Ethics Act Access Form. Agency and public comment is invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Approved: September 30, 2016. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24501 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for a Modified OGE Form 450 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for agency and public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    After this first round notice and public comment period, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) plans to submit a modified OGE Form 450 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval of a three-year extension under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments by the public and agencies on this proposed extension are invited and must be received by December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to OGE, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] (Include reference to “OGE Form 450 paperwork comment” in the subject line of the message.)

    FAX: 202-482-9237, Attn: Brandon Steele.

    Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of Government Ethics, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Suite 500, Attention: Brandon Steele, Assistant Counsel, Washington, DC 20005-3917.

    Instructions: Comments may be posted on OGE's Web site, www.oge.gov. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brandon Steele at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics; telephone: 202-482-9209; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237; Email: [email protected]. An electronic copy of the OGE Form 450 is available in the Forms Library section of OGE's Web site at http://www.oge.gov. A paper copy may also be obtained, without charge, by contacting Mr. Steele.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.

    Agency Form Number: OGE Form 450.

    OMB Control Number: 3209-0006.

    Type of Information Collection: Extension with modifications of a currently approved collection.

    Type of Review Request: Regular.

    Respondents: Private citizens who are potential (incoming) regular Federal employees whose positions are designated for confidential disclosure filing, and special Government employees whose agencies require that they file new entrant disclosure reports prior to assuming Government responsibilities.

    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 24,640.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 24,640 hours.

    Abstract: The OGE Form 450 collects information from covered department and agency employees as required under OGE's executive branchwide regulatory provisions in subpart I of 5 CFR part 2634. The basis for the OGE reporting regulation is section 201(d) of Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989 (as modified by Executive Order 12731 of October 17, 1990, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., pp. 306-311, at p. 308) and section 107(a) of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app., sec. 107(a). OGE proposes several modifications to the form. OGE proposes to clarify the instructions in two places to assist filers in completing the form. OGE also proposes to revise the Privacy Act Statement in accordance with the OGE/GOVT-2 Executive Branch Confidential Financial Disclosure Reports Privacy Act system of records.

    Request for Comments: OGE is publishing this first round notice of its intent to request paperwork clearance for a proposed modified OGE Form 450. Public comment is invited specifically on the need for and practical utility of this information collection, the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate, the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected, and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized for, and may be included with, the OGE request for extension of OMB paperwork approval. The comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Approved: September 30, 2016. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24502 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Notice of Meetings AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of five AHRQ subcommittee meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The subcommittees listed below are part of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee. Grant applications are to be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6).

    DATES:

    See below for dates of meetings:

    1. Healthcare Safety and Quality Improvement Research (HSQR)

    Date: October 12-13, 2016 (Open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on October 12th and closed for remainder of the meeting)

    2. Health Care Research and Training (HCRT)

    Date: October 13-14, 2016 (Open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on October 13th and closed for remainder of the meeting)

    3. Health System and Value Research (HSVR)

    Date: October 19-20, 2016 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on October 19th and closed for remainder of the meeting)

    4. Healthcare Effectiveness and Outcomes Research (HEOR)

    Date: October 26-27, 2016 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on October 26th and closed for remainder of the meeting)

    5. Healthcare Information Technology Research (HITR)

    Date: October 27-28, 2016 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on October 27th and closed for remainder of the meeting)

    ADDRESSES:

    (Below specifics where each meeting will be held)

    HSQR, HCRT, HEOR and HITR

    Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center, 9751 Washingtonian Blvd., Gaithersburg, MD 20878.

    HSVR

    The Even Hotel, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    (To obtain a roster of members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of the meetings.)

    Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Office of Extramural Research Education and Priority Populations, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), AHRQ announces meetings of the scientific peer review groups listed above, which are subcommittees of AHRQ's Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committees. Each subcommittee meeting will commence in open session before closing to the public for the duration of the meeting. The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2 section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) 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.

    Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24386 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS Computer Match No. 2016-15; HHS Computer Match No. 1609] Privacy Act of 1974 AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Computer Matching Program.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the establishment of a Computer Matching Program that CMS plans to conduct with the Peace Corps (PC).

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: Comments are invited on all portions of this notice. Public comments are due within 30 days after publication. The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress, or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, whichever is later.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Act Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Enterprise Information, CMS, Room N l-24-08, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Eastern Time zone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lindsey Murtagh, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Phone: (301) 492-4106, E-Mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in a CMP to:

    1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;

    2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;

    3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

    4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,

    5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.

    This matching program meets the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. Walter Stone, CMS Privacy Act Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS Computer Match No. 2016-15 HHS Computer Match No.1609 Name

    Computer Matching Agreement between the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Peace Corps for the “Verification of Eligibility for Minimum Essential Coverage Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Through a Peace Corps Health Benefits Plan.”

    Security Classification

    Unclassified.

    Participating Agencies

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Peace Corps (PC).

    Authority for Conducting Matching Program

    Sections 1411 and 1413 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) (collectively, the ACA) require the Secretary of HHS to establish a program for applying for and determining eligibility for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions and authorize use of secure, electronic interfaces and an on-line system for the verification of eligibility.

    The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (CMPPA) (Public Law 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and requires the parties participating in a matching program to execute a written agreement specifying the terms and conditions under which the matching will be conducted. CMS has determined that status verification checks to be conducted through the CMS Data Services Hub (Hub) by agencies administering insurance affordability programs using data provided in bulk by PC through a security transfer data protocol to CMS constitute a “computer matching program” as defined in the CMPPA.

    Purpose(s) of the Matching Program

    The purpose of the Computer Matching Agreement is to establish the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which the Peace Corps will provide records, information, or data to CMS for verifying eligibility for Minimum Essential Coverage through a Peace Corps Health Benefits Plan. The data will be used by CMS in its capacity as a Federally-facilitated Exchange, and agencies administering insurance affordability programs that will receive the results of verifications using PC data obtained through the CMS Data Services Hub.

    Data will be matched for the purpose of verifying an Applicant or Enrollee's eligibility for PC Health Benefit Plans that constitute minimum essential coverage as defined in § 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 5000A, as amended by § 1501 of the ACA.

    Description of Records To Be Used in the Matching Program

    The Peace Corps maintains the following SORN to support this data matching program: “Peace Corps Manual Section 897, Attachment B, PC-17 Volunteer Applicant and Service Records System.” Routine Use (i) is used “to verify active or former Volunteer service”—supports disclosure to CMS.

    CMS maintains the following SORN to support this data to support this data matching program: “Health Insurance Exchanges Program (HIX)”, CMS System No. 09-70-0560, originally published at 78 FR 8538 (Feb. 6, 2013), and last amended at 78 Federal Register, 63211 (October 23, 2013).

    Inclusive Dates of the Match

    The CMP will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to OMB, 30 days after a copy of the matching agreement is transmitted to Congress, or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24388 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Privacy Act of 1974, CMS Computer Match No. 2016-14, HHS Computer Match No. 1608 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Computer Matching Program (CMP).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, this notice announces the establishment of a CMP that CMS plans to conduct with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: Comments are invited on all portions of this notice. Public comments are due within 30 days after publication. The matching program will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 30 days after a copy of the matching agreement is transmitted to Congress, or 30 days after the report of the matching program is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later.

    For Information Contact: The public should send comments to: CMS Privacy Act Officer, Division of Security, Privacy Policy & Governance, Information Security & Privacy Group, Office of Enterprise Information, CMS, Room Nl-24-08, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., Eastern Time zone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lindsey Murtagh, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Phone: (301) 492-4106, E-Mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Public Law (Pub. L) 100-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) by describing the manner in which computer matching involving Federal agencies could be performed and adding certain protections for individuals applying for and receiving Federal benefits. Section 7201 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) further amended the Privacy Act regarding protections for such individuals. The Privacy Act, as amended, regulates the use of computer matching by Federal agencies when records in a system of records are matched with other Federal, state, or local government records. It requires Federal agencies involved in computer matching programs (CMP) to:

    1. Negotiate written agreements with the other agencies participating in the matching programs;

    2. Obtain the Data Integrity Board approval of the match agreements;

    3. Furnish detailed reports about matching programs to Congress and OMB;

    4. Notify applicants and beneficiaries that the records are subject to matching; and,

    5. Verify match findings before reducing, suspending, terminating, or denying an individual's benefits or payments.

    This matching program meets the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended.

    Walter Stone, CMS Privacy Act Officer, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS Computer Match No. 2016-14 HHS Computer Match No.1608 Name

    “Computer Matching Agreement between the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Office of Personnel Management For The Verification of Eligibility For Minimum Essential Coverage Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Through an Office of Personnel Management Health Benefits Plan.”

    Security Classification

    Unclassified.

    Participating Agencies

    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    Authority for Conducting Matching Program

    Sections 1411 and 1413 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-148), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152) (collectively, the ACA) require the Secretary of HHS to establish a program for applying for and determining eligibility for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions and authorize use of secure, electronic interfaces and an on-line system for the verification of eligibility.

    The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (CMPPA) (Public Lawl00-503), amended the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and requires the parties participating in a matching program to execute a written agreement specifying the terms and conditions under which the matching will be conducted. CMS has determined that status verification checks to be conducted through the CMS Data Services Hub (Hub) by agencies administering applicable State health subsidy programs using the Enterprise Human Resources Integration Data Warehouse (EHRIDW) Status File provided to CMS by OPM constitute a “computer matching program” as defined in the CMPPA.

    Purpose(s) of the Matching Program

    The purpose of the Computer Matching Agreement is to establish the terms, conditions, safeguards, and procedures under which OPM will provide records, information, or data to CMS for verifying eligibility for Minimum Essential Coverage through an OPM Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. The data will be used by CMS in its capacity as a Federally-facilitated Exchange, and agencies administering applicable State health subsidy programs that will receive the results of verifications using OPM data obtained through the CMS Data Services Hub.

    Data will be matched for the purpose of verifying an Applicant or Enrollee's eligibility for OPM Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans that constitute minimum essential coverage as defined in 5000A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 5000A, as amended by 1501 of the ACA.

    Description of Records To Be Used in the Matching Program

    The CMP will be conducted with data maintained by CMS in the Health Insurance Exchanges (HIX) Program, CMS System No. 09-70-0560, as amended. The system is described in System of Records Notice (SORN) published at 78 Federal Register (FR) 63211 (Oct. 23, 2013).

    The OPM System of Records for this matching program is titled “General Personnel Records” (OPM/GOVT-1), published at 77 Federal Register, 73694 (December 11, 2012). OPM will submit to CMS a monthly Status File that is a full refresh of all Federal employee health care insurance information. OPM also will submit to CMS, on an annual basis, a Premium Spread Index File that provides information identifying the lowest self-only premium for an OPM FEHB plan available to a Federal employee in each State as well as national OPM FEHB plans.

    Inclusive Dates of the Match

    The CMP will become effective no sooner than 40 days after the report of the matching program is sent to 0MB, 30 days after a copy of the matching agreement is transmitted to Congress, or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, whichever is later. The matching program will continue for 18 months from the effective date and may be extended for an additional 12 months thereafter, if certain conditions are met.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24387 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-R-138 and 10088] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.

    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 (the 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 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number __Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    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: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-R-138 Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board Procedures and Criteria CMS-10088 Notification of FIs and CMS of co-located Medicare providers

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-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.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board Procedures and Criteria; Use: During the first few years of IPPS, hospitals were paid strictly based on their physical geographic location concerning the wage index (Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)) and the standardized amount (rural, other urban, or large urban). However, a growing number of hospitals became concerned that their payment rates were not providing accurate compensation. The hospitals argued that they were not competing with the hospitals in their own geographic area, but instead that they were competing with hospitals in neighboring geographic areas. At that point, Congress enacted Section 1886(d)(10) of the Act which enabled hospitals to apply to be considered part of neighboring geographic areas for payment purposes based on certain criteria. The application and decision process is administered by the MGCRB which is not a part of CMS so that CMS could not be accused of any untoward action. However, CMS needs to remain apprised of any potential payment changes. Hospitals are required to provide CMS with copy of any applications that they made to the MGCRB. CMS also developed the guidelines for the MGCRB that were the interim final issue of the Federal Register, and must ensure that the MGCRB properly applied the guidelines. This check and balance process also contributes to limiting the number of hospitals that ultimately need to appeal their MGCRB decisions to the CMS Administrator. Form Number: CMS-R-138 (OMB control number: 0938-0573); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 300; Total Annual Responses: 300; Total Annual Hours: 300. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Noel Manlove at 410-786-5161.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Notification of FIs and CMS of co-located Medicare providers; Use: Many long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) are co-located with other Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, IRFs, SNFs, psychiatric facilities), which leads to potential gaming of the Medicare system based on patient shifting. In regulations at 42 CFR 412.22(e)(3) and (h)(6) and 412.532(i), CMS is requiring LTCHs to notify Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and CMS of co-located providers in order to establish policies to limit payment abuse that will be based on FIs tracking patient movement among these co-located providers. Form Number: CMS-10088 (OMB control number: 0938-0897); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 25; Total Annual Responses: 25; Total Annual Hours: 6. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Emily Lipkin at 410-786-3633.)

    Dated: October 4, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24415 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3990] Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process; 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 “Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process.” This guidance explains the process by which FDA intends to carry out the section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA), which governs the convening of advisory committees to provide recommendations on requests submitted under the SIA regarding nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients and the number of requests to be considered per meeting. The recommendations in this guidance apply to 586A requests submitted under the FD&C Act and to pending requests as defined by the SIA that seek a determination from FDA on whether a nonprescription sunscreen active ingredient, or a combination of nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients, is generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) for use under specified conditions and should be included in the over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug monograph. The SIA describes specific circumstances under which FDA is not required to convene or submit requests to the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC). We are issuing this guidance pursuant to the SIA, which directs FDA to issue guidance on four topics, including the topic discussed in this guidance. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance on the same topic issued on November 23, 2015.

    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-2015-D-3990 for “Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process.” 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:

    Kristen Hardin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5443, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-4246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Sunscreen Innovation Act: Section 586C(c) Advisory Committee Process.” This guidance provides background information on the sunscreen OTC monograph process, as well as on the Agency's intended process for convening the NDAC. It also recommends procedures for sponsors of 586A requests (submitted under section 586A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff-1)) and for sponsors of pending requests (as defined by section 586(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff (6))) to follow in requesting an NDAC meeting. This guidance also explains how FDA intends to process these requests and describes the factors the Agency may consider in determining whether and when to refer such requests to the NDAC.

    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance that was issued under the same title on November 23, 2015 (see 80 FR 72972), and reflects FDA's consideration of public comments on the draft guidance. The draft guidance and related public comments are publicly available in Docket No. FDA-2015-D-3990. In addition to minor editorial changes, we have clarified the information in section III of the guidance on when to submit a request for an NDAC meeting.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the process by which the Agency will carry out section 586C(c) of the SIA (21 U.S.C. 360fff-3). 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.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains collections of information that are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA). Section 586D(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C 360fff-4(a)(1)(C)) states that the PRA shall not apply to collections of information made for purposes of guidance under section 586D(a).

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24460 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4012] Sunscreen Innovation Act: Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request; 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 “Sunscreen Innovation Act: Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request.” This guidance provides recommendations for the process for withdrawing a 586A request submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA), and withdrawing a pending request, as defined by the SIA. The recommendations in this guidance apply to 586A requests and pending requests that seek a determination from FDA of whether a nonprescription sunscreen active ingredient, or a combination of nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients, is generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) for use under specified conditions and should be included in the over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug monograph. We are issuing this guidance under the SIA, which directs FDA to issue guidance on various topics, including guidance on the process by which a request under section 586A or a pending request is withdrawn. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on November 23, 2015.

    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-2015-D-4012 for “Sunscreen Innovation Act; Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request.” 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:

    Kristen Hardin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5443, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-4246.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Sunscreen Innovation Act; Withdrawal of a 586A Request or Pending Request.” This guidance provides background information on the sunscreen OTC monograph process and the new procedures under the SIA (21 U.S.C. 360fff), for reviewing 586A requests (requests made under section 586A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360fff-1)) and pending requests for nonprescription sunscreen active ingredients (the SIA process). This guidance provides recommendations for the general withdrawal process for 586A requests and pending requests. At certain stages of the SIA process, a sponsor who submitted the 586A request or pending request might seek to have it withdrawn, or a request may be withdrawn due to the sponsor's failure to act on the request and failure to respond to communications from FDA. This guidance addresses the expected effect of a withdrawal on key phases of the SIA process, including withdrawals made prior to or after the initial eligibility determination, the submission of safety and efficacy data, the filing determination, or the GRASE determination. This guidance also discusses the submission of a new 586A request for the same sunscreen ingredient for which a 586A or pending request had been previously submitted and withdrawn.

    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance that was issued under the same title on November 23, 2015 (see 80 FR 72970), and reflects FDA's consideration of public comments on the draft guidance. The draft guidance and related public comments are publicly available in Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4012. In addition to minor editorial changes, we have clarified the use of publicly available data and information submitted to the docket as it pertains to the withdrawal process.

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the withdrawal of 586A requests and pending requests under the SIA. 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.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains collections of information that are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA). Section 586D(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C 360fff-4(a)(1)(C)) states that the PRA shall not apply to collections of information made for purposes of guidance under section 586D(a).

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24459 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1446] Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; 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 the guidance entitled “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use.” This document describes studies and criteria that FDA recommends be used when submitting premarket notifications (510(k)s) for self-monitoring blood glucose test systems (SMBGs) intended for over-the-counter (OTC) home use by lay-users. FDA intends for this document to serve as a guide for manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing 510(k)s for these device types.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome 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-2013-D-1446 for “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Landree, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4623, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6147.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This document describes studies and criteria that FDA recommends be used when submitting 510(k)s for SMBGs which are for OTC home use by lay users. FDA intends for this document to serve as a guide for manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing 510(k)s for these device types. This document is not meant to address blood glucose monitoring test systems (BGMSs) which are intended for prescription point-of-care use in professional healthcare settings (e.g., hospitals, physician offices, long term care facilities, etc.). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use” to address those device types.

    Historically, FDA has not recommended different types of information in 510(k)s for BGMSs used by healthcare professionals as compared to SMBGs intended for home use by lay users. However, it has become increasingly clear that these different use settings have distinct intended use populations with unique characteristics that can impact device design specifications, and that manufacturers should take these unique characteristics into account when designing their devices. In order to distinguish between FDA recommendations for prescription-use BGMSs, which are intended for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings, and SMBGs intended for use for self-monitoring by lay users, the Agency is issuing two separate guidances for: (1) Prescription use blood glucose meters, for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings and (2) OTC SMBG devices intended for home use for self-monitoring by lay persons. FDA believes that in making this distinction, SMBGs can be better designed to meet the needs of their intended use populations, thereby providing greater safety and efficacy. While FDA recommends that the information described in this guidance be included in premarket submissions for SMBGs, submissions containing alternative information may be sufficient if able to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014 (79 FR 829), the Agency issued the draft guidance entitled “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use.” In the Federal Register of April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19622), the Agency announced that the deadline for the comment period would be extended until May 7, 2014, to allow for more public comments on this draft guidance document. FDA considered the comments received on this draft guidance and FDA revised the guidance as appropriate in response to the comments.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    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-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use.” 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.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1756 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24431 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1445] Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; 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 the guidance entitled “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use.” This document describes studies and criteria that FDA recommends be used when submitting premarket notifications (510(k)s) for blood glucose monitoring systems (BGMSs) which are for prescription point-of-care use in professional healthcare settings. FDA intends for this document to serve as a guide for manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing 510(k)s for these device types.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome 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-2013-D-1445 for “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single copy of the guidance document to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Landree, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Bldg. 66, Rm. 4623, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6147.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    This document describes studies and criteria that FDA recommends be used when submitting 510(k)s for BGMSs which are for prescription point-of-care use in professional settings. FDA intends for this document to serve as a guide for manufacturers in conducting appropriate performance studies and preparing 510(k)s for these device types. This document is not meant to address self-monitoring blood glucose test systems (SMBGs) for over-the-counter (OTC) home use by lay-users. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance “Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Test Systems for Over-the-Counter Use” to address those device types.

    Historically, FDA has not recommended different types of information in 510(k)s for BGMSs used by healthcare professionals as compared to SMBGs intended for home use by lay-users. However, it has become increasingly clear that these different use settings have distinct intended use populations with unique characteristics that can impact device design specifications, and that manufacturers should take these unique characteristics into account when designing their devices. In order to distinguish between FDA recommendations for prescription-use blood glucose meters, which are intended for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings, and SMBG devices intended for home use for self-monitoring by lay-persons, the Agency is issuing two separate guidances for (i) BGMSs intended for use in point-of-care professional healthcare settings, and (ii) SMBGs intended for home use for self-monitoring by lay-users. FDA believes that in making this distinction, BGMSs can be better designed to meet the needs of their intended use populations, thereby providing greater safety and efficacy.

    Because BGMSs are used in professional healthcare settings, they are more likely to be used on multiple patients. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have expressed concern over the possibility that blood glucose meters can transmit bloodborne pathogens if these devices are contaminated with blood specimens and shared between users without effective cleaning, disinfecting, and appropriate infection control measures. This document describes certain design features and capacity for cleaning and disinfection to prevent the spread of bloodborne pathogens.

    In addition, concerns have been raised citing the inability of currently cleared BGMSs to perform effectively in professional healthcare settings because these devices have not been adequately evaluated in some of the populations in which they are being used. Patients in professional healthcare settings are often fundamentally different than lay-users using these devices at home. Patients in professional healthcare settings can be acutely ill and medically fragile and are more likely to present physiological and pathological factors that could interfere with glucose measurements relative to lay-users. Errors in BGMSs accuracy can lead to incorrect insulin dosing, which, when combined with other factors, can lead to increased episodes of hypoglycemia. For hospitalized patients who may be seriously ill, glucose meter inaccuracies could further increase risk to health. This document describes studies that can be conducted to demonstrate BGMS performance for devices intended to be used in diverse professional healthcare settings on subjects in various states of health. While FDA recommends that the information described in this guidance be included in premarket submissions for BGMSs, submissions containing alternative information may be sufficient if able to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2014 (79 FR 830), the Agency issued the draft guidance entitled “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use”. In the Federal Register of April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19622), the Agency announced that the deadline for the comment period would be extended until May 7, 2014, to allow for more public comments on this draft guidance document. FDA considered the comments received on this draft guidance and FDA revised the guidance as appropriate in response to the comments.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    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 “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use.” 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.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Blood Glucose Monitoring Test Systems for Prescription Point-of-Care Use” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1755 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807 subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR 801 and 21 CFR 809.10 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in the guidance document “Recommendations: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Waiver Applications for Manufacturers of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0598; and the collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24430 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH); Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.

    The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss business, agency updates, and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The Committee will discuss the 2016-2017 update of the IACC Strategic Plan. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: October 26, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.* Eastern Time * Approximate end time.

    Agenda: To discuss business, updates, and issues related to ASD research and services activities. The Committee will discuss updates of the IACC Strategic Plan.

    Place: National Institutes of Health , 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 6, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Webcast Live: https://videocast.nih.gov.

    Conference Call Access: Dial: 888-469-2037, Access code: 3353029.

    Cost: The meeting is free and open to the public.

    Registration: A registration web link will be posted on the IACC Web site (www.iacc.hhs.gov) prior to the meeting. Pre-registration is recommended to expedite check-in. Seating in the meeting room is limited to room capacity and on a first come, first served basis. Onsite registration will also be available.

    Deadlines: Notification of intent to present oral comments: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written comments: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/guidelines/.

    Access: Medical Center Metro Station (Red Line).

    Contact Person: Ms. Angelice Mitrakas, Office of Autism Research Coordination, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6182A, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, Phone: 301-435-9269, Email: [email protected]

    Public Comments: Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting, and a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 18,

    A limited number of slots for oral comment are available, and in order to ensure that as many different individuals are able to present throughout the year as possible, any given individual only will be permitted to present oral comments once per calendar year (2016). Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments in any given meeting; other representatives of the same group may provide written comments. If the oral comment session is full, individuals who could not be accommodated are welcome to provide written comments instead. Comments to be read or presented in the meeting must not exceed 250 words or 3 minutes, but a longer version may be submitted in writing for the record. Commenters going beyond the 250 word or 3 minute time limit in the meeting may be asked to conclude immediately in order to allow other comments and presentations to proceed on schedule.

    Any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by emailing the comments to [email protected] or by submitting comments at the web link: https://iacc.hhs.gov/meetings/public-comments/submit/index.jsp by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 18, 2016. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number, and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. NIMH anticipates written public comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 will be presented to the Committee prior to the meeting for the Committee's consideration. Any written comments received after the 5:00 p.m. ET, October 18, 2016 deadline through October 25, 2016 will be provided to the Committee either before or after the meeting, depending on the volume of comments received and the time required to process them in accordance with privacy regulations and other applicable Federal policies. All written public comments and oral public comment statements received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record. Attachments of copyrighted publications are not permitted, but web links or citations for any copyrighted works cited may be provided.

    In the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen to diverse views with open minds, discuss submitted public comments, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.

    Remote Access: The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an email to [email protected].

    Individuals wishing to participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least five days prior to the meeting.

    Security: In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs and hotel and airport shuttles, will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Also as a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID at the meeting registration desk during the check-in process. Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered.

    Meeting schedule subject to change.

    Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: http://www.iacc.hhs.gov.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24409 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of Biotechnology Activities; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB).

    Name of Committee: National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.

    Date: November 4, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. Eastern.

    Agenda: Presentations and discussions regarding: (1) Stakeholder engagement on implementation of the U.S. Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC); (2) status of the Blue Ribbon Panel review of the 2014 variola virus incident on the NIH Bethesda campus; and (3) other business of the Board.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference call only; No in-person meeting).

    Call-in Information: U.S. Toll-Free Dial-In: 1 (888) 939-3921. Confirmation Number: 43519965.

    Contact Person: Christopher Viggiani, Ph.D., Executive Director, NSABB, NIH Office of Science Policy, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 750, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 496-9838, [email protected]

    Under authority 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services established the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to provide advice regarding federal oversight of dual use research—defined as legitimate biological research that generates information and technologies that could be misused to pose a biological threat to public health and/or national security.

    The toll-free teleconference line will be open to the public at 11:30 a.m. to allow time for operator-assisted check-in. Persons planning to participate in the teleconference may also pre-register online via the link provided below or by calling Palladian Partners, Inc. (Contact: Ida Donner at 301-273-2838). Pr