Federal Register Vol. 81, No.198,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 198 (October 13, 2016)

Page Range70595-70921
FR Document

81_FR_198
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 70919 - International Day of the Girl, 2016PDF
81 FR 70917 - General Pulaski Memorial Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 70915 - Columbus Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 70913 - Leif Erikson Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 70911 - National School Lunch Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 70909 - Fire Prevention Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 70664 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 70680 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 70668 - Sunshine Act Meetings NoticePDF
81 FR 70707 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Directors and Its Six CommitteesPDF
81 FR 70735 - Public Notice; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Pierre Gouthière: Virtuoso Gilder at the French Court” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 70710 - Federal Salary Council; Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 70711 - Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights, OMB No. 3206-0237PDF
81 FR 70710 - Senior Executive Service-Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 70686 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
81 FR 70685 - Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 70677 - Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
81 FR 70679 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, September 29, 2016; Sunshine Period Prohibition Lifted for Expanding Consumers' Video Navigation Choices; Commercial Availability of Navigation DevicesPDF
81 FR 70660 - Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet FisheryPDF
81 FR 70691 - Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee meetingPDF
81 FR 70714 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend BZX Rule 14.11(d) To Add the EURO STOXX 50 Volatility Futures to the Definition of Futures Reference AssetPDF
81 FR 70723 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 103PDF
81 FR 70700 - Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0030PDF
81 FR 70736 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection: Air Traffic Slots ManagementPDF
81 FR 70736 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA)/Pilot Records Database (PRD)PDF
81 FR 70679 - Final Notice of Intent To Declare the International Section 214 Authorization of IP To Go, LLC TerminatedPDF
81 FR 70680 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 70665 - Notice of NIST's Mouse Cell Line Authentication ConsortiumPDF
81 FR 70670 - Elevation Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 70673 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 70674 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 70676 - PSEG Energy Solutions LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 70670 - Exelon West Medway II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 70673 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator StatusPDF
81 FR 70674 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 70676 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 70669 - Application to Export Electric Energy; Calpine Energy Services, L.P.PDF
81 FR 70739 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Joint Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70737 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 70681 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 70694 - Waterway Suitability Assessment for Construction of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities; Brownsville, TXPDF
81 FR 70697 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; National Park Service ConcessionsPDF
81 FR 70708 - Arts Advisory Panel MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70634 - Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012PDF
81 FR 70668 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Corrosion Technical Products; Perth, Western AustraliaPDF
81 FR 70658 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Jonah Crab Fishery; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping ProcessPDF
81 FR 70697 - Notice of Public Meeting for Amended Proposed Withdrawal; OregonPDF
81 FR 70682 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
81 FR 70669 - Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of VisitorsPDF
81 FR 70712 - Notice of Wireless Telecommunications SitePDF
81 FR 70696 - Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, San Luis Obispo County, CAPDF
81 FR 70664 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 70670 - West Street Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 70671 - Blackstone Hydro Associates; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 70673 - Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 70671 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-551); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
81 FR 70675 - Arizona Public Service Company; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
81 FR 70678 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 70706 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.PDF
81 FR 70706 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C.PDF
81 FR 70705 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.PDF
81 FR 70705 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Opendaylight Project, Inc.PDF
81 FR 70705 - Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-AmericasPDF
81 FR 70702 - Certain Arrowheads With Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor; Commission Decision To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion for Summary Determination of a Violation of Section 337; Request for SubmissionsPDF
81 FR 70706 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-DVD Copy Control AssociationPDF
81 FR 70704 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2014-10, Direct Monitoring of Flare Combustion EfficiencyPDF
81 FR 70666 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery PlansPDF
81 FR 70710 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 70709 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
81 FR 70711 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 70668 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 70701 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments; Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 70728 - Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to Rule 17d-2; Notice of Filing and Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Proposed Plan for the Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 70712 - Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 70688 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70689 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 70689 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70687 - National Library of Medicine Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70692 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70718 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees To Make a Clarifying Change Related to the Tape B Quoting TierPDF
81 FR 70719 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 70722 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To List and Trade Shares of the AdvisorShares KIM Korea Equity ETFPDF
81 FR 70721 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend a Current Billing Practice With Respect to Billing DisputesPDF
81 FR 70716 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to a Proposal To Amend a Current Billing Practice With Respect to Billing DisputesPDF
81 FR 70726 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Mercury, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend a Current Billing Practice With Respect to Billing DisputesPDF
81 FR 70687 - National Center For Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70691 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70690 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 70693 - National Institute Of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70687 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70693 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70689 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 70689 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70690 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70688 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70686 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 70688 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70695 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition To Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household, Form I-600, I-600A, and Supplement 1; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 70707 - Institute of Museum and Library Services; Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: “Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums”-A Museums for America Special InitiativePDF
81 FR 70666 - Notice To Extend the Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan for the Proposed Designation of the He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawai'iPDF
81 FR 70738 - Petition for Special Approval of Alternate StandardPDF
81 FR 70667 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 70742 - Advisory Committee to the Internal Revenue Service; MeetingPDF
81 FR 70682 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 70681 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 70682 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 70683 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 70684 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 70654 - User Fees for Offers in CompromisePDF
81 FR 70741 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Information Collection ToolsPDF
81 FR 70742 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 1041 and Related Schedules D, I, J, K-1, and Form 1041-VPDF
81 FR 70652 - Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Temporarily Place Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine Into Schedule IPDF
81 FR 70650 - Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis SystemPDF
81 FR 70626 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Revisions to the Permitting RulesPDF
81 FR 70649 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Barter Island, AKPDF
81 FR 70607 - Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care ActPDF
81 FR 70647 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 70631 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Interstate Transport of Air PollutionPDF
81 FR 70599 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Modifications to Recordkeeping and Reporting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 70744 - Definition of Covered Clearing AgencyPDF
81 FR 70786 - Standards for Covered Clearing AgenciesPDF
81 FR 70595 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 198 Thursday, October 13, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 70682-70683 2016-24742 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Cooperative Research Group on Ros-Industrial Consortium-Americas, 70705 2016-24720 Direct Monitoring of Flare Combustion Efficiency, 70704-70705 2016-24717 DVD Copy Control Assn., 70706-70707 2016-24718 OpenDaylight Project, Inc., 70705 2016-24721 Membership Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Cable Television Laboratories, Inc., 70706 2016-24724 IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc., 70705-70706 2016-24722 Open Group, LLC, 70706 2016-24723 Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Perth, Western Australia, 70668-70669 2016-24748 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70683-70685 2016-24667 2016-24668 Meetings: Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, 70685-70686 2016-24785 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 70686 2016-24786 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70664-70665 2016-24956 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Waterway Suitability Assessments: Construction of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities; Brownsville, TX, 70694-70695 2016-24752 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70739-70741 2016-24756 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70668 2016-24941 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

Drug Drug Enforcement Administration PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine into Schedule I; Withdrawal, 70652-70654 2016-24659 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Applications to Export Electric Energy: Calpine Energy Services, LP, 70669-70670 2016-24757
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution, 70631-70634 2016-24491 South Dakota; Revisions to Permitting Rules, 70626-70631 2016-24648 NOTICES Proposed Settlement Agreements: Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 70677-70678 2016-24782 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 70595-70599 2016-22835 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 70647-70649 2016-24508 Amendment of Class E Airspace: Barter Island, AK, 70649-70650 2016-24625 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Air Traffic Slots Management, 70736-70737 2016-24772 Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996; Pilot Records Database, 70736 2016-24771 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70678-70679 2016-24725 International Section 214 Authorization Orders; Terminations: IP To Go, LLC, 70679-70680 2016-24770 Meetings: Open Commission; Amendment, 70679 2016-24781 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70739-70741 2016-24756 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70671-70673 2016-24727 Combined Filings, 70673-70677 2016-24760 2016-24761 2016-24765 2016-24766 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: McHenry Battery Storage, LLC; East Pecos Solar, LLC; Solverde 1, LLC; et al., 70673 2016-24762 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Elevation Energy Group, LLC, 70670-70671 2016-24767 Exelon West Medway II, LLC, 70670 2016-24763 PSEG Energy Solutions, LLC, 70676 2016-24764 License Applications: Blackstone Hydro Associates, 70671 2016-24729 Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC, 70673-70674 2016-24728 West Street Hydro, Inc., 70670 2016-24730 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Arizona Public Service Co.; Pinnacle West Capital Corp., 70675 2016-24726 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 70680 2016-24769 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70680-70681 2016-24942 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Commercial Driver's License Requirements: Moving Ahead for Progress in 21st Century Act; Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012, 70634-70646 2016-24749 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 70737-70738 2016-24755 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Special Approvals of Alternate Standards, 70738-70739 2016-24678 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70739-70741 2016-24756 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 70682 2016-24671 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 70681-70682 2016-24669 2016-24672 2016-24753 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 70681 2016-24670 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Final Comprehensive Conservation Plans: Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, San Luis Obispo County, CA, 70696-70697 2016-24737 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70664 2016-24733 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Institute of Museum and Library Services Institute of Museum and Library Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums: Museums for America Special Initiative, 70707-70708 2016-24681 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES User Fees for Offers in Compromise, 70654-70658 2016-24666 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70741-70742 2016-24663 2016-24665 Meetings: Advisory Committee, 70742 2016-24673 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System, 70650-70652 2016-24649 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, 70701-70702 2016-24711 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Arrowheads with Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor, 70702-70704 2016-24719 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Oregon; Amended Proposed Withdrawal, 70697 2016-24743 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 70707 2016-24935 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Meetings: Arts Advisory Panel, 70708-70709 2016-24750 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 70709-70710 2016-24714 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

Institute of Museum and Library Services

See

National Endowment for the Arts

See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Mouse Cell Line Authentication Consortium, 70665-70666 2016-24768 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 70690-70691 2016-24693 Meetings: Biomedical Library and Informatics Review Committee, 70687 2016-24704 Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, 70691-70692 2016-24777 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 70689 2016-24706 Literature Selection Technical Review Committee, 70692 2016-24703 National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, 70687 2016-24695 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 70688, 70691 2016-24694 2016-24707 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 70688-70690 2016-24685 2016-24686 2016-24687 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 70687-70688 2016-24691 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 70688, 70693 2016-24683 2016-24689 National Institute of Mental Health, 70693-70694 2016-24692 National Library of Medicine, 70689-70690 2016-24705 National Library of Medicine Board of Regents, 70692-70693 2016-24702 Office of The Director, 70686-70687, 70689 2016-24684 2016-24688 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Modifications to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements, 70599-70607 2016-24457 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Jonah Crab Fishery, 70658-70660 2016-24746 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery: California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard Caps, 70660-70663 2016-24780 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Recovery Plans, 70666-70667 2016-24716 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve, HI, 70666 2016-24679 Meetings: Fisheries of South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 70667-70668 2016-24677 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 70668 2016-24712 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Park Service Concessions, 70697-70700 2016-24751 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Board of Visitors, 70669 2016-24740 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Procedures for Handling of Retaliation Complaints under Section 1558 of Affordable Care Act, 70607-70626 2016-24559 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70710 2016-24715 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70711 2016-24791 Appointments: Senior Executive Service-Performance Review Board, 70710-70711 2016-24789 Meetings: Federal Salary Council, 70710 2016-24792 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 70711-70712 2016-24713 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Columbus Day (Proc. 9520), 70915-70916 2016-24996 Fire Prevention Week (Proc. 9517), 70907-70910 2016-24992 General Pulaski Memorial Day (Proc. 9521), 70917-70918 2016-24997 International Day of the Girl (Proc. 9522), 70919-70921 2016-24999 Leif Erikson Day (Proc. 9519), 70913-70914 2016-24995 National School Lunch Week (Proc. 9518), 70911-70912 2016-24994 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Wireless Telecommunications Sites, 70712 2016-24739 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Standards for Covered Clearing Agencies, 70786-70906 2016-23891 PROPOSED RULES Definition of Covered Clearing Agencies, 70744-70784 2016-23892 NOTICES Applications: Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust, et al., 70712-70714 2016-24708 Filings and Orders: Proposed Plan for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities between Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; and Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 70728-70735 2016-24709 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 70714-70716, 70718-70719 2016-24701 2016-24776 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 70721-70722 2016-24698 ISE Gemini, LLC, 70716-70718 2016-24697 ISE Mercury, LLC, 70726-70728 2016-24696 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 70723-70726 2016-24775 NYSE Arca, Inc., 70719-70723 2016-24699 2016-24700 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Pierre Gouthiere: Virtuoso Gilder at French Court, 70735-70736 2016-24896 Surface Mining Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70700-70701 2016-24774 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 70695 2016-24682 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 70744-70784 2016-23892 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 70786-70906 2016-23891 Part IV Presidential Documents, 70907-70921 2016-24996 2016-24992 2016-24997 2016-24999 2016-24995 2016-24994 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.

81 198 Thursday, October 13, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-153-AD; Amendment 39-18666; AD 2016-19-17] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-23-19 for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. AD 2010-23-19 required repetitive inspections for damage of the main landing gear (MLG) inboard doors and fairing, and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD requires repetitive inspections for damage of the MLG inboard doors, MLG fairing, and adjacent structures of the MLG inboard doors, and corrective actions if necessary; replacement of the MLG fairing seal; and a terminating action involving increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and MLG door. This new AD also adds one airplane and removes others from the applicability. This AD was prompted by reports of the MLG failing to fully extend. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 17, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8471.

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-2015-8471; 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 (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ezra Sasson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7320; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010) (“AD 2010-23-19”). AD 2010-23-19 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3038) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of the MLG failing to fully extend. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections for damage of the MLG inboard doors and fairing, and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for damage of the MLG inboard doors, MLG fairing, and adjacent structures of the MLG inboard doors, and corrective actions if necessary; replacement of the MLG fairing seal; and a terminating action involving increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and MLG door. The NPRM also proposed to add one airplane and remove others from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-36R1, dated July 18, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, and 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

Two cases of main landing gear (MLG) failure to fully extend have been reported. An MLG failing to extend may result in an unsafe asymmetric landing configuration.

Preliminary investigation has shown that interference between the MLG door and the MLG fairing seal prevented the MLG door from opening.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the [detailed] inspection [for damage] and rectification [corrective action], as required, of the MLG fairing and seal, MLG door, and adjacent structures.

Data collected from the Original Issue of this [Canadian] AD shows potential deficiencies with the inspection. This [Canadian] AD is revised to update the applicability section and to introduce additional mitigating actions and the terminating action [a modification that includes related investigative actions, and corrective action if necessary].

The unsafe condition is the loss of controllability of the airplane during landing. Damage includes the following:

• For the MLG fairing seal: Cracks, cuts, or tears in the material of the MLG fairing seal, and cuts in the material base.

• For the MLG inboard doors: Missing or broken rollers on the MLG inboard door, missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, and damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

• For the MLG fairing: Missing forward and aft stops, loose or missing fasteners from the forward and aft stops, and damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG inboard door.

• For the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars: Missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, missing wedges, and loose or missing fasteners from the wedges.

Corrective actions include replacement of MLG fairing seals, and increasing the clearances between the MLG fairing and MLG door.

The terminating modification involves increasing the clearance between the left and right MLG fairings and the left and right MLG doors. Related investigative actions for the terminating modification include the following inspections:

• A detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for missing forward and aft stops, loose or missing fasteners from the forward and aft stops, and damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG inboard door.

• A detailed visual inspection of the MLG inboard door for missing or broken rollers on the MLG inboard door, missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, and damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

• A detailed visual inspection on the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars for missing stops, loose or missing fasteners from the stops, missing wedges, and loose or missing fasteners from the wedges.

• A liquid penetrant inspection or an eddy current inspection for cracks in the aft stop-fitting and stiffener of the forward member of the MLG inboard door.

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-2015-8471.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), stated that it supports the proposed requirements.

Request To Revise Preflight Check

ALPA requested that we mandate a flightcrew check of the MLG door from the rear during preflight checks of the aft portion of the MLG. ALPA stated that an informal poll of ALPA carriers suggested that there is not a universally required position from which to make such a check. ALPA suggested that including a specific MLG fairing seal check in the preflight procedures would enhance the preflight inspection.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. The door seals have numerous marks and the only way to determine if there is significant damage to the MLG door fairing and seal would be to perform a detailed inspection as specified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030. Flightcrews are not trained to accomplish this inspection and would not be able to accurately assess the damage during the limited time assigned for the preflight check. Canadian AD CF-2010-36R1, dated July 18, 2013, requires increasing the clearance between the MLG fairings and the MLG doors. The effectiveness of Canadian AD CF-2010-36R1 is being monitored, and we have no information that the required modification is not effective. As of April 2016, Bombardier In-Service-Engineering has confirmed that there have been no reports of the MLG door being jammed in the MLG fairing on airplanes that have done the actions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Revised Service Information

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision F, dated February 11, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision A, and Appendix B, Revision B, both dated July 12, 2014. This service information incorporates small editorial changes, which have no effect on airplanes that have incorporated prior revisions of this service information. We have revised paragraphs (n) and (o) of this AD to reference this service information as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in those paragraphs. We have also added a new paragraph (p)(3)(v) to this AD to give credit for accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 13, 2014.

Clarification of Revised Repair Instruction

We have clarified the revised repair instructions in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD by specifying that, as of the effective date of this AD, if damage other than the damage identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD is found the repairs must be approved using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comment 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 changes:

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier, Inc. has issued Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, which describes procedures for an inspection of the MLG inboard doors, MLG fairing, and adjacent structure of the MLG inboard doors. This service information also describes procedures for replacing damaged MLG fairing seal(s) and for a clearance check of the MLG door or, if necessary, for removing and/or installing a MLG door.

Bombardier, Inc. has also issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision F, dated February 11, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision A, and Appendix B, Revision B, both dated July 12, 2014. This service information describes procedures for increasing the clearances between the fairing and the MLG inboard doors, and between the MLG fairing and adjacent structure of the MLG doors. This service information also describes procedures for adjusting the MLG doors.

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 416 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2010-23-19 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2010-23-19 is $85 per inspection cycle for each product.

We also estimate that it takes about 50 work-hours for each product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,768,000, or $4,250 for each product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on replacement actions would take about 24 work-hours and require parts costing $2,626, for a cost of $4,666 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010), and adding the following new AD: 2016-19-17 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18666; Docket No. FAA-2015-8471; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-153-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective November 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2010-23-19, Amendment 39-16508 (75 FR 68695, November 9, 2010) (“AD 2010-23-19”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

(1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 10002 through 10333 inclusive.

(2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, having S/Ns 15001 through 15284 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG) failing to fully extend. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of controllability of the airplane during landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions, With New Service Information and Revised Repair Instructions

(1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2010-23-19, with new service information. For airplanes having S/Ns 10003 through 10313 inclusive, 15001 through 15238 inclusive, and 15240 through 15255 inclusive: Within 50 flight cycles after November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19), do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(iv) of this AD, in accordance with “PART A—Inspection of the MLG Inboard Doors, MLG Fairing and Adjacent Structure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013; as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours.

(i) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including wear lines, cracks, fraying, tears, and evidence of chafing) of the rubber seal of the MLG fairing.

(ii) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

(iii) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

(iv) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars.

(2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2010-23-19, with revised service information. For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, excluding the airplane having S/N 10002, and excluding airplanes having MLG fairing seals having part numbers (P/Ns) CC670-39244-5 and CC670-39244-6: Within 600 flight hours after November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19), do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, in accordance with “PART A—Inspection of the MLG Inboard Doors, MLG Fairing and Adjacent Structure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours.

(i) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including wear lines, cracks, fraying, tears, and evidence of chafing) of the rubber seal of the MLG fairing.

(ii) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

(iii) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

(iv) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars.

(3) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2010-23-19, with revised service information. If damage to only the rubber seal on the MLG fairing is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, do either action specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Replace the rubber seal on the MLG fairing with a new rubber seal, in accordance with “PART B—Replacement of the Forward Rubber Seal on the MLG Fairing,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

(ii) Remove the MLG inboard door, in accordance with “PART C—Removal of MLG Inboard Door,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with “PART D—Installation of MLG Inboard Door,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, to accomplish the actions required by this paragraph.

(4) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2010-23-19, with revised repair instructions. If damage other than the damage identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, contact the Bombardier Regional Aircraft Customer Response Center for repair instructions and do the repair; or repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). As of the effective date of this AD, if damage other than the damage identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(h) New Inspections of MLG Fairing Seal Having P/N CC670-39244-1 or CC670-39244-2

For airplanes on which an MLG fairing seal having P/N CC670-39244-1 or P/N CC670-39244-2 is installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

(1) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including cracking, cuts, and tears in the material (fabric/rubber)) of the MLG fairing and seal.

(2) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing and broken rollers, loose and missing fasteners, and damaged and missing stops) of the MLG inboard doors, and for damage along the edge of the MLG inboard door adjacent to the MLG fairing.

(3) Do a detailed inspection of the MLG fairing for damage (including missing forward and aft stops, and loose and missing fasteners), and for damage (including, but not limited to, corrosion, cracking, and dents) along the edge of the MLG fairing adjacent to the MLG door.

(4) Do a detailed inspection for damage (including missing stops, loose and missing fasteners, and missing wedges) of the stops and wedges on the forward and aft spars.

(i) New Compliance Times for the Actions Required by Paragraph (h) of This AD

This paragraph specifies the compliance times for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(1) The initial compliance time is specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.

(i) For airplanes having S/Ns 10002 through 10313 inclusive; 15001 through 15238 inclusive; and S/Ns 15240 through 15255 inclusive: Within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.

(ii) For all other airplane serial numbers: Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.

(2) Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Repeat the inspections within 200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours.

(ii) Repeat the inspections within 600 flight hours after the most recent inspection done in accordance with the requirements of AD 2010-23-19. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours.

(j) New Corrective Actions

(1) If any damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

(i) Before further flight, remove the MLG inboard doors, in accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with Part D of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013.

(ii) Before further flight, replace the MLG fairing seals, in accordance with Part E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. Within 200 flight hours after installing the MLG fairing seals, do the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(2) If any damage other than that specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD is found, or if parts or fasteners are found missing, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(k) New Replacement of MLG Fairing Seals

Within 2,500 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD: Replace any MLG fairing seals having P/Ns CC670-39244-1 and CC670-39244-2 with P/Ns CC670-39244-5 and CC670-39244-6, respectively, in accordance with Part E of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

(l) New MLG Fairing Seal Post-Replacement Inspections

Within 600 flight hours after installing fairing seals having P/Ns CC670-39244-5 or CC670-39244-6: Do the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. If any damage to the MLG fairing seal is found during any inspection required by this paragraph: Before further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. If no damage is found during any inspection required by this paragraph, repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, except as provided in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(m) New Exception to MLG Fairing Seal Post-Replacement Inspections

After accomplishment of the initial inspections specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, removal of the MLG inboard door, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, defers the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD until the MLG inboard door is re-installed. For airplanes on which the MLG inboard door is re-installed, do the installation of the MLG inboard door in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013, except as specified in paragraph (o) of this AD; and before the accumulation of 600 flight hours on the MLG inboard door since the actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD were accomplished, do the inspections specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, and repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(n) New Terminating Modification

Within 6,600 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Modify the airplane by increasing the clearance between the left and right MLG fairings and the left and right MLG doors; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision F, dated February 11, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision A, and Appendix B, Revision B, both dated July 12, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If an MLG door has been removed, the modification may be delayed until the MLG door is re-installed in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013. Accomplishing this modification terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (m) of this AD for that MLG door.

(o) Exceptions to Bombardier Service Information

Where Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision F, dated February 11, 2016, including Appendix A, Revision A, and Appendix B, Revision B, dated July 12, 2014; specify to contact the Bombardier Customer Response Center for an analysis or to get an approved disposition, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

(1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of AD 2010-23-19, with additional service information. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 24, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-23-19), using Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, dated October 18, 2010; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, dated October 22, 2010.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii), (h), (j)(1), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (p)(2)(i), (p)(2)(ii), or (p)(2)(iii) of this AD.

(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision A, including Appendix A, dated October 22, 2010.

(ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision B, dated November 3, 2011.

(iii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision C, dated March 13, 2013.

(3) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (n) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (p)(3)(i), (p)(3)(ii), (p)(3)(iii), (p)(3)(iv), or (p)(3)(v) of this AD.

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision A, dated March 13, 2013.

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision B, dated August 6, 2013.

(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision C, dated November 1, 2013.

(iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision D, dated July 2, 2014.

(v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision E, dated November 13, 2014.

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(r) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2010-36R1, dated July 18, 2013, 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-2015-8471.

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

(s) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A670BA-32-030, Revision D, dated August 6, 2013.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-040, Revision F, dated February 11, 2016, including the following appendices.

(A) Appendix A, Revision A, dated July 12, 2014.

(B) Appendix B, Revision B, dated July 12, 2014.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 14, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22835 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 15 CFR Part 902 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 160225147-6898-02] RIN 0648-BF83 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Modifications to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NMFS issues regulations to modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands management areas. This rule is organized into four actions. Under the first action, NMFS implements a requirement for tender vessel operators to use the applications software “tLandings” to prepare electronic landing reports. This action is necessary to improve timeliness and reliability of landing reports for catcher vessels delivering to tender vessels for use in catch accounting and inseason management. Under the second action, NMFS modifies the definition of a buying station. This action is necessary to clarify the different requirements that apply to tender vessels and land-based buying stations. Under the third action, NMFS removes the requirement for buying stations to complete the buying station report because this report is no longer necessary. Under the fourth action, NMFS revises the definition of a mothership to remove unnecessary formatting without changing the substance of the definition. This final rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP), the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP), and other applicable laws.

DATES:

Effective January 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this rule may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; in person at NMFS Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK; by email to [email protected]; or by fax to 202-395-5806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keeley Kent, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NMFS published a proposed rule to modify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management areas on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50436). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on August 31, 2016. NMFS received one comment.

Background

This final rule is organized into four actions. The first action implements a requirement for tender vessel operators to use tLandings. The second action modifies the definition of buying station so that tender vessels and land-based buying stations are differentiated under the regulations. The third action removes the requirement for buying stations to complete the buying station report. The fourth action modifies the definition of a mothership to simplify the unnecessary paragraph formatting. The following sections of the preamble describe (1) background on the Interagency Electronic Reporting System and tendering, (2) the need for action, (3) the final rule, (4) the response to comments, and (5) the changes from the proposed rule. The preamble of the proposed rule (81 FR 50436; August 1, 2016) provides a more detailed description of the background and need for this action.

Interagency Electronic Reporting System

The Interagency Electronic Reporting System (IERS) is a collaborative program for reporting commercial fishery landings administered by NMFS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. The IERS consists of three main components: eLandings—a web-based application for immediate harvest data upload from internet-capable vessels or processors; seaLandings—a desktop application for vessels at sea without internet capability that transmits reports by satellite phone; and tLandings—a software application for tender vessels that records landings data on a USB flash drive (“thumb drive”) that includes all of the data fields required under IERS. NMFS requires all shoreside or floating processors that hold a Federal processing permit to use eLandings or other NMFS-approved software to submit landing reports for all groundfish species.

Tendering

A tender vessel is defined under § 679.2 as a vessel that is used to transport unprocessed fish or shellfish received from another vessel to an associated processor. An associated processor is defined under § 679.2 as having a contractual relationship with a buying station to conduct groundfish buying station activities for that processor. The contractual relationship in the Federal regulations creates joint responsibility for recordkeeping and reporting. For more information on tendering, see Section 1.5 of the RIR.

Need for This Final Rule

This action is necessary to enable NMFS to identify tender vessel deliveries and to provide reliable, expeditious data for catch accounting and inseason management of fisheries with tender vessel deliveries. In addition, this action is necessary to correct and clarify other regulations in 50 CFR part 679 that are related to recordkeeping and reporting by tender vessels and associated processors.

Prior to this final rule, when a tender vessel received catch from a vessel, the tender vessel operator completed a paper fish ticket. Once the transfer was complete, the vessel operator signed the paper fish ticket acknowledging the transfer of catch and agreeing to the information provided. When the tender vessel delivered the catch to the processor, the tender vessel operator provided the paper fish ticket to the processor. The processor then verified the information and manually entered the fish ticket data into eLandings to create a landing report. Landing reports are required to be submitted to NMFS by noon of the day following the delivery. The processor's manual entry of fish ticket data, including review and correction of the data, sometimes made it difficult for the processor to meet this submission deadline and delayed the availability of the tender vessel landing data to NMFS.

The lack of electronic data from tenders reduced data reliability and timeliness. Additionally, with the lack of electronic data from tenders, NMFS was unable to differentiate deliveries to tender vessels from deliveries to processors unless the processor voluntarily entered the tender vessel identification number in the eLandings report. NMFS had, in the past, raised concerns about landings data reliability and timeliness in analyses presented to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and fishery participants. The tLandings requirement reduces data entry errors and the time required to manually enter fish tickets. Requiring tLandings reduces the likelihood of a processor needing to recall a tender vessel if a fish ticket is illegible or incorrectly filled out. Additionally, requiring tLandings eliminates the need for comprehensive manual data entry by processor staff, simplifying and expediting the data transmission to NMFS.

Data timeliness and reliability are paramount to effective inseason management. Almost real-time access to the data is particularly important for fast-paced fisheries that operate under small total allowable catch limits, constraining prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, or that have inconsistent and unpredictable levels of fishing effort. NMFS requires timely data for the successful management of these fisheries. In addition, NMFS uses timely data for any catch share program that involves transferable allocations of target species. NMFS inseason management and Office of Law Enforcement rely on the data provided through eLandings to monitor compliance with requirements that quota holders not exceed their allocations. Management and enforcement of PSC-limited and catch share fisheries become more difficult when data access is delayed. For more information on the potential implications of the lack of electronic data entry on management, see Sections 1.3 and 1.8 of the RIR.

This rule requires tenders to use tLandings. tLandings is a computer application used on computers on board tender vessels to create electronic landing reports. The tLandings application is loaded onto a thumb drive; the tender vessel operator creates the landing reports and stores them on the thumb drive. The mandatory use of tLandings will provide a streamlined data entry mechanism that ensures efficient, precise data transmission.

This Final Rule Action 1: Require Tender Vessel Operators To Use tLandings

Action 1 of this rule requires tender vessel operators to use tLandings to prepare electronic landing reports. Action 1 is necessary to improve data quality for deliveries made to tender vessels.

Under this rule, the eLandings user (defined as a representative of a processor under § 679.2, i.e., an employee) is required to supply the tender vessel operator with a “configured” tLandings application for computer installation prior to the tender vessel operator taking delivery of fish or shellfish from a fishing vessel. A configured tLandings application is preloaded with a list of the authorized users, a species list, and other useful data for the associated processor and tender vessel operator. The tender vessel operator must record the required information in tLandings for each delivery the tender vessel accepts. Once the tender vessel delivers the catch to the associated processor, the user (as defined at § 679.2) is required to complete the eLandings landing report by uploading the tLandings data through the Processor Tender Interface component of eLandings. After the completion of the delivery, the processor may sort the catch and update the landing data appropriately.

The processor will continue to be subject to the time limits for data submission specified under § 679.5(e). For shoreside processors and stationary floating processors, users must submit a landing report for each delivery by 1200 hours, Alaska local time, of the day following completion of the delivery (§ 679.5(e)(5)(ii)). These processors have until 1200 hours, Alaska local time, of the third day following completion of the delivery to submit a revised landing report after sorting has occurred. Under this rule, tender vessels delivering to shoreside processors or stationary floating processors are required to abide by these submittal time limits.

Under this rule, the tender vessel operator is responsible for completing the tLandings landing report and submitting it to the processor. This creates a joint responsibility for the tLandings landing report information for the tender vessel operator and the processor. Section 1.9.4 of the RIR provides additional detail on the monitoring and enforcement of the tLandings requirements.

To use tLandings, each tender vessel needs a laptop computer with a numeric key pad, a basic laser printer with ink cartridges and paper, a magstripe reader, and thumb drives that contain the tLandings application. NMFS estimates that using tLandings will increase the annual cost to tender vessels from $1,000 to $2,300. Section 1.4 of the RIR describes that most tender vessels are voluntarily using tLandings to report Federal groundfish landings, and many are required to use tLandings to report landings made in fisheries managed by the State of Alaska (State). Therefore, the total additional costs and burden on tender vessel operations are expected to be limited. See Section 1.9.1.1 of the RIR for more information on the estimated cost of equipment.

Operating the tLandings application requires some training and practice for both the tender vessel operators and processor staff. NMFS assumes that the initial and ongoing training costs to use tLandings will likely be shared by NMFS and the processor using tender vessels. NMFS may bear an initial cost for training processors on the use of tLandings, after which it will be the processors' responsibility to provide training for their tender vessel operators. NMFS estimates that it will require a full day of initial training for new tLandings users. Section 1.9.1.2 of the RIR describes projected training costs in more detail.

Because processors are already subject to an eLandings reporting requirement, processors likely have staff proficient with the IERS software, so there is not expected to be significant additional training required for the tLandings requirement.

Under this rule, NMFS will add a data field to the tLandings application to track the location of tenders when they take deliveries from vessels. The tender vessel operator is required to report the vessel's latitude and longitude at the time of each vessel delivery. This data is necessary to improve information on tender vessel activity and vessel delivery patterns when delivering to a tender vessel as opposed to a processor. This data field is not expected to add a reporting burden on tender vessel operators.

Section 1.5.1 of the RIR estimates that 30 tender vessels received Federal groundfish in the BSAI and GOA in 2015. Those tender vessels delivered to eight processors. Many tender vessels that operate in the Federal groundfish fisheries also operate in the State groundfish fisheries. Under State regulations these tender vessels are already subject to a State tLandings requirement and may already be equipped with tLandings from ADF&G. In 2015, 21 of the 30 tender vessels also took delivery of State groundfish. NMFS expects that there will be minimal additional cost for these tender vessels to also use tLandings for Federal groundfish. The tLandings requirement under this rule affects nine tender vessels. The eight processors that received Federal groundfish from tender vessels in 2015 also received State groundfish from tender vessels; therefore, the effect of this rule on processors is estimated to be minimal.

Action 2: Differentiate Tender Vessels From Buying Stations

Action 2 of this rule revises the definitions of tender vessel and buying station for improved clarity to ensure that the reporting requirements that are applicable to tender vessels and land-based buying stations are clear to the public. Prior to this final rule, under § 679.2, the definition of a buying station includes both tender vessels and land-based buying stations. Under § 679.2, tender vessel is separately defined as a vessel used to transport unprocessed fish or shellfish received from another vessel to an associated processor. While many recordkeeping and reporting requirements that apply to buying stations should include both tender vessels and land-based buying stations, not all of the reporting requirements that apply to buying stations should apply to both tender vessels and land-based buying stations. Additionally, while a tender vessel may be associated with a shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or mothership, a land-based buying station is only associated with a shoreside processor. Action 2 does not revise or modify the specific provisions of reporting requirements, but clarifies who is responsible for each requirement.

Action 3: Remove the Buying Station Report Requirement

Action 3 of this rule removes the requirement in § 679.5(d) for a buying station to submit a Buying Station Report. The most recent year of landing report data in 2015 shows that all 54 active buying stations are associated with shoreside processors that use eLandings. NMFS receives the landing data it needs through eLandings, and so does not need to require that the data be submitted in a Buying Station Report. Removing the requirement to submit a Buying Station Report removes a duplicative reporting requirement and reduces the burden on the regulated public. Buying stations will continue to be required to submit landing reports using eLandings.

To implement Action 3, this rule modifies references in the regulations to clarify whether certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements apply to tender vessels, buying stations, or both. Additionally, this rule removes the qualifier “land-based” from references to buying stations in the regulations because buying station is defined in the regulations as a land-based entity. Finally, NMFS revises the definition of “manager” to effectively include “stationary floating processor” managers.

Action 4: Revise Mothership Definition

Action 4 of this rule revises the definition of mothership in § 679.2 to simplify the structure of the definition by moving the text of paragraph (1) into the main body of the definition and deleting reserved paragraph (2). This minor technical correction does not substantively change the definition of a mothership.

Comments and Responses

NMFS received one comment letter from the public that contained one unique substantive comment during the public comment period for the proposed rule to implement these four actions. NMFS' response to this comment is presented below.

Comment: Will tender vessels that tender IFQ halibut need to use tLandings to submit landing reports?

Response: No. Tender vessels are not required to use tLandings for IFQ halibut. This rule does not alter the existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The final rule is modified as described below to clarify that tender vessels that take deliveries of non-IFQ groundfish will be subject to this rule.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

This final rule includes changes to the regulatory text published in the proposed rule.

This final rule includes a change to the regulatory text that was made in response to the comment received on the proposed rule to clarify who is required to use tLandings under this rule. The proposed rule did not make clear that the tLandings rule will not apply to tender vessels that take IFQ halibut or sablefish, Community Development Quota (CDQ) halibut, or Crab Rationalization Program (CR) crab. While tenders are not regularly used in any of these fisheries, several minor modifications to the regulatory text in the final rule will make this distinction clear.

The tLandings application is not configured to accommodate reporting of IFQ species or CDQ halibut. In addition, the IFQ species and CDQ halibut are reported to NMFS on different landing reports than are used for non-IFQ groundfish species. IFQ halibut and sablefish and CDQ halibut are reported to NMFS on a Registered Buyer landing report. CR crab are reported on a Registered Crab Receiver IFQ crab landing report. Groundfish, other than IFQ sablefish, are required to be reported on a shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or Community Quota Entity floating processor landing report. Only tender vessels that take deliveries of non-IFQ groundfish in the BSAI and GOA will be required to use and complete tLandings.

The regulatory language in the proposed rule specified that tLandings would be required for fish or shellfish required to be reported on a shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or Community Quota Entity (CQE) floating processor landing report (“a landing report under § 679.5(e)(5)”). Therefore, to make the needed clarification in the final rule, NMFS revises the regulatory language at new paragraph § 679.5(e)(14) to refer to “groundfish” rather than “fish or shellfish” and to cross reference the deadlines specified for the shoreside processor, stationary floating processor or CQE floating processor landing report.

This final rule includes three changes to the regulatory text in the proposed rule specific to Action 2. Action 2 is intended to clarify the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to tender vessels and land-based buying stations. As explained in the section “Action 2: Differentiate Tender Vessels from Buying Stations,” this rule revises the definitions of tender vessels and buying stations so that a tender vessel is a vessel and a buying station is a land-based entity. The difference in these two operation types requires differentiating the individual responsible for recordkeeping and reporting requirements for each entity to maintain consistency with how NMFS identifies the individual responsible for other operation types. For vessels that are mobile as a part of daily operations, NMFS identifies the individual responsible for recordkeeping and reporting requirements as the operator of that vessel. For shoreside and stationary floating processors (non-mobile operations), NMFS identifies the manager as the individual responsible. In this final rule, NMFS revises the regulatory text at § 679.5(a)(2)(i), (b), (c)(6)(i), and (e)(5)(iii) to clarify that the individual responsible for recordkeeping and reporting requirements on a vessel, including a tender vessel, is the operator, while the individual responsible at a buying station is the manager. This differentiation is consistent with the identification of the operator of a catcher vessel, catcher/processor, and mothership as the individual responsible and the manager of a shoreside processor or stationary floating processor as the individual responsible. These three revisions from the proposed to final rule are necessary to provide consistency with the intent of Action 2.

An additional minor revision to the regulatory text in this final rule will change the abbreviation required to be used in the mothership daily catch and production logbook at § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(A) from “BS” to “TV.” This revision is necessary to maintain consistency with the proposed change from “buying station” to “tender vessel” in that paragraph.

In the proposed rule, NMFS proposed to revise Table 13 to 50 CFR part 679 to remove the notation for a buying station or tender vessel to complete a buying station report. In keeping with the intent of Action 3 of this rule, NMFS will remove the entire row pertaining to the buying station report rather than only removing the notation.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, the GOA FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

Small Entity Compliance Guide

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 50436; August 1, 2016) and the preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide for this action. In addition, a user guide for tLandings is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (https://elandings.atlassian.net/wiki/display/doc/tLandings).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.

This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA describes the impacts on small entities, which are defined in the IRFA for this action and not repeated here. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in RFA, section 604(a)(1) through (6). The FRFA must contain:

1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

3. The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;

4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and

6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

The “universe” of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof (e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment will be considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.

In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not practicable or reliable.

Need for and Objectives of This Final Rule

The lack of electronic data from tenders reduces data reliability and timeliness. Data timeliness and reliability are paramount to effective inseason management. Almost real-time access to the data is particularly important for fast-paced fisheries that operate under small total allowable catch limits, constraining PSC limits, or that have inconsistent and unpredictable levels of fishing effort. NMFS requires timely data for the successful management of these fisheries. In addition, NMFS uses timely data for any catch share program that involves transferable allocations of target species. NMFS inseason management and Office of Law Enforcement rely on the data provided through eLandings to monitor compliance with requirements that quota holders not exceed their allocations. Management and enforcement of PSC-limited and catch share fisheries become more difficult when data access is delayed.

Additionally, with the lack of electronic data from tenders, NMFS is unable to differentiate deliveries to tender vessels from deliveries to processors unless the processor voluntarily enters the tender vessel identification number in the eLandings report. NMFS has, in the past, raised concerns about landings data reliability and timeliness in analyses presented to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and fishery participants.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

NMFS published the proposed rule on August 1, 2016 (81 FR 50436), with comments invited through August 31, 2016. An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the proposed rule. No comments were received that raised significant issues in response to the IRFA specifically; therefore, no changes were made to this rule as a result of comments on the IRFA. However, a comment was received on the entities affected by this rule. For a summary of this comment and the agency's response, refer to the section above titled “Comments and Responses.”

Number and Description of Directly Regulated Small Entities

For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

The SBA has established size criteria for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including fish processing businesses. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.

Action 1 of this rule affects tender vessels and processors that receive deliveries of groundfish from tender vessels. For the purposes of the FRFA, a tender vessel is categorized as a wholesale business servicing the fishing industry. Most tender vessels are independently owned and operated entities that are contracted with processors. The exceptions are tender vessels owned by processors. NMFS does not have data on the number of employees on tender vessels, and therefore conservatively assumes all tender vessels that are independently owned and operated are small entities.

Of the 30 tender vessels affected by this action, five are owned by processors that are large entities. Therefore, through affiliation, these five tender vessels are not small entities under the SBA definition. The additional 25 independently owned tender vessels are small entities under the SBA definition. In 2015, there were 8 processors that received groundfish deliveries from tender vessels. None of these processors directly regulated by this action qualify as small entities for the purposes of the SBA.

Action 2 of this rule does not add new requirements for tender vessels or buying stations; it only clarifies which requirements the entities are subject to. Therefore this action is expected to have a small positive impact. This action affects the 30 tender vessels and 54 buying stations that were active in 2015.

Action 3 of this rule removes a requirement on participants that is not currently used; therefore, it is expected to have no effect on participants.

Action 4 of this rule revises the definition of mothership to make it more straightforward and does not modify the definition in a substantive way; therefore, it has no effect on participants.

Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

This rule requires modifications to the current recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System collection (OMB Control Number 0648-0515). The modifications include requiring tender vessel operators to complete the data fields on the tLandings tender workstation application for each delivery the tender vessel accepts from a vessel. Additionally, the tender vessel operator is required to provide the completed tLandings application to the processor on delivery. The processor is then required to upload the information provided by the tender vessel operator in the tLandings application into the eLandings landing report.

This rule removes the Buying Station Report requirement. NMFS receives the landing data it needs through eLandings, and does not need the data submitted in the Buying Station Report. The Buying Station Report is discontinued from any future use. Removing the requirement to submit a Buying Station Report removes a duplicative reporting requirement and reduces the burden on the regulated public. Buying stations will continue to be required to submit landing reports using eLandings.

Description of Significant Alternatives to This Rule That Minimize Economic Impacts on Small Entities

Under each action, NMFS considered two alternatives—the no action alternative and the action alternative. NMFS did not identify any other alternatives that meet the objectives of these actions at a lower cost and reduce economic impact on small entities. The no action alternative for Action 1 would have maintained the existing process of tender vessel operators completing paper fish tickets for each delivery and giving the information to the processor to transcribe and upload into eLandings. Maintaining the manual writing and submission of tender delivery data would not have met the objective of providing timely and accurate landing data.

To help reduce the burden of this regulation on small entities and minimize their costs, NMFS will develop the tLandings tender workstation application and provide that at no cost to participants to provide services and products useful to the industry. NMFS will also provide user support and training. Additionally, NMFS will share some of the training costs for processors to learn how to use tLandings.

The action alternatives for Actions 2, 3, and 4 have been determined to have either a small positive effect or no effect on participants, and therefore are not discussed further.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0515. Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 15 minutes for IERS application processor registration; 35 minutes for eLandings landing report; 35 minutes for manual landing report; 15 minutes for catcher/processor or mothership eLandings production report; and 35 minutes for tLandings landing report.

Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), 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.

List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 902

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 679

Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 3, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows: Authority:

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

§ 902.1 [Amended]
2. In § 902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry “50 CFR” remove the entry for “679.5(d).” PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 3. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

4. In § 679.2, revise the definitions for “Buying station”, “Manager”, “Mothership”, “Tender vessel”, and “User” to read as follows:
§ 679.2 Definitions.

Buying station means a land-based entity that receives unprocessed groundfish from a vessel for delivery to a shoreside processor and that does not process those fish.

Manager, with respect to any shoreside processor, stationary floating processor, or buying station, means the individual responsible for the operation of the processor or buying station.

Mothership means a vessel that receives and processes groundfish from other vessels.

Tender vessel means a vessel that is used to transport unprocessed fish or shellfish received from another vessel to an associated processor.

User means, for purposes of IERS and its components including eLandings and tLandings, an individual representative of a Registered Buyer; a Registered Crab Receiver; a mothership or catcher/processor that is required to have a Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) under § 679.4; a shoreside processor or SFP and mothership that receives groundfish from vessels issued an FFP under § 679.4; any shoreside processor or SFP that is required to have a Federal processor permit under § 679.4; and his or her designee(s).

5. In § 679.5: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (b), and (c)(6)(i); b. Remove paragraph (c)(6)(viii)(E); c. Remove and reserve paragraph (d); d. Revise paragraphs (e)(3)(i), (e)(5)(i)(A)(7), and (e)(5)(iii); and e. Add paragraph (e)(14).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) The operator of a catcher vessel, catcher/processor, mothership, or tender vessel (hereafter referred to as the operator) and the manager of a shoreside processor, SFP, or buying station (hereafter referred to as the manager) are each responsible for complying with the applicable R&R requirements in this section and in § 679.28.

(b) Representative. The operator of a catcher vessel, mothership, catcher/processor, or tender vessel or manager of a shoreside processor, SFP, or buying station may identify one contact person to complete the logbook and forms and to respond to inquiries from NMFS. Designation of a representative under this paragraph (b) does not relieve the owner, operator, or manager of responsibility for compliance under paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.

(c) * * *

(6) * * *

(i) Responsibility. Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this section, the operator of a mothership that is required to have an FFP under § 679.4(b), or the manager of a CQE floating processor that receives or processes any groundfish from the GOA or BSAI from vessels issued an FFP under § 679.4(b), is required to use a combination of mothership DCPL and eLandings to record and report daily processor identification information, delivery information, groundfish production data, and groundfish and prohibited species discard or disposition data. The operator or manager must enter into the DCPL any information for groundfish received from catcher vessels, groundfish received from processors for reprocessing or rehandling, and groundfish received from an associated tender vessel.

(e) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) Operation type. Select the operation type from the dropdown list.

(5) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(7) If the delivery is received from a buying station, indicate the name of the buying station. If the delivery is received from a tender vessel, enter the ADF&G vessel registration number.

(iii) Compliance. By using eLandings, the User for the shoreside processor or SFP and the operator for the catcher vessel or tender vessel or manager of the buying station providing information to the User for the shoreside processor or SFP accept the responsibility of and acknowledge compliance with § 679.7(a)(10).

(14) Tender vessel landing report (“tLandings”). (i) tLandings. tLandings is an applications software for preparing electronic landing reports for commercial fishery landings to tender vessels.

(ii) Tender vessel operator responsibility. The operator of a tender vessel taking delivery of groundfish that is required to be reported to NMFS on a landing report under paragraph (e)(5) of this section must use tLandings to enter information about each landing of groundfish and must provide that information to the User defined under § 679.2.

(iii) User responsibility. The User must configure and provide the tender vessel operator with the most recent version of the tLandings tender workstation application prior to the tender vessel taking delivery of groundfish.

(iv) Information entered for each groundfish delivery. The tender vessel operator must log into the configured tLandings tender workstation application and provide the information required on the computer screen. Additional instructions for tLandings is on the Alaska Region Web site at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

(v) Submittal time limit. (A) The tender vessel operator must provide the landing information in tLandings to the User at the commencement of the transfer or offload of groundfish from the tender vessel to the processor.

(B) The User must upload the data recorded in tLandings by the tender vessel to prepare the initial landing report for a catcher vessel delivering to a tender vessel that is required under paragraph (e)(5) of this section within the submittal time limit specified under paragraph (e)(5).

(vi) Compliance. By using tLandings, the User and the tender vessel operator providing information to the User accept the responsibility of and acknowledge compliance with § 679.7(a)(10).

6. In § 679.7, revise paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows:
§ 679.7 Prohibitions.

(a) * * *

(11) Buying station or tender vessel—(i) Tender vessel. Use a catcher vessel or catcher/processor as a tender vessel before offloading all groundfish or groundfish product harvested or processed by that vessel.

(ii) Associated processor. Function as a tender vessel or buying station without an associated processor.

7. Revise table 13 to part 679 to read as follows: Table 13 to Part 679—Transfer Form Summary If participant type is . . . And has . . . Fish product onboard And is involved in this activity VAR 1 PTR 2 Transship 3 Departure
  • report 4
  • Dockside sales
  • receipt 5
  • Landing
  • receipt 6
  • Catcher vessel greater than 60 ft LOA, mothership, or catcher/processor Only non-IFQ groundfish Vessel leaving or entering Alaska X Catcher vessel greater than 60 ft LOA, mothership, or catcher/processor Only IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or CR crab Vessel leaving Alaska X Catcher vessel greater than 60 ft LOA, mothership, or catcher/processor Combination of IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or CR crab and non-IFQ groundfish Vessel leaving Alaska X X Mothership, catcher/processor, shoreside processor, or SFP Non-IFQ groundfish Shipment of groundfish product X Mothership, catcher/processor, shoreside processor, or SFP Donated PSC Shipment of donated PSC X Registered Buyer IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, or CDQ halibut Transfer of product X A person holding a valid IFQ permit, IFQ hired master permit, or Registered Buyer permit IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, or CDQ halibut Transfer of product XXX Registered Buyer IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, or CDQ halibut Transfer from landing site to Registered Buyer's processing facility XX Vessel operator Processed IFQ sablefish, IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or CR crab Transshipment between vessels XXXX Registered Crab Receiver CR crab Transfer of product X Registered Crab Receiver CR crab Transfer from landing site to RCR's processing facility XX 1 A vessel activity report (VAR) is described at § 679.5(k). 2 A product transfer report (PTR) is described at § 679.5(g). 3 An IFQ transshipment authorization is described at § 679.5(l)(3). 4 An IFQ departure report is described at § 679.5(l)(4). 5 An IFQ dockside sales receipt is described at § 679.5(g)(2)(iv). 6 A landing receipt is described at § 679.5(e)(8)(vii). X indicates under what circumstances each report is submitted. XX indicates that the document must accompany the transfer of IFQ species from landing site to processor. XXX indicates receipt must be issued to each receiver in a dockside sale. XXXX indicates authorization must be obtained 24 hours in advance.
    §§ 679.2, 679.5, 679.7, and 679.51 and Table 1b to Part 679 [Amended]
    8. At each of the locations shown in the “Location” column, remove the phrase indicated in the “Remove” column and replace it with the phrase indicated in the “Add” column for the number of times indicated in the “Frequency” column. Location Remove Add Frequency § 679.2 “Agent” (1) buying station buying station, tender vessel 1 § 679.2 “Agent” (2) buying station buying station or tender vessel 1 § 679.2 “Associated processor” buying station buying station or tender vessel 3 § 679.2 “Shoreside processor” buying stations buying stations, tender vessels 1 § 679.5(a)(2)(ii) or buying station buying station, or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(a)(3)(ii) catcher vessels and buying stations catcher vessels, buying stations, and tender vessels 1 § 679.5(a)(3)(iii) catcher vessel or buying station catcher vessel, buying station, or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(1)(vi)(B)(4) or buying station buying station, or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(3)(ii)(A)(3) or buying station buying station, or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(3)(viii) buying station buying station, tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(3)(x) buying station buying station, tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(4)(ii)(A)(3) or buying station buying station, or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(4)(viii) buying station buying station, tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(4)(x) buying station buying station, tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(ii)(A) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi) introductory text buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(A) BS TV 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(A) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(B) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(C) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(F) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(vi)(H) buying station tender vessel 2 § 679.5(c)(6)(vii) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(c)(6)(viii)(A) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(3)(viii) buying station buying station, tender vessel, 1 § 679.5(e)(5)(i) introductory text buying station buying station or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(5)(i)(A)(6) buying station buying station or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(5)(i)(C)(1) buying station buying station or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(6)(i) introductory text buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(6)(i)(B)(1) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(e)(6)(iii) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(f)(1)(v) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.5(f)(5)(ii) buying station buyer station or tender vessel 1 § 679.5(p)(1) buying station tender vessel 1 § 679.7(d)(4)(i)(C) buying station buying station or tender vessel 1 § 679.51(e)(3) or buying station buying station, or tender vessel 1 Table 1b to Part 679 and buying stations buying stations, and tender vessels 1
    [FR Doc. 2016-24457 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1984 [Docket Number: OSHA-2011-0193] RIN 1218-AC79 Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides the final text of regulations governing employee protection (retaliation or whistleblower) claims under section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act, which added section 18C to the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protections to employees who may have been subject to retaliation for seeking assistance under certain affordability assistance provisions (for example, health insurance premium tax credits) or for reporting potential violations of the Affordable Care Act's consumer protections (for example, the prohibition on rescissions). An interim final rule (IFR) governing these provisions and request for comments was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2013. Thirteen comments were received; eleven were responsive to the IFR. This rule responds to those comments and establishes the final procedures and time frames for the handling of retaliation complaints under section 18C, including procedures and time frames for employee complaints to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), investigations by OSHA, appeals of OSHA determinations to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for a hearing de novo, hearings by ALJs, review of ALJ decisions by the Administrative Review Board (ARB) (acting on behalf of the Secretary of Labor), and judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's (Secretary's) final decision. It also sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of the Affordable Care Act whistleblower provision on certain matters.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on October 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anh-Viet Ly, Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-4624, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2199; email: [email protected] This is not a toll-free number.

    This Federal Register publication is available in alternative formats. The alternative formats available are: Large print, electronic file on computer disk (Word Perfect, ASCII, Mates with Duxbury Braille System), and audiotape.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and was amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, that was signed into law on March 30, 2010. The terms “Affordable Care Act,” or “Act,” or “ACA” are used in this rulemaking to refer to the final, amended version of the law.

    Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to add section 18C, 29 U.S.C. 218C (section 18C), which provides protection to employees against retaliation by an employer for engaging in certain protected activities.

    Under section 18C, an employer may not retaliate against an employee for receiving a credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) or cost-sharing reductions (referred to as a “subsidy” in section 18C) under the Affordable Care Act. In general, section 36B of the Code allows certain individuals to receive the premium tax credit for coverage under a qualified health plan through an Exchange if they are not eligible for health coverage (other than in the individual market) including an offer from their employer of affordable coverage that provides minimum value and if their household income is between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line. In addition, individuals eligible for the premium tax credit may also qualify for cost-sharing reductions if certain other qualifications are met.

    Individuals may qualify for advance payment of the premium tax credit (APTC), which is payment during the year to an individual's insurance provider that pays for part or all of the premiums for a qualified health plan through the Exchange covering the individual and his or her family. Eligibility for APTC is based on the Exchange's estimate of the premium tax credit to which the individual will be entitled on his or her tax return. Filing of an individual's federal income tax return is the process through which an individual claims the premium tax credit, and if APTC was paid for the individual or a member of his or her family, it is also the process through which the individual must reconcile the APTC with the premium tax credit.

    Since 2015, under section 4980H of the Code, certain employers (referred to as applicable large employers) must either offer health coverage that is affordable and that provides minimum value to their full-time employees (and offer coverage to their dependents), or be subject to an assessable payment (referred to as an “employer shared responsibility payment”) payable to the IRS if any full-time employee receives the premium tax credit for coverage through an Exchange. Thus, the relationship between the employee's receipt of the premium tax credit and the potential employer shared responsibility payment imposed on an applicable large employer could create an incentive for an employer to retaliate against an employee. Section 18C protects employees against such retaliation.

    Section 18C also protects employees against retaliation because they provided or are about to provide to their employer, the federal government or the attorney general of a state, information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of or amendment made by title I of the Affordable Care Act; testified or are about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation; assisted or participated, or are about to assist or participate, in such a proceeding; or objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of title I of the Act (or amendment), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under title I of the Act (or amendment). Among other provisions, title I of the Affordable Care Act includes a range of health insurance market reforms such as: The prohibition on lifetime and annual dollar limits on essential health benefits, the requirement for non-grandfathered plans to cover certain recommended preventive services with no cost sharing, and a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions.

    This final rule revises the procedures for the handling of whistleblower complaints under section 18C of the FLSA and sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of the ACA whistleblower provision on certain matters. To the extent possible within the bounds of applicable statutory language, these revised rules are designed to be consistent with the procedures applied to claims under other whistleblower statutes administered by OSHA. Responsibility for receiving and investigating complaints under section 18C has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary). Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (Jan. 18, 2012), 77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012). Hearings on determinations by the Assistant Secretary are conducted by the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and appeals from decisions by ALJs are decided by the ARB. Secretary of Labor's Order No. 2-2012 (Oct. 19, 2012), 77 FR 69378 (Nov. 16, 2012).

    II. Summary of Statutory Procedures

    Section 18C(b)(1) adopts the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitation in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 15 U.S.C. 2087(b). Accordingly, a covered employee (complainant) may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) within 180 days of the alleged retaliation. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Secretary must provide written notice to the person or persons named in the complaint alleged to have violated section 18C (respondent) of the filing of the complaint, the allegations contained in the complaint, the substance of the evidence supporting the complaint, and the rights afforded the respondent throughout the investigation. The Secretary must then, within 60 days of receipt of the complaint, afford the complainant and respondent an opportunity to submit a response and meet with the investigator to present statements from witnesses, and conduct an investigation.

    Section 18C, through the incorporation of CPSIA, provides that the Secretary may conduct an investigation only if the complainant has made a prima facie showing that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint and the respondent has not demonstrated, through clear and convincing evidence, that the employer would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of that activity. (See § 1984.104 for a summary of the investigative process). OSHA interprets the prima facie case requirement as allowing the complainant to meet this burden through the complaint as supplemented by interviews of the complainant.

    After investigating a complaint, the Secretary will issue written findings. If, as a result of the investigation, the Secretary finds that there is reasonable cause to believe that retaliation has occurred, the Secretary must notify the respondent of that finding, along with a preliminary order that requires the respondent to, where appropriate: Take affirmative action to abate the violation; reinstate the complainant to his or her former position together with the compensation of that position (including back pay) and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated with his or her employment; and provide compensatory damages to the complainant, as well as all costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred by the complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the order was issued.

    The complainant and the respondent then have 30 days after the date of the Secretary's notification in which to file objections to the findings and/or preliminary order and request a hearing before an ALJ. The filing of objections under section 18C of the FLSA will stay any remedy in the preliminary order except for preliminary reinstatement. If a hearing before an ALJ is not requested within 30 days, the preliminary order becomes final and is not subject to judicial review.

    If a hearing before an ALJ is held, the statute requires the hearing to be conducted “expeditiously.” The Secretary then has 120 days after the conclusion of any hearing in which to issue a final order, which may provide appropriate relief, or deny the complaint. Until the Secretary's final order is issued, the Secretary, the complainant, and the respondent may enter into a settlement agreement that terminates the proceeding. Where the Secretary has determined that a violation has occurred, the Secretary will order the respondent to, where appropriate: Take affirmative action to abate the violation; reinstate the complainant to his or her former position together with the compensation of that position (including back pay) and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated with his or her employment; and provide compensatory damages to the complainant, as well as all costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred by the complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the order was issued.

    Within 60 days of the issuance of the final order, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the Secretary's final order may file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation occurred or the circuit where the complainant resided on the date of the violation.

    Section 18C permits the employee to seek de novo review of the complaint by a United States District Court in the event that the Secretary has not issued a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the complaint, or within 90 days after receiving a written determination. The court will have jurisdiction over the action without regard to the amount in controversy, and the case will be tried before a jury at the request of either party.

    Finally, section 18C(b)(2) of the FLSA provides that nothing in section 18C shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any federal or state law or under any collective bargaining agreement, and the rights and remedies in section 18C may not be waived by any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.

    III. Summary and Discussion of Regulatory Provisions

    On February 27, 2013, OSHA published in the Federal Register an IFR promulgating rules governing the employee protection provisions of section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act, which added section 18C of the FLSA. 78 FR 13222. OSHA included a request for public comment on the interim final rule by April 29, 2013.

    Seven organizations and four individuals filed responsive comments with OSHA within the public comment period. OSHA received comments from Tate and Renner (Renner); the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS); the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP); the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB); the United States Chamber of Commerce (Chamber); Thomas O'Grady; DeAnna Beckner; J.I.M. Choate; and N. Menold.

    OSHA has reviewed and considered the comments and now adopts this final rule with minor revisions. The following discussion addresses the comments, OSHA's responses, and any other changes to the provisions of the rule. The provisions in the IFR are adopted and continued in this final rule, unless otherwise noted below.

    General Comments Comments Related to Section 2706(b) of the Public Health Service Act

    As OSHA explained in the preamble to the IFR (78 FR 13223), section 18C became effective on the date the health care law was enacted, March 23, 2010. The Affordable Care Act also added section 2706(b) to the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq., as amended by section 1201 of the Affordable Care Act, and section 2706 of the PHSA first became effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. The Affordable Care Act added Code section 9815(a) and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 715(a) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act (which includes PHSA section 2706) into the Code and ERISA. Accordingly, PHSA section 2706 is subject to shared interpretive jurisdiction by the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Treasury (Treasury), and Labor (DOL). Section 2706 of the PHSA is titled “Non-Discrimination in Health Care” and provides, in relevant part: “(b) INDIVIDUALS.—The provisions of section 1558 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (relating to non-discrimination) shall apply with respect to a group health plan or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage.”

    Four commenters (BCBS, AHIP, the Chamber, and AFL-CIO) commented on the discussion in the IFR of the relationship between section 18C and section 2706(b) of the PHSA. OSHA has reviewed these comments and referred them to HHS, Treasury and the DOL's Employee Benefits Security Administration, which share interpretive jurisdiction over section 2706. The IFR included a discussion on PHSA section 2706(b) in the preamble to the rule solely to put the public on notice that section PHSA section 2706(b) includes a reference to section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act. However, the IFR did not include any regulatory provisions aimed at implementing PHSA section 2706(b), nor do these final regulations. Accordingly, interpretive guidance regarding PHSA section 2706(b) is outside to the scope of these regulations.

    Comments Regarding OSHA's Compliance With Notice and Comment Rulemaking Procedures

    NFIB commented that OSHA should re-issue the rule as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), complete with an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and that OSHA should also examine whether a Small Business Advocacy Review panel is necessary. The Chamber likewise commented that OSHA has not sufficiently demonstrated that this rulemaking is interpretative and procedural and should have provided an economic analysis under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). OSHA disagrees, and as explained below, OSHA continues to believe that this rule is procedural and interpretative, and that it has complied with the applicable requirements for promulgating this rule.

    Other General Comments

    OSHA received additional general comments from several commenters. Menold expressed general support for the IFR. Choate commented that the final rule should use the word “judge” instead of “ALJ” when referring to administrative law judges. After consideration, the use of the abbreviation “ALJ” has been retained in the final rule as consistent with agency practice.

    NFIB expressed general concern that section 18C would lead to an increase in whistleblower complaints that would impair small businesses and expressed the hope that OSHA would work to ensure that its procedures allow an opportunity at the outset for the small business and the employee to resolve a complaint without having to go through a formal investigation and adjudication.

    Beckner supported the “implementation of `economic reinstatement' or `front pay' instead of preliminary reinstatement in situations w[h]ere the employer and employee relationship has deteriorated beyond repair” and the definition of employee to include former employees and applicants.

    She also commented that the period of time that must transpire prior to a complainant filing for de novo review in district court is too long, as did O'Grady who suggested that the alternative procedural time periods that precede an employee's right to file a complaint to federal district court should be streamlined in the interest of the complainant who may be in a “precarious situation” during those times. He also commented that if the process cannot be streamlined, then once OSHA makes an initial determination that there is a valid complaint the employee should receive an injunction barring further retaliation.

    SEIU and the AFL-CIO commented that the rules should include specific provisions requiring employers to post notices regarding whistleblower rights under section 18C.

    Finally, Renner noted that section 1558 of the ACA, like other whistleblower laws, is a remedial law and should be construed and applied to further its remedial purposes. Renner also noted there may be some overlap between the protections provided in ERISA section 510 and FLSA section 18C and asked that the Department's comments on the final rule address this issue.

    OSHA has not made any changes to the rule in response to these comments. The 90-day and 210-day time periods for filing a complaint in district court are established in the statute, and OSHA cannot change them by regulation. 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(4). With regard to O'Grady's proposal for injunctive relief, OSHA notes that the statute already provides for the type of relief requested. If it finds reasonable cause to believe that retaliation occurred, the statute requires OSHA to issue findings and an order containing relief including, where appropriate, reinstatement. 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2). Under the statute, OSHA's order of reinstatement is not stayed by the employer's request for a hearing. Id. In addition, OSHA notes that it is unlawful for an employer to engage in further retaliation against employees who pursue whistleblower complaints under the ACA. See Benjamin v. Citationshares Mgmt., ARB No. 12-029, 2013 WL 6385831, at *6 (ARB Nov. 5, 2013) (noting “an employee engages in protected activity if he attempts to provide information of retaliation that violates [a whistleblower statute]” and holding that employee's recording of information in support of his retaliation claim was protected); Diaz-Robianas v. Fla. Power & Light Co., DOL No. 92-ERA-10, 1996 WL 171408, at *5 (Off. Admin. App. Jan. 19, 1996) (noting under prior version of Energy Reorganization Act that the statute “requires employers to refrain from unlawfully motivated employment discrimination, and a complaint that an employer has violated this requirement is protected”); McClendon v. Hewlett Packard, Inc., 2006-SOX-00029, 2006 WL 6577175 at *76 (ALJ Oct. 5, 2006) (holding that filing a Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower complaint is in itself a protected activity); cf. Young v. CSX Transp., Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 388, 2014 WL 4367461, at *5 (N.D.NY. Sept. 4, 2014) (acknowledging employer's concession that filing a retaliation claim with OSHA is protected under the Federal Railroad Safety Act). If an employee believes an employer is retaliating against him for pursuing an ACA whistleblower complaint, the employee should contact OSHA.

    With regard to NFIB's comments regarding the impact on small employers and the opportunities available for early resolution of whistleblower complaints, OSHA agrees that resolution of whistleblower complaints as early in the investigation process as possible is often the best outcome for both parties. Accordingly, OSHA's Whistleblower Investigations Manual encourages whistleblower investigators to actively assist parties in reaching an agreement, where possible. See OSHA Whistleblower Investigations Manual, at 6-12 (Jan. 28, 2016), available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-03-007.pdf. Additionally, in August 2015, OSHA issued a directive allowing its regional offices to implement Early Resolution Programs in which, at the parties' request, OSHA would make a neutral ADR coordinator, unconnected with the investigation, available to assist the parties in achieving an early resolution to the whistleblower case either upon the filing of the whistleblower complaint or at any time up to the completion of OSHA's investigation. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Processes for Whistleblower Protection Program (Aug. 18, 2015), available at http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02-03-006.pdf.

    With respect to SEIU and AFL-CIO's comment that OSHA should require employers to post notices regarding section 18C's protections, OSHA is not adding such a requirement to these rules. However, OSHA notes that posting of a notice regarding whistleblower rights is one of the common non-monetary remedies that OSHA orders in meritorious whistleblower cases. OSHA believes that such notices can play a significant role in ameliorating the chilling effect that retaliation has on employees who might otherwise report violations of the law. Additionally, OSHA has worked with other agencies that implement the Affordable Care Act to ensure that information about the whistleblower provision is included in notices and public information that those agencies provide to employees and employers.

    Finally, OSHA generally agrees with Renner's observation that section 1558 of the ACA, like other whistleblower laws, is a remedial law and should be construed and applied to further its remedial purposes. With regard to Renner's comment regarding the potential overlap between ERISA section 510 and FLSA section 18C, OSHA notes that Renner is correct that some complainants may have claims under both ERISA section 510 and FLSA section 18C. Section 18C's whistleblower protections do not replace any protections that a whistleblower may have under ERISA section 510. Whistleblowers may bring claims under either or both statutes if their whistleblowing is protected under both. However, in order to pursue a claim under section 18C either in district court or before the Department of Labor (DOL), the complainant must file a complaint with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged adverse action. See 29 CFR 1984.103(d).

    Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, Findings and Preliminary Orders Section 1984.100 Purpose and Scope

    This section describes the purpose and scope of the regulations implementing FLSA section 18C and provides an overview of the procedures covered by these regulations. OSHA has added a statement in subparagraph (b) noting that these rules set forth the Secretary's interpretations of section 18C on certain statutory issues. AFL-CIO commented that OSHA should add a discussion of PHSA section 2706(b) to this section. However for the reasons previously explained, OSHA declines to add such a discussion.

    Section 1984.101 Definitions

    This section includes general definitions applicable to FLSA section 18C. The definitions of the terms “employer,” “employee,” and “person” from section 3 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203, apply to these rules and are included here.

    Consistent with the Secretary's interpretation of the term “employee” in the other whistleblower statutes administered by OSHA 1 and with the Secretary's interpretation of the term “employee” under the anti-retaliation provision found at section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3),2 the definition of the term “employee” in section 1984.101 also includes former employees and applicants for employment. This interpretation is supported by section 18C's plain language which prohibits retaliation against “any employee” and provides that “[a]n employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any employer in violation of this section” may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, (emphasis added). Section 18C's broad protection of “any employee” from retaliation and provision of a cause of action against “any employer” for retaliation makes clear that the parties need not have a current employment relationship. Section 18C's broad protections, like the protections in section 15(a)(3), contrast with the narrower protections of sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA. Sections 6 and 7 provide respectively that an employer must pay at least the minimum wage to “each of his employees” and must pay overtime to “any of his employees,” and thus require a current employment relationship. See 29 U.S.C. 206(a) and (b), 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) and (2). Congress chose to use the broad term “any” to modify employee and employer in sections 18C(a) and (b), rather than providing more restrictively that, for example, “no employer shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any of his employees” or “an employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by his employer” may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor. The Supreme Court has made clear that “any” has an expansive meaning that does not limit the word it modifies. See, e.g., Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 131 S. Ct. 1325, 1332 (2011) (noting that the use of “any” in the phrase “filed any complaint” in section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA “suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint”); U.S. v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) (“any” has an expansive meaning, that is, “one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind”) (internal citations omitted). In addition, the explicit inclusion of reinstatement and preliminary reinstatement (both of which can only be awarded to former employees) among the remedies available for whistleblowers under section 18C, which incorporates 15 U.S.C. 2087(b), confirms that the complainant and the respondent need not have a current employment relationship in order for the complainant to have a claim under section 18C. See Dellinger v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., 649 F.3d at 230 n.2 (section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA protects former employees); cf. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) (term “employees” in anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes former employees).

    1See, e.g., 29 CFR 1980.101(g) (defining employee to include former employees and applicants under the whistleblower provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act); 29 CFR 1978.101 (Surface Transportation Assistance Act); 29 CFR 1981.101 (Pipeline Safety Improvement Act); 29 CFR 1982.101(d) (Federal Railroad Safety Act and the National Transit Systems Security Act); 29 CFR 1983.101(h) (Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act).

    2See Brief for the Secretary of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae, Dellinger v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., No. 10-1499 (4th Cir. Oct. 15, 2010) (explaining that the phrase “any employee” in section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA does not limit an individual's retaliation claims to her current employer, but rather extends protection to prospective employees from retaliation for engaging in protected activity), and Brief of the Secretary of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amicus Curiae, Dellinger v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., No. 10-1499 (4th Cir. Sept. 9, 2011) (same); but see Dellinger v. Science Applications Int'l Corp., 649 F.3d 226, 229-31 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2011) (accepting that former employees are protected from retaliation under section 15(a)(3) of the FLSA but holding that applicants for employment are not).

    No comments were made on this section, other than those discussed in the general comments suggesting additional definitions. OSHA made a minor clarification to the definition of “respondent” and added definitions of Exchange and advance payments of the premium tax credit or APTC but has made no other substantive changes to this section.

    Section 1984.102 Obligations and Prohibited Acts

    This section describes the activities that are protected under section 18C of the FLSA, and the conduct that is prohibited in response to any protected activities. Section 18C(a)(1) protects any employee from retaliation because the employee has “received a credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or a subsidy under section 1402 of this Act.” The reference to “a subsidy under section 1402 of this Act” in section 18C(a)(1) refers to receipt of a cost-sharing reduction under the Affordable Care Act.

    Under section 18C(a)(2), an employer may not retaliate against an employee because the employee “provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the federal government, or the attorney general of a state information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of this title (or an amendment made by this title).” Section 18C also protects employees who testify, assist or participate in proceedings concerning such violations or are about to do so. Sections 18C(a)(3) and (4), 29 U.S.C. 218C(a)(3) and (4). Finally, section 18C(a)(5) prohibits retaliation because an employee “objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of this title (or amendment), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this title (or amendment).” References to “this title” in section 18C(a)(2) and (5) refer to title I of the Affordable Care Act.

    In order to have a “reasonable belief” under sections 18C(a)(2) and (5) of the FLSA, a complainant must have both a subjective, good faith belief and an objectively reasonable belief that the complained-of conduct violates one of the enumerated categories of law. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121, 1132 (10th Cir. 2013) (discussing the reasonable belief standard under analogous language in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower provision, 18 U.S.C. 1514A); Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 131-32 (3d Cir. 2013) (same); Sylvester v. Parexel Int'l LLC, ARB No. 07-123, 2011 WL 2165854, at *12 (ARB May 25, 2011) (same). The requirement that the complainant have a subjective, good faith belief is satisfied so long as the complainant actually believed that the conduct complained of violated the relevant law. See Sylvester, 2011 WL 2165854, at *12 (citing Harp v. Charter Commc'ns, 558 F.3d 722, 723 (7th Cir. 2009)); Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 F.3d 42, 54 n.10 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Welch v. Chao, 536 F.3d 269, 277 n.4 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Subjective reasonableness requires that the employee `actually believed the conduct complained of constituted a violation of pertinent law.'”). The objective reasonableness of a complainant's belief “is evaluated based on the knowledge available to a reasonable person in the same factual circumstances with the same training and experience as the aggrieved employee.” Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., 787 F.3d 797, 811 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Sylvester, 2011 WL 2165854, at *12. However, the complainant need not show that the conduct complained of constituted an actual violation of law. Pursuant to this standard, an employee's whistleblower activity is protected when it is based on a reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a violation of the relevant law has occurred or is likely to occur. See Sylvester, 2011 WL 2165854, at *13 (citing Welch, 536 F.3d at 277); Allen v. Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468, 476-77 (5th Cir. 2008); Melendez v. Exxon Chemicals Americas, ARB No. 96-051, slip op. at 21 (ARB July 14, 2000) (“It is also well established that the protection afforded whistleblowers who raise concerns regarding statutory violations is contingent on meeting the aforementioned `reasonable belief' standard rather than proving that actual violations have occurred.”).

    OSHA received several comments on this section of the interim final rule. For the reasons discussed below, the only change OSHA has made to this section is to revise the section to clarify that, under section 18C(a)(1), an employee has “received” a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction not only when a premium tax credit is allowed on the individual's tax return but also when an Exchange finds the employee eligible for APTC or for a cost-sharing reduction. At that point, the employee may apply financial assistance to reduce his or her share of the premium cost for coverage purchased through the Exchange, and the prices that the Exchange provides to the employee for plans take into account the employee's eligibility for such assistance. AFL-CIO and SEIU commented that OSHA should clarify that FLSA section 18C(a)(1) protects those who take the preliminary steps, such as gathering information, that are needed to apply for health insurance coverage on an Exchange and to apply for APTC. These commenters were particularly concerned about protecting employees who ask their employers about the health care coverage offered by their employers. These commenters noted that to apply for APTC for health insurance on an Exchange, individuals must provide certain information about their available employer-sponsored insurance options, if any. HHS has developed a form for employees to use in gathering information about any available employer-sponsored insurance options and this form instructs employees to get the information that they need from their employer. As SEIU explained “[a]s currently proposed, the system puts the burden on individuals to seek coverage information from their employer . . . in order to complete the exchange application. Because of this, it is imperative that the protection against retaliation extend to any preliminary actions taken to receive the tax credit.”

    OSHA agrees that these commenters raise compelling concerns regarding the potential for retaliation against employees who seek information from their employer that they need to receive APTC when they purchase health insurance through an Exchange. OSHA declines to change the text of the rule, which generally mirrors the statutory language, in response to these comments. However, OSHA believes that, in certain circumstances, the existing case law under the other whistleblower protection statutes that OSHA administers supports protection for employees who seek information from their employer regarding employer-sponsored health coverage in order to receive APTC for health coverage through an Exchange.

    When an employer believes that an employee has received a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and takes action based on that belief, the employer's retaliatory motive is the same whether it arises from an employee's inquiry regarding employer-provided coverage in anticipation of applying for APTC or a cost-sharing reduction through the Exchange, or whether it arises once the applicable Exchange notifies the employer that the employee has qualified for a APTC or a cost-sharing reduction through the Exchange. OSHA's regulations under section 18C and case law under other anti-retaliation statutes make clear that an employer may not retaliate against an employee when the employer knows or suspects that the employee has engaged in activity protected by the statute. See 29 CFR 1984.104(e); see also Reich v. Hoy Shoe, Inc., 32 F.3d 361, 368 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (11(c)) that “[i] t seems clear to this Court that an employer that retaliates against an employee because of the employer's suspicion or belief that the employee filed an OSHA complaint has as surely committed a violation of § 11(c) as an employer that fires an employee because the employer knows that the employee filed an OSHA complaint”); Saffels v. Rice, 40 F.3d 1546, 1549 (8th Cir. 1994) (retaliation is unlawful under the FLSA if based on an employer's mistaken belief that employees engaged in FLSA-protected activity); Brock v. Richardson, 812 F.2d 121, 124-25 (3d Cir. 1987) (same).

    Similarly, an employer retaliates against an employee when the employer threatens to take action if the employee engages in activity protected under section 18C. See 29 CFR 1984.102(a) (defining retaliation to include threats and intimidation). Indeed, courts have long recognized that acts taken in anticipation of an employee's protected activity to dissuade such activity can be actionable under the anti-retaliation provisions of many statutes. See, e.g., Sauers v. Salt Lake County, 1 F.3d 1122, 1128 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting under Title VII's anti-retaliation provision that “[a]ction taken against an individual in anticipation of that person engaging in protected opposition to discrimination is no less retaliatory than action taken after the fact”); Hashimoto v. Bank of Hawaii, 999 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that anticipatory employer action that “discourages the whistle blower before the whistle is blown” would violate ERISA anti-retaliation statute, even though the employee has not yet filed any formal complaint); Perez v. Fatima/Zahra, Inc., No. 14-2337, 2014 WL 2154092 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2014) (issuing temporary restraining order against employer who threatened employees that they would be fired for talking to investigators); Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 380, 389 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding retaliation where employer threatened employees with termination in anticipation of their testimony for Secretary of Labor).

    Thus, OSHA believes that an employee's inquiry to his or her employer to gather the information necessary to apply for APTC for coverage on the Exchange may trigger protection under section 18C if the employee can show that either the employer's belief that the employee had received a premium tax credit, or the employer's desire to deter the employee from taking any further action that would result in the employee's receiving a premium tax credit, contributed to the employer's action against the employee.

    Renner commented that the regulations should clarify that an employer's decision to reduce an employee's hours of work to evade application of the Affordable Care Act is unlawful under FLSA section 18C noting that “the reduction of hours directly reduces the employee's wages and is materially adverse.”

    As explained earlier in this preamble, under section 4980H of the Code, applicable large employers must either offer health coverage that is affordable and that provides minimum value to their full-time employees (and offer coverage to their dependents), or be subject to assessment of an employer shared responsibility payment by the IRS if at least one full-time employee receives the premium tax credit. In general, for purposes of section 4980H of the Code, a full-time employee is an employee with an average of at least 30 hours of service per week. To the extent that Renner's comment implies that the whistleblower protections apply if an employer reduces an employee's hours of service to avoid or reduce liability under section 4980H of the Code, OSHA disagrees because section 4980H of the Code does not prohibit an employer from reducing an employee's hours of service in order to avoid a potential employer shared responsibility payment.

    However, to the extent that Renner is commenting that reducing work hours in retaliation for activity protected under section 18C is unlawful, OSHA agrees. For instance, if an employer reduces the hours of an employee that the employer knows or suspects of receiving a premium tax credit or subsidy, the employer's actions may violate section 18C if the employee's receipt of the premium tax credit or subsidy was a contributing factor in the employer's decision to reduce the hours, and the employer is unable to show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of that protected activity. See 29 CFR 1984.104(e) (explaining the burdens of proof in Affordable Care Act whistleblower cases); see also 29 U.S.C. 218C(b)(1) (incorporating the burdens of proof in 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2)(B)). In addition, OSHA notes that an employer violates section 18C if it threatens employees with reductions in hours in order to dissuade them from applying for APTC for health insurance on an Exchange. See, e.g., Sauers, 1 F.3d at 1128. OSHA declines to change the rule in response to Renner's comment because OSHA believes that this issue is adequately addressed in the case law under analogous anti-retaliation provisions and the rule has been drafted to be consistent with OSHA's rules under other whistleblower-protection statutes.

    The Chamber commented that OSHA should limit the definition of intimidation as a form of retaliation asserting that the term “intimidation” left undefined is overly broad and that “[t]he conduct that is considered intimidating should not be actionable unless it results in a tangible adverse employment action, such as demotion, negative performance review, failure to promote, assignment of undesirable job duties, a pattern of harassment, and termination.

    The Chamber further commented that equitable treatment of the different parties requires OSHA to apply a reasonable belief standard to respondents as well as to complainants. BCBS raised similar concerns regarding the IFR, commenting that OSHA should apply the final rule keeping in mind the unique challenges of implementing the Affordable Care Act, which may make it difficult to determine whether an employer's or issuer's actions are justified by the Affordable Care Act guidance in effect at the time.

    After consideration, OSHA declines to amend the rule in response to the Chamber and BCBS's comments. With regard to the Chamber's suggestion that OSHA adopt a reasonable belief requirement for respondents as well as complainants and BCBS's comment that an employer or issuer's actions may be justified based on the Affordable Care Act guidance in effect at the time, OSHA notes that the statutory language includes no “reasonable belief” standard for employers. However, OSHA believes that case law under analogous statutes adequately addresses these concerns. For example, the fact that an employer is following the ACA guidance available at the time that an employee blows the whistle may impact whether the employee can show that he had a reasonable belief that the employer was violating the law. Similarly, if an employer takes an action against an employee based on a reasonable, but mistaken, belief of misconduct or another circumstance unrelated to protected activity, the employee's subsequent whistleblower complaint may fail. See Ledure v. BNSF Rwy. Co., ARB No. 13-044, 2015 WL 4071574, at *6 (ARB Jun. 2, 2015) (affirming ALJ's conclusion that retaliation did not occur where employer's refusal to allow employee to return to work was based on reasonable, but mistaken, belief that employee was not medically qualified to return to work and not on protected whistleblowing).

    With regard to the Chamber's comment that the rule should be changed to limit the definition of “intimidation,” OSHA believes that the circumstances in which intimidation constitutes an adverse action under section 18C are adequately addressed by case law under the Department's other whistleblower statutes. While intimidation may be linked with some other form of adverse action, intimidation that is more than trivial may, standing alone, qualify as adverse action. The phrase “terms, conditions, or other privileges of employment” does not indicate that actionable adverse action is limited to “economic” or “tangible” conditions of employment. See Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986) (interpreting similar language in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); see also Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., ARB Nos. 09-002, 09-003, 2011 WL 4439090 at *11-12 (Sept. 13, 2011), aff'd, Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. Rev. Bd., 771 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2014) (interpreting similar language in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act). Rather, adverse action is action that a reasonable employee would find “materially adverse,” that is, the action is more than trivial. Specifically, the evidence must show that the action at issue could well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. White, 548, U.S. 53, 68 (2006); Halliburton, 771 F.3d at 261-62 (affirming ARB's finding of adverse action that was not a tangible employment action); Williams v. American Airlines, ARB No. 09-018, 2010 WL 5535815 at *6-8 (Dec. 29, 2010) (discussing adverse action under the Department's whistleblower statutes). Thus, under this case law, unlawful retaliation would include intimidating an employee for engaging in protected activity when the intimidation would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.

    Section 1984.103 Filing of Retaliation Complaint

    This section explains the requirements for filing a retaliation complaint under section 18C. To be timely, a complaint must be filed within 180 days of when the alleged violation occurs. Under Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980), an alleged violation occurs when the retaliatory decision has been both made and communicated to the complainant. In other words, the limitations period commences once the employee is aware or reasonably should be aware of the employer's decision. E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 249 F.3d 557, 561-62 (6th Cir. 2001). However, the time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law. For example, OSHA may consider the time for filing a section 18C complaint equitably tolled if the complainant mistakenly files a complaint with another agency instead of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation. OSHA has revised this section of the rule to note this example of when the time for filling a complaint would be equitably tolled.

    Complaints filed under section 18C of the FLSA need not be in any particular form. They may be either oral or in writing. When a complaint is made orally, OSHA will put the complaint in writing. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language. With the consent of the employee, complaints may be filed by any person on the employee's behalf.

    OSHA notes that a complaint of retaliation filed with OSHA under the Affordable Care Act is not a formal document and need not conform to the pleading standards for complaints filed in federal district court articulated in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). See Sylvester v. Parexel Int'l, Inc., ARB No. 07-123, 2011 WL 2165854, at *9-10 (ARB May 26, 2011) (holding whistleblower complaints filed with OSHA under analogous provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act need not conform to federal court pleading standards). Rather, the complaint filed with OSHA under this section simply alerts OSHA to the existence of the alleged retaliation and the complainant's desire that OSHA investigate the complaint. Upon the filing of a complaint, OSHA is to determine whether “the complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant” alleges “the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing.” 29 CFR 1984.104(e). As explained in § 1984.104(e), if the complaint, supplemented as appropriate, contains a prima facie showing, and the respondent does not show clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the alleged protected activity, OSHA conducts an investigation to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that retaliation has occurred. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2); 29 CFR 1984.104(e).

    No comments were received on this section of the IFR. However, in addition to adding the example noted above of when the time for filing a complaint might be tolled, OSHA changed the term “email” in paragraph (d) to “electronic communication transmittal” because OSHA has published an on-line complaint form on its Web site, http://www.whistleblowers.gov/complaint_page.html .

    Section 1984.104 Investigation

    This section describes the procedures that apply to the investigation of complaints under section 18C. Paragraph (a) of this section outlines the procedures for notifying the parties and appropriate federal agencies of the complaint and notifying the respondent of its rights under these regulations. Paragraph (b) describes the procedures for the respondent to submit its response to the complaint. Paragraph (c) describes the sharing of information submitted to OSHA during the investigation and the opportunity that each party will have to provide information to OSHA. Paragraph (d) of this section discusses confidentiality of information provided during investigations. Paragraph (e) of this section sets forth the applicable burdens of proof. Paragraph (f) describes the procedures OSHA will follow prior to the issuance of findings and a preliminary order when OSHA has reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

    Section 18C of the FLSA incorporates the burdens of proof set forth in CPSIA, 15 U.S.C. 2087(b). That statute requires that a complainant make an initial prima facie showing that protected activity was “a contributing factor” in the adverse action alleged in the complaint, i.e., that the protected activity, alone or in combination with other factors, affected in some way the outcome of the employer's decision. The complainant will be considered to have met the required burden if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet the required showing. A complainant's burden may be satisfied, for example, if he or she shows that the adverse action took place shortly after the protected activity, or at the first opportunity available to the respondent, giving rise to the inference that it was a contributing factor in the adverse action. See, e.g., Porter v. Cal. Dep't of Corrs., 419 F.3d 885, 895 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that years between the protected activity and the retaliatory actions did not defeat a finding of a causal connection where the defendant did not have the opportunity to retaliate until he was given responsibility for making personnel decisions).

    If the complainant does not make the required prima facie showing, the investigation must be discontinued and the complaint dismissed. See Trimmer v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 174 F.3d 1098, 1101 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting that the burden-shifting framework of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which is the same framework now applicable to section 18C of the FLSA, serves a “gatekeeping function” that “stem[s] frivolous complaints”). Even in cases where the complainant successfully makes a prima facie showing, the investigation must be discontinued if the respondent demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the protected activity. Thus, OSHA must dismiss a complaint under section 18C of the FLSA and not investigate further if either: (1) The complainant fails to make the prima facie showing that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action; or (2) the respondent rebuts that showing by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action absent the protected activity.

    Assuming that an investigation proceeds beyond the gatekeeping phase, the statute requires OSHA to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that protected activity was a contributing factor in the alleged adverse action. A contributing factor is “any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision.” Marano v. Dep't of Justice, 2 F.3d 1137, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks, emphasis and citation omitted) (discussing the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. 1221(e)(1)); see, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp., 717 F.3d at 1136. For protected activity to be a contributing factor in the adverse action, “`a complainant need not necessarily prove that the respondent's articulated reason was a pretext in order to prevail,'” because a complainant alternatively can prevail by showing that the respondent's “reason, while true, is only one of the reasons for its conduct,” and that another reason was the complainant's protected activity. See Klopfenstein v. PCC Flow Techs. Holdings, Inc., ARB No. 04-149, 2006 WL 3246904, at *13 (ARB May 31, 2006) (quoting Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2004)) (discussing contributing factor test under the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower provision), aff'd sub nom. Klopfenstein v. Admin. Review Bd., U.S. Dep't of Labor, 402 F. App'x 936, 2010 WL 4746668 (5th Cir. 2010).

    If OSHA finds reasonable cause to believe that the alleged protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action, OSHA may not order relief if the employer demonstrates by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2)(B)(ii). The “clear and convincing evidence” standard is a higher burden of proof than a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. See, e.g., Clarke v. Navajo Express, Inc., ARB No. 09-114, 2011 WL 2614326, at *3 (ARB June 29, 2011) (discussing burdens of proof under analogous whistleblower provision in Surface Transportation Assistance Act).

    BCBS and the Chamber commented on this section. BCBS commented that the regulations should provide procedures for instances when the complaint names multiple respondents and suggests amending § 1984.104(e)(2)(ii) to read as follows: “Each respondent knew or suspected . . . .” BCBS also commented that OSHA should dismiss complaints against respondents who do not have the requisite knowledge of alleged retaliation to justify continuing the complaint process against them, and clarify in § 1984.104(e)(3) that a showing that the adverse action took place shortly after the protected activity would not give rise to the inference that it was a contributing factor in the adverse action in instances when the respondent did not know or suspect that the complainant engaged in a protected activity.

    OSHA declines to make these changes because they are unnecessary and could cause confusion. The IFR already does not exclude multiple respondents and adding the word “each” to § 1984.104(e)(2)(ii) could be construed as allowing liability only when all respondents have the requisite knowledge or suspicion. Additionally, the IFR already provides a basis for dismissing claims against respondents who lack requisite knowledge or suspicion, such as at § 1984.104(e) where it provides that a “complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing that protected activity was a contributing factor in the alleged adverse action including that “[t]he respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in the protected activity . . . .”

    The Chamber commented that the IFR improperly treated respondents and complainants differently by allowing complainants to receive copies of documents submitted by the respondent, subject to privacy and confidentiality standards, but providing no similar entitlement for respondents. OSHA believes this is incorrect. The IFR and the statute both provide the respondent the right to receive the substance of the evidence supporting the complaint, and OSHA's investigation procedures, which ensure that each party's submissions are available to the other party during the investigation, are further explained in OSHA's Whistleblower Investigations Manual. Nonetheless, to clarify that respondents and complainants are afforded equal access to each other's submissions during the OSHA investigation, OSHA has revised paragraph (c) of this section to reflect its current information sharing practices. Also, throughout this section, minor changes were made as needed to clarify the remaining provisions without changing their meaning.

    Section 1984.105 Issuance of Findings and Preliminary Orders

    This section provides that, on the basis of information obtained in the investigation, the Assistant Secretary will issue, within 60 days of the filing of a complaint, written findings regarding whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has merit. If the findings are that there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has merit, the Assistant Secretary will order appropriate relief, including preliminary reinstatement, affirmative action to abate the violation, back pay with interest, compensatory damages, attorney and expert witness fees, and costs. The findings and, where appropriate, preliminary order, advise the parties of their right to file objections to the findings of the Assistant Secretary and to request a hearing. The findings and, where appropriate, preliminary order, also advise the respondent of the right to request an award of attorney fees not exceeding $1,000 from the ALJ, regardless of whether the respondent has filed objections, if the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith. If no objections are filed within 30 days of receipt of the findings, the findings and any preliminary order of the Assistant Secretary become the final decision and order of the Secretary. If objections are timely filed, any order of preliminary reinstatement will take effect, but the remaining provisions of the order will not take effect until administrative proceedings are completed.

    This section also provides that interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. In the Secretary's view, 26 U.S.C. 6621 provides the appropriate rate of interest to ensure that victims of unlawful retaliation under section 18C of the FLSA are made whole. The Secretary has long applied the interest rate in 26 U.S.C. 6621 to calculate interest on back pay in whistleblower cases. See Doyle v. Hydro Nuclear Servs., ARB Nos. 99-041, 99-042, 00-012, 2000 WL 694384, at *14-15, 17 (ARB May 17, 2000); see also Cefalu v. Roadway Express, Inc., ARB No. 09-070, 2011 WL 1247212, at *2 (ARB Mar. 17, 2011); Pollock v. Cont'l Express, ARB Nos. 07-073, 08-051, 2010 WL 1776974, at *8 (ARB Apr. 10, 2010); Murray v. Air Ride, Inc., ARB No. 00-045, 2000 WL 1920347 at *6 (ARB Dec. 29, 2000). Section 6621 of the Code provides the appropriate measure of compensation under section 18C and other DOL-administered whistleblower statutes because it ensures the complainant will be placed in the same position he or she would have been in if no unlawful retaliation occurred. See Ass't Sec'y v. Double R. Trucking, Inc., ARB No. 99-061, 1999 WL 529752 at *4 (ARB July 16, 1999) (interest awards pursuant to Code section 6621 are mandatory elements of complainant's make-whole remedy). Code section 6621 provides a reasonably accurate prediction of market outcomes (which represents the loss of investment opportunity by the complainant and the employer's benefit from use of the withheld money) and thus provides the complainant with appropriate make-whole relief. See E.E.O.C. v. County of Erie, 751 F.2d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 1984) (“[s]ince the goal of a suit under the [Fair Labor Standards Act] and the Equal Pay Act is to make whole the victims of the unlawful underpayment of wages, and since [Code section 6621] has been adopted as a good indicator of the value of the use of money, it was well within” the district court's discretion to calculate prejudgment interest under Code section 6621); New Horizons for the Retarded, Inc., 283 NLRB No. 181, 1987 WL 89652, at *2 (NLRB May 28, 1987) (observing that “the short-term Federal rate [used by Code section 6621] is based on average market yields on marketable Federal obligations and is influenced by private economic market forces”). Similarly, as explained in the IFR, daily compounding of the interest award ensures that complainants are made whole for unlawful retaliation in violation of section 18C. See 78 FR 13227.

    Finally, this section has been revised to note that when ordering back pay, OSHA also will require the respondent to submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating the back pay to the appropriate period. Requiring the reporting of back pay allocation to the Social Security Administration serves the remedial purposes of section 18C by ensuring that employees subjected to retaliation are truly made whole. See Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10, 2014 WL 3897178, at *4-5 (NLRB Aug. 8, 2014) (holding that back pay awards under the National Labor Relations Act should include the allocation of back pay to the appropriate calendar quarters). As the NLRB has explained, when back pay is not properly allocated to the years covered by the award, a complainant may be disadvantaged in several ways. First, improper allocation may interfere with a complainant's ability to qualify for any old-age Social Security benefit. Id. at *4 (“Unless a [complainant's] multiyear back pay award is allocated to the appropriate years, she will not receive appropriate credit for the entire period covered by the award, and could therefore fail to qualify for any old-age social security benefit”). Second, improper allocation may reduce the complainant's eventual monthly benefit. Id. “[I]f a backpay award covering a multi-year period is posted as income for 1 year, it may result in SSA treating the [complainant] as having received wages in that year in excess of the annual contribution and benefit base.” Id. Wages above this base are not subject to Social Security taxes, which reduces the amount paid on the employee's behalf. “As a result, the [complainant's] eventual monthly benefit will be reduced because participants receive a greater benefit when they have paid more into the system.” Id. Finally, “social security benefits are calculated using a progressive formula: although a participant receives more in benefits when she pays more into the system, the rate of return diminishes at higher annual incomes.” Therefore, a complainant may “receive a smaller monthly benefit when a multiyear award is posted to 1 year rather than being allocated to the appropriate periods, even if social security taxes were paid on the entire amount.” Id. The purpose of a make-whole remedy such as back pay is to restore the complainant to the same position the complainant would have occupied absent the prohibited retaliation. That purpose is not achieved when the complainant suffers the disadvantages described above. The Secretary believes that requiring proper social security allocation is necessary to achieve the make-whole purpose of a back pay award. In addition to adding the requirement that the respondent submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating the back pay to the appropriate period, OSHA has made minor changes throughout this section as needed to clarify the provision without changing its meaning.

    OSHA received two comments on the remedy of reinstatement provided for in this section. In the preamble to the IFR, OSHA noted that, while the statute is clear that reinstatement is the presumptive remedy under section 18C of the FLSA, in rare circumstances economic reinstatement or front pay in lieu of actual reinstatement may be appropriate and that reinstatement includes restoration of the terms, conditions, and privileges associated with the complainant's employment as necessary to put the employee in the same position or a position equivalent to the position that the employee held prior to the retaliation. Beckner commented in support of the use of economic reinstatement where the employer-employee relationship has broken down beyond repair.

    SEIU commented that OSHA should amend the rule to clarify that reinstatement, including preliminary reinstatement, means full restoration of pay and benefits. SEIU stated that reinstatement requires full restoration to the status quo and includes restoration of duties and hours where those were reduced to reduce an employee's pay. As SEIU correctly noted, OSHA's Whistleblower Investigations Manual, as well as relevant case law under the whistleblower protection statutes that OSHA administers, makes clear that reinstatement is reinstatement to the full status quo prior to the retaliation and would include a restoration of hours and duties as necessary to ensure that the whistleblower is returned to the same position that he or she would have been in absent the retaliation. The statute explicitly requires that the Secretary order the employer “to reinstate the complainant to his or her former position together with compensation (including back pay) and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated with his or her employment.” 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(3)(B)(ii). If the employee's original position is not available, the employer may return the employee to an equivalent position. See, e.g., Hobby v. Georgia Power Co., ARB Nos. 98-166, 98-169, 2001 WL 168898 at *10 (ARB Feb. 9, 2001) (noting that “[w]hile the remedies section of the Energy Reorganization Act whistleblower provision states that the Secretary `shall . . . reinstate the [prevailing] complainant to his former position . . .', this text has been construed to mean reinstatement to the same or a similar position to the job that was formerly held”) (emphasis original, citations omitted). Because the statutory text and the applicable case law make clear that reinstatement must restore the complainant to the position he would have occupied absent the retaliation or an equivalent position, OSHA has not made any changes to the rule to clarify the term reinstatement in response to SEIU's comment.

    Subpart B—Litigation Section 1984.106 Objections to the Findings and the Preliminary Order and Requests for a Hearing

    To be effective, objections to the findings of the Assistant Secretary must be in writing and must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, within 30 days of receipt of the findings. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic communication transmittal is considered the date of the filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand-delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. The filing of objections also is considered a request for a hearing before an ALJ. Although the parties are directed to serve a copy of their objections on the other parties of record, as well as the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the U.S. Department of Labor's Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards, the failure to serve copies of the objections on the other parties of record does not affect the ALJ's jurisdiction to hear and decide the merits of the case. See Shirani v. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., ARB No. 04-101, 2005 WL 2865915, at *7 (ARB Oct. 31, 2005).

    In this section, SEIU repeated its comment that the regulations should clarify that the term “reinstatement,” including “preliminary reinstatement,” means full restoration of pay and benefits. OSHA's response to this comment is addressed in the discussion of § 1984.105. No substantive changes have been made to this section.

    Section 1984.107 Hearings

    This section adopts the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges at 29 CFR part 18 subpart A. Hearings are to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo, on the record. ALJs continue to have broad discretion to limit discovery where necessary to expedite the hearing. Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

    Section 1984.108 Role of Federal Agencies

    The Assistant Secretary, at his or her discretion, may participate as a party or amicus curiae at any time in the administrative proceedings under section 18C of the FLSA. For example, the Assistant Secretary may exercise his or her discretion to prosecute the case in the administrative proceeding before an ALJ, petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision based on a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent, regardless of whether the Assistant Secretary participated before the ALJ; or participate as amicus curiae before the ALJ or in the ARB proceeding. Although OSHA anticipates that ordinarily the Assistant Secretary will not participate, the Assistant Secretary may choose to do so in appropriate cases, such as cases involving important or novel legal issues, large numbers of employees, alleged violations that appear egregious, or where the interests of justice might require participation by the Assistant Secretary. The Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the United States Department of Labor, if interested in a proceeding, also may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceedings.

    No comments were received on this section. Throughout this section, minor changes were made as needed to clarify the provision without changing its meaning.

    Section 1984.109 Decision and Orders of the Administrative Law Judge

    This section sets forth the requirements for the content of the decision and order of the ALJ, and includes the standard for finding a violation under section 18C. Specifically, the complainant must demonstrate (i.e. prove by a preponderance of the evidence) that the protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the adverse action. See, e.g. , Allen, 514 F.3d at 475 n.1 (“The term `demonstrates' means to prove by a preponderance of the evidence.”). If the employee demonstrates that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action, the employer, to escape liability, must demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity. See id.

    Paragraph (c) of this section provides that OSHA's determinations regarding whether to proceed with an investigation under section 18C and whether to make particular investigative findings are discretionary decisions not subject to review by the ALJ. The ALJ hears cases de novo and, therefore, as a general matter, may not remand cases to OSHA to conduct an investigation or make further factual findings. Paragraph (c) also notes that the ALJ can dispose of a matter without a hearing if the facts and circumstances warrant.

    Paragraph (d) notes the remedies that the ALJ may order under section 18C and provides that interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. Paragraph (d) has been revised to note that when back pay is ordered, the order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate period. Paragraph (e) requires that the ALJ's decision be served on all parties to the proceeding, the Assistant Secretary, and the U.S. Department of Labor's Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards. Paragraph (e) also provides that any ALJ decision requiring reinstatement or lifting an order of reinstatement by the Assistant Secretary will be effective immediately upon receipt of the decision by the respondent. All other portions of the ALJ's order will be effective 14 days after the date of the decision unless a timely petition for review has been filed with the ARB. If no timely petition for review is filed with the ARB, the decision of the ALJ becomes the final decision of the Secretary and is not subject to judicial review.

    No comments were received on this section. In addition to the revision noted above regarding the allocation of back pay to the appropriate period, minor changes were made as needed to clarify the provision without changing its meaning.

    Section 1984.110 Decision and Orders of the Administrative Review Board

    Upon the issuance of the ALJ's decision, the parties have 14 days within which to petition the ARB for review of that decision. If no timely petition for review is filed with the ARB, the decision of the ALJ becomes the final decision of the Secretary and is not subject to judicial review. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic communication transmittal is considered the date of filing of the petition; if the petition is filed in person, by hand delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt.

    The appeal provisions in this part provide that an appeal to the ARB is not a matter of right but is accepted at the discretion of the ARB. The parties should identify in their petitions for review the legal conclusions or orders to which they object, or the objections may be deemed waived. The ARB has 30 days to decide whether to grant the petition for review. If the ARB does not grant the petition, the decision of the ALJ becomes the final decision of the Secretary. If a timely petition for review is filed with the ARB, any relief ordered by the ALJ, except for that portion ordering reinstatement, is inoperative while the matter is pending before the ARB. When the ARB accepts a petition for review, the ALJ's factual determinations will be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. This section also provides that, based on exceptional circumstances, the ARB may grant a motion to stay an ALJ's preliminary order of reinstatement under section 18C, which otherwise would be effective, while review is conducted by the ARB. The Secretary believes that a stay of an ALJ's preliminary order of reinstatement under section 18C would be appropriate only where the respondent can establish the necessary criteria for equitable injunctive relief, i.e., irreparable injury, likelihood of success on the merits, a balancing of possible harms to the parties, and the public interest favors a stay.

    If the ARB concludes that the respondent has violated the law, it will order the remedies listed in paragraph (d). Interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. Paragraph (d) has been revised to note that when back pay is ordered, the order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate period. If the ARB determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint.

    Beckner and Renner commented that the time period for filing a petition for review with the ARB of an ALJ's decision is too short. Beckner commented that allowing both parties only 14 days to petition the ARB to review an ALJ decision appeal is too short and inconsistent with the rule's allowing 30 days to determine whether an ALJ's decision was in error. Renner commented that “[t]he proper adjudication of whistleblower matters would be enhanced if parties and their counsel can prepare their briefs, and select their issues, thoughtfully. . . . When faced with the unusually short time limit of fourteen (14) days to submit a petition that must list all issues, advocates are likely to overselect. To preserve issues and avoid missing a meritorious claim, they are likely to list every issue that might conceivably apply. While counsel could choose to drop issues between the petition and the brief, requiring counsel to list all the issues in the petition makes it more likely that counsel will then face pressure to brief those issues.” He added that “some whistleblowers or their counsel may find the task of reviewing the record to identify all appealable issues so consuming that they miss the short deadline for filing the petition for review.”

    Renner also commented that the provision that objections to legal conclusions not raised in petitions for review may be deemed waived should be changed. He specifically suggested that section 1984.110(a) should be amended to read as follows: “The parties should identify in their petitions for review the legal conclusions or orders to which they object, or the objections may be deemed waived so that the Administrative Review Board may determine that the review presents issues worthy of full briefing.” He stated that the provision as written could work against the remedial purpose of the law.

    After consideration, OSHA declines to alter the time period within which to appeal the decision of an ALJ. We believe that 14 days is sufficient and note that it is consistent with the time periods available under various other whistleblower provisions for which OSHA is responsible, which range from ten business days to 14 calendar days. Compare 29 CFR 1983.109(e) with 29 CFR 1985.109(e); 29 CFR 1987.109(e). OSHA also declines to adopt Renner's additional suggestions relating to this section. First, OSHA declines to extend the time limit to petition for review because the shorter review period is consistent with the practices and procedures followed in OSHA's other whistleblower programs. Furthermore, parties may file a motion for extension of time to appeal an ALJ's decision, and the ARB has discretion to grant such extensions.

    OSHA also declines to change the provision that objections to legal conclusions not raised in petitions for review “may” be deemed waived. OSHA first notes that the use of the term “may” in the IFR was made as a result of comments submitted by Renner on other whistleblower rules recently published by OSHA. See, e.g., Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 219 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, 77 FR 40494, 40500-01 (July 10, 2012); Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under the Employee Protection Provision of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as amended, 77 FR 44121, 44131-32 (July 27, 2012). OSHA believes that use of the non-mandatory word “may” adequately addresses Renner's underlying concern that grounds not raised in a petition for review may be barred from consideration before the ARB.

    In addition to the revision noted above regarding the allocation of back pay to the appropriate period, minor changes were made as needed to clarify this section without changing its meaning.

    Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions Section 1984.111 Withdrawal of Complaints, Findings, Objections, and Petitions for Review; Settlement

    This section provides the procedures and time periods for withdrawal of complaints, the withdrawal of findings and/or preliminary orders by the Assistant Secretary, and the withdrawal of objections to findings and/or orders. It also provides for approval of settlements at the investigative and adjudicative stages of the case.

    No comments were received on this section. Minor changes were made as needed to this section to clarify the provision without changing its meaning.

    Section 1984.112 Judicial Review

    This section describes the statutory provisions of CPSIA, incorporated into section 18C of the FLSA, for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary and requires, in cases where judicial review is sought, the ALJ or the ARB to submit the record of proceedings to the appropriate court pursuant to the rules of such court.

    No comments were received on this section and no changes were made.

    Section 1984.113 Judicial Enforcement

    This section describes the Secretary's power under section 18C to obtain judicial enforcement of orders and the terms of settlement agreements. Section 18C incorporates the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitations set forth in CPSIA, 15 U.S.C. 2087(b), which expressly authorizes district courts to enforce orders, including preliminary orders of reinstatement, issued by the Secretary. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(6) (“Whenever any person has failed to comply with an order issued under paragraph (3), the Secretary may file a civil action in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to occur, or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia, to enforce such order.”). Specifically, reinstatement orders issued at the close of OSHA's investigation are immediately enforceable in district court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(6) and (7). Section 18C of the FLSA provides, through CPSIA, that the Secretary shall order the person who has committed a violation to reinstate the complainant to his or her former position. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(3)(B)(ii). Section 18C of the FLSA also provides, through CPSIA, that the Secretary shall accompany any reasonable cause finding that a violation occurred with a preliminary order containing the relief prescribed by subsection (b)(3)(B) of CPSIA, which includes reinstatement where appropriate, and that any preliminary order of reinstatement shall not be stayed upon the filing of objections. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2)(A) (“The filing of such objections shall not operate to stay any reinstatement remedy contained in the preliminary order.”). Thus, under section 18C of the FLSA, enforceable orders include preliminary orders that contain the relief of reinstatement prescribed by 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(3)(B). This statutory interpretation is consistent with the Secretary's interpretation of similar language in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century and Sarbanes-Oxley. See Brief for the Intervenor/Plaintiff-Appellee Secretary of Labor, Solis v. Tenn. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., No. 10-5602 (6th Cir. 2010); Solis v. Tenn. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 2d 701 (M.D. Tenn. 2010); but see Bechtel v. Competitive Techs., Inc., 448 F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2006); Welch v. Cardinal Bankshares Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 552 (W.D. Va. 2006) (decision vacated, appeal dismissed, No. 06-2295 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2008)). Also, through application of CPSIA, section 18C of the FLSA permits the person on whose behalf the order was issued to obtain judicial enforcement of the order. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(7).

    No comments were received on this section. OSHA has revised this section slightly to more closely parallel the provisions of the statute regarding the proper venue for an enforcement action.

    Section 1984.114 District Court Jurisdiction of Retaliation Complaints

    This section sets forth the statutory provisions that allow a complainant to bring an original de novo action in district court, alleging the same allegations contained in the complaint filed with OSHA, under certain circumstances. By incorporating the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitations set forth in CPSIA, 15 U.S.C. 2087(b), section 18C permits a complainant to file an action for de novo review in the appropriate district court if there has been no final decision of the Secretary within 210 days of the filing of the complaint, or within 90 days after receiving a written determination. “Written determination” refers to the Assistant Secretary's written findings issued at the close of OSHA's investigation under section 1984.105(a). 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(4). The Secretary's final decision is generally the decision of the ARB issued under section 1984.110. In other words, a complainant may file an action for de novo review in the appropriate district court in either of the following two circumstances: (1) A complainant may file a de novo action in district court within 90 days of receiving the Assistant Secretary's written findings issued under section 1984.105(a), or (2) a complainant may file a de novo action in district court if more than 210 days have passed since the filing of the complaint and the Secretary has not issued a final decision. The plain language of 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(4), by distinguishing between actions that can be brought if the Secretary has not issued a “final decision” within 210 days and actions that can be brought within 90 days after a “written determination,” supports allowing de novo actions in district court under either of the circumstances described above. However, in the Secretary's view, complainants may not initiate an action in federal court after the Secretary issues a final decision, even if the date of the final decision is more than 210 days after the filing of the complaint or within 90 days of the complainant's receipt of the Assistant Secretary's written findings. The purpose of the “kick-out” provision is to aid the complainant in receiving a prompt decision. That goal is not implicated in a situation where the complainant already has received a final decision from the Secretary. In addition, permitting the complainant to file a new case in district court in such circumstances could conflict with the parties' rights to seek judicial review of the Secretary's final decision in the court of appeals.

    Under section 18C of the FLSA, the Assistant Secretary's written findings become the final order of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review, if no objection is filed within 30 days. See 15 U.S.C. 2087(b)(2). Thus, a complainant may need to file timely objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings in order to preserve the right to file an action in district court.

    This section also requires that, within seven days after filing a complaint in district court, a complainant must provide a file-stamped copy of the complaint to the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending. In all cases, a copy of the complaint also must be provided to the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the U.S. Department of Labor's Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards. This provision is necessary to notify the Agency that the complainant has opted to file a complaint in district court. This provision is not a substitute for the complainant's compliance with the requirements for service of process of the district court complaint contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of the district court where the complaint is filed. The section also incorporates the statutory provisions which allow for a jury trial at the request of either party in a district court action, and which specify the remedies and burdens of proof in a district court action.

    OSHA received two comments on this section that are addressed in the general comments discussion. OSHA made minor changes to this section, substituting the term “retaliation” for “discrimination” and clarifying that in all cases parties must provide a copy of the district court complaint to the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the U.S. Department of Labor's Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards. Section 1984.115 Special Circumstances; Waiver of Rules.

    This section provides that in circumstances not contemplated by these rules or for good cause the ALJ or the ARB may, upon application and notice to the parties, waive any rule as justice or the administration of section 18C of the FLSA requires.

    No comments were made on this section and no substantive changes were made.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains a reporting provision (filing a retaliation complaint, Section 1984.103) which was previously reviewed and approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The assigned OMB control number is 1218-0236.

    V. Administrative Procedure Act

    NFIB and the Chamber commented that the IFR should be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. However, the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do not apply “to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This rule is a rule of agency procedure, practice, and interpretation within the meaning of that section.

    This rule is “procedural on its face,” because it sets forth procedures for OSHA to use in investigating complaints under the whistleblower provisions of the ACA, and procedures for the Secretary's adjudication of ACA whistleblower cases. See U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1150, 1152 (5th Cir.1984) (OSHA rule which “set[] forth procedural steps to guide the agency in exercise of its statutory authority to conduct investigations,” was “procedural on its face.”); see also American Hosp. Assoc. v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1050-51 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding the same with regard to HHS enforcement plan). The rule is “primarily directed toward improving the efficient and effective operations of” the agency. See Mendoza v. Perez, 754 F.3d 1002, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted) (explaining the difference between procedural and legislative rules). The rule does not alter the rights or interests of the parties to an ACA whistleblower proceeding, which are set forth in the statute and relevant case law. Rather, the rule sets forth the procedures under which the Secretary will investigate and adjudicate ACA whistleblower disputes.

    The rule is also interpretative, in part, since it also clarifies certain statutory terms, reminds parties of their existing obligations under the statute, and explains preexisting requirements under the statute. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 (2015), quoting Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995) (noting that interpretative rules are “issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers'); see also Mendoza, 754 F.3d at 1021 (“Interpretative rules are those that clarify a statutory or regulatory term, remind parties of existing statutory or regulatory duties, or merely track preexisting requirements and explain something the statute or regulation already required.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, OSHA was not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and request public comments on this rule. Although it was not required to do so for this procedural and interpretative rule, OSHA sought and considered comments to enable the agency to improve the rules by taking into account the concerns of interested persons.

    Furthermore, because this rule is procedural and interpretative rather than substantive, the normal requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that a rule be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register is inapplicable. OSHA also finds good cause to provide an immediate effective date for this final rule. It is in the public interest that the rule be effective immediately so that parties may know what procedures are applicable to pending cases. Furthermore, most of the provisions of this rule were in the IFR and have already been in effect since February 27, 2013 so a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

    VI. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563; Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995; Executive Order 13132

    NFIB and the Chamber commented that the IFR failed to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. OSHA disagrees. The Office of Management and Budget has concluded that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866, reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, requires a full economic impact analysis only for “economically significant” rules, which are defined in Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 as rules that may “[h]ave an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.” The rule is procedural and interpretative in nature. Because it simply implements procedures necessitated by enactment of section 18C of the FLSA, the rule is expected to have a negligible economic impact and no economic impact analysis under Section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order 12866 has been prepared. For the same reason, and the fact that no notice of proposed rulemaking has been published, the rule does not require a Section 202 statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Finally, this rule does not have “federalism implications,” in that 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” and therefore is not subject to Executive Order 13132 (Federalism).

    VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    NFIB and the Chamber commented that the IFR did not comply with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and that OSHA should have produced an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). NFIB also asserts that a Small Business Advocacy Review panel is warranted. OSHA disagrees. The notice and comment rulemaking procedures of section 553 of the APA do not apply “to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Rules that are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements are also exempt from the RFA. See SBA Office of Advocacy, A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, at 9 (May 2012); available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf*. This is a rule of agency procedure, practice, and interpretation within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553; and therefore the rule is exempt from both the notice and comment rulemaking procedures of the APA and the requirements under the RFA. For similar reasons, OSHA does not agree that a Small Business Advocacy Review panel is warranted.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1984

    Administrative practice and procedure, Employment, Health care, Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Whistleblower.

    Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction and control of David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 5, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, 29 CFR part 1984 is revised to read as follows: PART 1984—PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS UNDER SECTION 1558 OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, Findings, and Preliminary Orders Sec. 1984.100 Purpose and scope. 1984.101 Definitions. 1984.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. 1984.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. 1984.104 Investigation. 1984.105 Issuance of findings and preliminary orders. Subpart B—Litigation 1984.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and requests for a hearing. 1984.107 Hearings. 1984.108 Role of Federal agencies. 1984.109 Decision and orders of the administrative law judge. 1984.110 Decision and orders of the Administrative Review Board. Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions 1984.111 Withdrawal of complaints, findings, objections, and petitions for review; settlement. 1984.112 Judicial review. 1984.113 Judicial enforcement. 1984.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints. 1984.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules. Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 218C; Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (Jan. 18, 2012), 77 FR 3912 (Jan. 25, 2012); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 2-2012 (Oct. 19, 2012), 77 FR 69378 (Nov. 16, 2012).

    Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, Findings, and Preliminary Orders
    § 1984.100 Purpose and scope.

    (a) This part implements procedures under section 1558 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and was amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029, signed into law on March 30, 2010. The terms “Affordable Care Act” or “the Act” are used in this part to refer to the final, amended version of the law. Section 1558 of the Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (FLSA) by adding new section 18C. 29 U.S.C. 218C. Section 18C of the FLSA provides protection for an employee from retaliation because the employee has received a credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 36B, or a cost-sharing reduction (referred to as a “subsidy” in section 18C) under the Affordable Care Act, or because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to title I of the Affordable Care Act or any amendment made by title I of the Affordable Care Act.

    (b) This part establishes procedures under section 18C of the FLSA for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints filed by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf and sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of section 18C on certain statutory issues. These rules, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures under section 18C of the FLSA for submission of complaints, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges (ALJs), post-hearing administrative review, and withdrawals and settlements.

    § 1984.101 Definitions.

    As used in this part:

    (a) Advance payments of the premium tax credit or “APTC” means advance payments of the premium tax credit as defined in 45 CFR 155.20.

    (b) Affordable Care Act or “the Act” means the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010), as amended.

    (c) Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or the person or persons to whom he or she delegates authority under section 18C of the FLSA.

    (d) Business days means days other than Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays.

    (e) Complainant means the employee who filed an FLSA section 18C complaint or on whose behalf a complaint was filed.

    (f) Employee means:

    (1) Any individual employed by an employer. In the case of an individual employed by a public agency, the term employee means any individual employed by the Government of the United States: As a civilian in the military departments (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102), in any executive agency (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105), in any unit of the judicial branch of the Government which has positions in the competitive service, in a nonappropriated fund instrumentality under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces, in the Library of Congress, or in the Government Printing Office. The term employee also means any individual employed by the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission; and any individual employed by a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency, other than an individual who is not subject to the civil service laws of the State, political subdivision, or agency which employs him; and who holds a public elective office of that State, political subdivision, or agency, is selected by the holder of such an office to be a member of his personal staff, is appointed by such an officeholder to serve on a policymaking level, is an immediate adviser to such an officeholder with respect to the constitutional or legal powers of his office, or is an employee in the legislative branch or legislative body of that State, political subdivision, or agency and is not employed by the legislative library of such State, political subdivision, or agency.

    (2) The term employee does not include:

    (i) Any individual who volunteers to perform services for a public agency which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency, if the individual receives no compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services for which the individual volunteered—and such services are not the same type of services which the individual is employed to perform for such public agency;

    (ii) Any employee of a public agency which is a State, political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency that volunteers to perform services for any other State, political subdivision, or interstate governmental agency, including a State, political subdivision or agency with which the employing State, political subdivision, or agency has a mutual aid agreement; or

    (iii) Any individual who volunteers their services solely for humanitarian purposes to private non-profit food banks and who receive groceries from the food banks.

    (3) The term employee includes former employees and applicants for employment.

    (g) Employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and includes a public agency, but does not include any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.

    (h) Exchange means an Exchange as defined in 45 CFR 155.20.

    (i) OSHA means the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor.

    (j) Person means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of persons.

    (k) Respondent means the employer named in the complaint who is alleged to have violated section 18C of the FLSA.

    (l) Secretary means the Secretary of Labor or person to whom authority under section 18C of the FLSA has been delegated.

    (m) Any future statutory amendments that affect the definition of a term or terms listed in this section will apply in lieu of the definition stated herein.

    (n) Any future regulatory revisions that affect the definition of a term or terms listed in this section will apply in lieu of the definition stated herein.

    § 1984.102 Obligations and prohibited acts.

    (a) No employer may discharge or otherwise retaliate against, including, but not limited to, intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting or disciplining, any employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or an individual acting at the request of the employee), has engaged in any of the activities specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.

    (b) An employee is protected against retaliation because the employee (or an individual acting at the request of the employee) has:

    (1) Received a credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 36B, or a cost-sharing reduction under the Affordable Care Act, or been determined by an Exchange to be eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) or for a cost-sharing reduction;

    (2) Provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided to the employer, the Federal Government, or the attorney general of a State information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of title I of the Affordable Care Act (or an amendment made by title I of the Affordable Care Act);

    (3) Testified or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation;

    (4) Assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate, in such a proceeding; or

    (5) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee (or other such person) reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of title I of the Affordable Care Act (or amendment), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under title I of the Affordable Care Act (or amendment).

    § 1984.103 Filing of retaliation complaint.

    (a) Who may file. An employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of section 18C of the FLSA may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation.

    (b) Nature of filing. No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. Oral complaints will be reduced to writing by OSHA. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language.

    (c) Place of filing. The complaint should be filed with the OSHA office responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the employee resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following Internet address: http://www.osha.gov.

    (d) Time for filing. Within 180 days after an alleged violation of section 18C of the FLSA occurs, any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of that section may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, electronic communication transmittal, telephone call, hand-delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office will be considered the date of filing. The time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law. For example, OSHA may consider the time for filing a complaint equitably tolled if a complainant mistakenly files a complaint with another agency instead of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation.

    § 1984.104 Investigation.

    (a) Upon receipt of a complaint in the investigating office, OSHA will notify the respondent of the filing of the complaint, of the allegations contained in the complaint, and of the substance of the evidence supporting the complaint. Such materials will be redacted, if necessary, consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, et seq., and other applicable confidentiality laws. OSHA will also notify the respondent of its rights under paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section and § 1984.110(e). OSHA will provide an unredacted copy of these same materials to the complainant (or complainant's legal counsel if complainant is represented by counsel) and to the appropriate office of the federal agency charged with the administration of the general provisions of the Affordable Care Act under which the complaint is filed: Either the Internal Revenue Service of the United States Department of the Treasury (IRS), the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the United States Department of Labor (EBSA).

    (b) Within 20 days of receipt of the notice of the filing of the complaint provided under paragraph (a) of this section, the respondent and the complainant each may submit to OSHA a written statement and any affidavits or documents substantiating its position. Within the same 20 days, the respondent and the complainant each may request a meeting with OSHA to present its position.

    (c) During the investigation, OSHA will request that each party provide the other parties to the whistleblower complaint with a copy of submissions to OSHA that are pertinent to the whistleblower complaint. Alternatively, if a party does not provide its submissions to OSHA to the other party, OSHA will provide them to the other party (or the party's legal counsel if the party is represented by counsel) at a time permitting the other party an opportunity to respond. Before providing such materials to the other party, OSHA will redact them, if necessary, consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and other applicable confidentiality laws. OSHA will also provide each party with an opportunity to respond to the other party's submissions.

    (d) Investigations will be conducted in a manner that protects the confidentiality of any person who provides information on a confidential basis, other than the complainant, in accordance with part 70 of this title.

    (e)(1) A complaint will be dismissed unless the complainant has made a prima facie showing that a protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.

    (2) The complaint, supplemented as appropriate by interviews of the complainant, must allege the existence of facts and evidence to make a prima facie showing as follows:

    (i) The employee engaged in a protected activity;

    (ii) The respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in the protected activity;

    (iii) The employee suffered an adverse action; and

    (iv) The circumstances were sufficient to raise the inference that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action.

    (3) For purposes of determining whether to investigate, the complainant will be considered to have met the required burden if the complaint on its face, supplemented as appropriate through interviews of the complainant, alleges the existence of facts and either direct or circumstantial evidence to meet the required showing, i.e., to give rise to an inference that the respondent knew or suspected that the employee engaged in protected activity and that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. The burden may be satisfied, for example, if the complaint shows that the adverse action took place shortly after the protected activity, or at the first opportunity available to respondent, giving rise to the inference that it was a contributing factor in the adverse action. If the required showing has not been made, the complainant (or the complainant's legal counsel, if complainant is represented by counsel) will be so notified and the investigation will not commence.

    (4) Notwithstanding a finding that a complainant has made a prima facie showing, as required by this section, further investigation of the complaint will not be conducted if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the complainant's protected activity.

    (5) If the respondent fails to make a timely response or fails to satisfy the burden set forth in the prior paragraph, OSHA will proceed with the investigation. The investigation will proceed whenever it is necessary or appropriate to confirm or verify the information provided by the respondent.

    (f) Prior to the issuance of findings and a preliminary order as provided for in § 1984.105, if OSHA has reasonable cause, on the basis of information gathered under the procedures of this part, to believe that the respondent has violated section 18C of the FLSA and that preliminary reinstatement is warranted, OSHA will contact the respondent (or the respondent's legal counsel if respondent is represented by counsel) to give notice of the substance of the relevant evidence supporting the complainant's allegations as developed during the course of the investigation. This evidence includes any witness statements, which will be redacted to protect the identity of confidential informants where statements were given in confidence; if the statements cannot be redacted without revealing the identity of confidential informants, summaries of their contents will be provided. The complainant will also receive a copy of the materials that must be provided to the respondent under this paragraph. Before providing such materials to the complainant, OSHA will redact them, if necessary, consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and other applicable confidentiality laws. The respondent will be given the opportunity to submit a written response, to meet with the investigator, to present statements from witnesses in support of its position, and to present legal and factual arguments. The respondent must present this evidence within 10 business days of OSHA's notification pursuant to this paragraph, or as soon afterwards as OSHA and the respondent can agree, if the interests of justice so require.

    § 1984.105 Issuance of findings and preliminary orders.

    (a) After considering all the relevant information collected during the investigation, the Assistant Secretary will issue, within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, written findings as to whether or not there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has retaliated against the complainant in violation of section 18C of the FLSA.

    (1) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the Assistant Secretary will accompany the findings with a preliminary order providing relief to the complainant. The preliminary order will require, where appropriate: Affirmative action to abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former position, together with the compensation (including back pay and interest), terms, conditions and privileges of the complainant's employment; and payment of compensatory damages, including, at the request of the complainant, the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred. Interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. The preliminary order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate period.

    (2) If the Assistant Secretary concludes that a violation has not occurred, the Assistant Secretary will notify the parties of that finding.

    (b) The findings and, where appropriate, the preliminary order will be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested (or other means that allow OSHA to confirm receipt), to all parties of record (and each party's legal counsel if the party is represented by counsel). The findings and, where appropriate, the preliminary order will inform the parties of the right to object to the findings and/or order and to request a hearing, and of the right of the respondent to request an award of attorney fees not exceeding $1,000 from the administrative law judge (ALJ), regardless of whether the respondent has filed objections, if respondent alleges that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith. The findings, and where appropriate, the preliminary order, also will give the address of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor. At the same time, the Assistant Secretary will file with the Chief Administrative Law Judge a copy of the original complaint and a copy of the findings and/or order.

    (c) The findings and any preliminary order will be effective 30 days after receipt by the respondent (or the respondent's legal counsel if the respondent is represented by counsel), or on the compliance date set forth in the preliminary order, whichever is later, unless an objection and/or a request for hearing has been timely filed as provided at § 1984.106. However, the portion of any preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and the preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the findings and/or the order.

    Subpart B—Litigation
    § 1984.106 Objections to the findings and the preliminary order and requests for a hearing.

    (a) Any party who desires review, including judicial review, of the findings and/or preliminary order, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees under section 18C of the FLSA, must file any objections and/or a request for a hearing on the record within 30 days of receipt of the findings and preliminary order pursuant to § 1984.105(b). The objections, request for a hearing, and/or request for attorney fees must be in writing and state whether the objections are to the findings and/or the preliminary order, and/or whether there should be an award of attorney fees. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic communication transmittal is considered the date of filing; if the objection is filed in person, by hand delivery or other means, the objection is filed upon receipt. Objections must be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, and copies of the objections must be mailed at the same time to the other parties of record, the OSHA official who issued the findings and order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.

    (b) If a timely objection is filed, all provisions of the preliminary order will be stayed, except for the portion requiring preliminary reinstatement, which will not be automatically stayed. The portion of the preliminary order requiring reinstatement will be effective immediately upon the respondent's receipt of the findings and preliminary order, regardless of any objections to the order. The respondent may file a motion with the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a stay of the Assistant Secretary's preliminary order of reinstatement, which shall be granted only based on exceptional circumstances. If no timely objection is filed with respect to either the findings or the preliminary order, the findings and/or the preliminary order will become the final decision of the Secretary, not subject to judicial review.

    § 1984.107 Hearings.

    (a) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.

    (b) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties, by certified mail, of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.

    (c) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.

    (d) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.

    § 1984.108 Role of Federal agencies.

    (a)(1) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding and must be served with copies of all documents in the case. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.

    (2) Parties must send copies of documents to OSHA and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or when OSHA is participating in the proceeding, or when service on OSHA and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise required by these rules.

    (b) The IRS, HHS, and EBSA, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at those agencies' discretion. At the request of the interested federal agency, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to the federal agency, whether or not the agency is participating in the proceeding.

    § 1984.109 Decision and orders of the administrative law judge.

    (a) The decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ) will contain appropriate findings, conclusions, and an order pertaining to the remedies provided in paragraph (d) of this section, as appropriate. A determination that a violation has occurred may be made only if the complainant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint.

    (b) If the complainant has satisfied the burden set forth in the prior paragraph, relief may not be ordered if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of any protected activity.

    (c) Neither OSHA's determination to dismiss a complaint without completing an investigation pursuant to § 1984.104(e) nor OSHA's determination to proceed with an investigation is subject to review by the ALJ, and a complaint may not be remanded for the completion of an investigation or for additional findings on the basis that a determination to dismiss was made in error. Rather, if there otherwise is jurisdiction, the ALJ will hear the case on the merits or dispose of the matter without a hearing if the facts and circumstances warrant.

    (d)(1) If the ALJ concludes that the respondent has violated the law, the ALJ will issue an order that will require, where appropriate: Affirmative action to abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to his or her former position, together with the compensation (including back pay and interest), terms, conditions, and privileges of the complainant's employment; and payment of compensatory damages, including, at the request of the complainant, the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred. Interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. The order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate period.

    (2) If the ALJ determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint. If, upon the request of the respondent, the ALJ determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the ALJ may award to the respondent reasonable attorney fees, not exceeding $1,000.

    (e) The decision will be served upon all parties to the proceeding, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. Any ALJ's decision requiring reinstatement or lifting an order of reinstatement by the Assistant Secretary will be effective immediately upon receipt of the decision by the respondent. All other portions of the ALJ's order will be effective 14 days after the date of the decision unless a timely petition for review has been filed with the Administrative Review Board (ARB), U.S. Department of Labor. The decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary unless a petition for review is timely filed with the ARB and the ARB accepts the petition for review.

    § 1984.110 Decision and orders of the Administrative Review Board.

    (a) Any party desiring to seek review, including judicial review, of a decision of the ALJ, or a respondent alleging that the complaint was frivolous or brought in bad faith who seeks an award of attorney fees, must file a written petition for review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB), which has been delegated the authority to act for the Secretary and issue final decisions under this part. The parties should identify in their petitions for review the legal conclusions or orders to which they object, or the objections may be deemed waived. A petition must be filed within 14 days of the date of the decision of the ALJ. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, or electronic communication transmittal will be considered to be the date of filing; if the petition is filed in person, by hand delivery or other means, the petition is considered filed upon receipt. The petition must be served on all parties and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge at the time it is filed with the ARB. Copies of the petition for review must be served on the Assistant Secretary, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.

    (b) If a timely petition for review is filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary unless the ARB, within 30 days of the filing of the petition, issues an order notifying the parties that the case has been accepted for review. If a case is accepted for review, the decision of the ALJ will be inoperative unless and until the ARB issues an order adopting the decision, except that any order of reinstatement will be effective while review is conducted by the ARB, unless the ARB grants a motion by the respondent to stay that order based on exceptional circumstances. The ARB will specify the terms under which any briefs are to be filed. The ARB will review the factual determinations of the ALJ under the substantial evidence standard. If no timely petition for review is filed, or the ARB denies review, the decision of the ALJ will become the final order of the Secretary. If no timely petition for review is filed, the resulting final order is not subject to judicial review.

    (c) The final decision of the ARB will be issued within 120 days of the conclusion of the hearing, which will be deemed to be 14 days after the date of the decision of the ALJ, unless a motion for reconsideration has been filed with the ALJ in the interim. In such case, the conclusion of the hearing is the date the motion for reconsideration is ruled upon or 14 days after a new decision is issued. The ARB's final decision will be served upon all parties and the Chief Administrative Law Judge by mail. The final decision will also be served on the Assistant Secretary, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, even if the Assistant Secretary is not a party.

    (d) If the ARB concludes that the respondent has violated the law, the ARB will issue a final order providing relief to the complainant. The final order will require, where appropriate: Affirmative action to abate the violation; reinstatement of the complainant to the complainant's former position, together with the compensation (including back pay and interest), terms, conditions, and privileges of the complainant's employment; and payment of compensatory damages, including, at the request of the complainant, the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney and expert witness fees) reasonably incurred. Interest on back pay will be calculated using the interest rate applicable to underpayment of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be compounded daily. The order will also require the respondent to submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration allocating any back pay award to the appropriate period.

    (e) If the ARB determines that the respondent has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint. If, upon the request of the respondent, the ARB determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the ARB may award to the respondent reasonable attorney fees, not exceeding $1,000.

    Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions
    § 1984.111 Withdrawal of complaints, findings, objections, and petitions for review; settlement.

    (a) At any time prior to the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order, a complainant may withdraw his or her complaint by notifying the Assistant Secretary, orally or in writing, of his or her withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary then will confirm in writing the complainant's desire to withdraw and determine whether to approve the withdrawal. The Assistant Secretary will notify the parties (and each party's legal counsel if the party is represented by counsel) of the approval of any withdrawal. If the complaint is withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. A complainant may not withdraw his or her complaint after the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or preliminary order.

    (b) The Assistant Secretary may withdraw the findings and/or preliminary order at any time before the expiration of the 30-day objection period described in § 1984.106, provided that no objection has been filed yet, and substitute new findings and/or a new preliminary order. The date of the receipt of the substituted findings or order will begin a new 30-day objection period.

    (c) At any time before the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order become final, a party may withdraw objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order by filing a written withdrawal with the ALJ. If the case is on review with the ARB, a party may withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ's decision at any time before that decision becomes final by filing a written withdrawal with the ARB. The ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will determine whether to approve the withdrawal of the objections or the petition for review. If the ALJ approves a request to withdraw objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, and there are no other pending objections, the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order will become the final order of the Secretary. If the ARB approves a request to withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ decision, and there are no other pending petitions for review of that decision, the ALJ's decision will become the final order of the Secretary. If objections or a petition for review are withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.

    (d)(1) Investigative settlements. At any time after the filing of a complaint, and before the findings and/or order are objected to or become a final order by operation of law, the case may be settled if OSHA, the complainant, and the respondent agree to a settlement. OSHA's approval of a settlement reached by the respondent and the complainant demonstrates OSHA's consent and achieves the consent of all three parties.

    (2) Adjudicatory settlements. At any time after the filing of objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, the case may be settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and the settlement is approved by the ALJ if the case is before the ALJ, or by the ARB if the ARB has accepted the case for review. A copy of the settlement will be filed with the ALJ or the ARB, as appropriate.

    (e) Any settlement approved by OSHA, the ALJ, or the ARB will constitute the final order of the Secretary and may be enforced in United States district court pursuant to § 1984.113.

    § 1984.112 Judicial review.

    (a) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order under §§ 1984.109 and 1984.110, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation.

    (b) A final order is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.

    (c) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as the case may be, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of such court.

    § 1984.113 Judicial enforcement.

    Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under section 18C of the FLSA, the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia. Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under section 18C of the FLSA, a person on whose behalf the order was issued may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the appropriate United States district court.

    § 1984.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints.

    (a) The complainant may bring an action at law or equity for de novo review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy, either:

    (1) Within 90 days after receiving a written determination under § 1984.105(a) provided that there has been no final decision of the Secretary; or

    (2) If there has been no final decision of the Secretary within 210 days of the filing of the complaint.

    (3) At the request of either party, the action shall be tried by the court with a jury.

    (b) A proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section shall be governed by the same legal burdens of proof specified in § 1984.109. The court shall have jurisdiction to grant all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including injunctive relief and compensatory damages, including:

    (1) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the employee would have had, but for the discharge or retaliation;

    (2) The amount of back pay, with interest; and

    (3) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discharge or retaliation, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.

    (c) Within seven days after filing a complaint in federal court, a complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where the proceeding is pending, a copy of the file-stamped complaint. In all cases, a copy of the complaint also must be served on the OSHA official who issued the findings and/or preliminary order, the Assistant Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor.

    § 1984.115 Special circumstances; waiver of rules.

    In special circumstances not contemplated by the provisions of this part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ or the ARB on review may, upon application, after three-days notice to all parties, waive any rule or issue such orders that justice or the administration of section 18C of the FLSA requires.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24559 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0424; FRL-9953-92-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Revisions to the Permitting Rules AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of South Dakota on October 23, 2015 and July 29, 2013 related to South Dakota's Air Pollution Control Program. The October 23, 2015 submittal revises certain definitions and dates of incorporation by reference and contains new, amended and renumbered rules. In this rulemaking, we are taking final action on all portions of the October 23, 2015 submittal, except for those portions of the submittal which do not belong in the SIP. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0424. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section for additional availability information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is the EPA approving?

    The EPA is approving all revisions as submitted by the State of South Dakota on October 23, 2015, with the exception of the revisions that we are not acting on, as outlined in section III of our proposed rulemaking published on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52388). We are taking final action to approve the following revisions: (1) 74:36:01:01 (Definitions) - 74:36:01:01(8), 74:36:01:01(29), 74:36:01:01(67), 74:36:01:01(73), 74:36:01:05, and 74:36:01:20 ; 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality)—74:36:02:02, 74:36:02:03, 74:36:02:04 and 74:36:02:05; 74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes)—74:36:03:01 and 74:36:03:02; 74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources)—74:36:04:04, 74:36:04:03 and 74:36:04:21.01; 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)— 74:36:09:02, 74:36:09:03, 74:36:09:02(7), 74:36:09:02(8) and 74:36:09:02(9); 74:36:10 (New Source Review)— 74:36:10:02, 74:36:10:03.01, 74:36:10:05, 74:36:10:07 and 74:36:10:08; 74:36:11 (Performance Testing)—74:36:11:01; 74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions)—74:36:12:01 and 74:36:12:03; 74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area)—74:36:18:10; 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications)—74:36:20:05; 74:36:01:01(73) (Subject to Regulation); and the deletion of 74:36:04:03.01 (Minor Source Operating Permit Variance).

    We provided a detailed explanation of the bases for our proposal. See 81 FR 52388. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on September 8, 2016.

    In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the rules from the State's July 29, 2013 and October 23, 2015, submittals.

    II. Brief Discussion of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    The changes we are taking final action to approve are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. Specifically:

    1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), requires each state plan to include “a program to provide for the . . . regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter.”

    2. CAA section 165, lays out the requirements for obtaining a permit that must be included in a state's SIP-approved permit program. South Dakota's Air Pollution Control Program imposes these requirements on sources, and the State's proposed plan clearly satisfies the requirements of these statutory provisions.

    3. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), requires that SIPs contain enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state. Chapter 6, section 13 creates enforceable obligations for sources by removing phrases such as “the plan shall provide” and “the plan may provide.”

    4. CAA section 110(i), (with certain limited exceptions) prohibits states from modifying SIP requirements for stationary sources except through the SIP revision process. By eliminating unspecified procedures that were referenced in the May 10, 2011 submittal, the November 6, 2015 submittal addresses this issue.

    In addition, the CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 require states to have legally enforceable procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Such minor New Source Review (NSR) programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment NSR permits. States may customize the requirements of the minor NSR program as long as their program meets minimum requirements.

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states: “[e]ach revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.”

    The states' obligation to comply with each of the NAAQS is considered as “any applicable requirement(s) concerning attainment.” A demonstration is necessary to show that this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOX) or any other requirement of the Act. South Dakota's demonstration of noninterference (see docket), provides sufficient basis that new revisions to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Further details can be found in our proposed rulemaking.

    III. Response to Comments

    We received one comment during the public comment period. This comment was not related to the EPA's proposed rulemaking for South Dakota's permitting program changes which was published on August 8, 2016. As such, we are not providing a response to this comment.

    IV. Final Action

    As outlined in our proposed rulemaking, the EPA finds that the addition of new, revised and removed rules to ARSD 74:36 will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in the State of South Dakota and will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act or the EPA regulations as outlined in section II of this rulemaking (see proposed rulemaking for detailed rational); and thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l). Therefore, we are taking final action to approve South Dakota's revisions as submitted on October 23, 2015. We are not taking action on South Dakota's July 29, 2013 submittal because it was superseded.

    In our final rule published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7706) we inadvertently used an incorrect approval date in the updates to the South Dakota regulatory table. The EPA is taking final action to correct this error with this action. The IBR material for our February 16, 2016 action is contained within this docket.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is taking final action to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is taking final action to incorporate by reference the Administrative Rules of South Dakota pertaining to their permitting rules as outlined in section I. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. 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 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 (CRA), 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 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 CAA section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 26, 2016. Richard D. Buhl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart QQ—South Dakota 2. In § 52.2170, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising entries “74:36:01:01”, “74:36:01:05”, “74:36:01:10”, “74:36:01:20”; “74:36:02:02”, “74:36:02:03”, “74:36:02:04”, “74:36:02:05”; “74:36:03:01”, “74:36:03:02”; “74:36:04:03”, “74:36:04:04”, “74:36:04:21”; “74:36:09:02”, “74:36:09:03”; “74:36:10:02”, “74:36:10:03.01”, “74:36:10:05” “74:36:10:06” “74:36:10:07” “74:36:10:08”; “74:36:11:01”; “74:36:12:01”, “74:36:12:03”; “74:36:13:02”, “74:36:13:03”, “74:36:13:04”, “74:36:13:06”, “74:36:13:07”, “74:36:13:08”; “74:36:18:10”; “74:36:20:02”, “74:36:20:05”; “74:36:21:02”, “74:36:21:04”, “74:36:21:05”, and “74:36:21:09” to read as follows:
    § 52.2170 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Rule No. Rule title State effective date EPA effective date Final rule citation, date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01. Definitions 74:36:01:01 Definitions 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 Except for 74:36:01:01.(73). *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01:05 Applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act defined 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01:10 Modification defined 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:01:20 Physical change in or change in the method of operation defined 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:02. Ambient Air Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:02:02 Ambient air quality standards 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:02:03 Methods of sampling and analysis 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:02:04 Ambient air monitoring network 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:02:05 Air quality monitoring requirements 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:03. Air Quality Episodes 74:36:03:01 Air pollution emergency episode 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:03:02 Episode emergency contingency plan 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:04. Operating Permits for Minor Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:04:03 Emission unit exemptions 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:04:04 Standard for issuance of a minor source operating permit 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:04:21 Permit modifications 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:09. Prevention of Significant Deterioration *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:09:02 Prevention of significant deterioration 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 Except for 74:36:09:02.(10). 74:36:09:03 Public participation 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10. New Source Review *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:10:02 Definitions 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10:03.01 New source review preconstruction permit required 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10:05 New source review preconstruction permit 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10:06 Causing or contributing to a violation of any national ambient air quality standard 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10:07 Determining credit for emission offsets 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:10:08 Projected actual emissions 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:11. Performance Testing 74:36:11:01 Stack performance testing or other testing methods 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:12. Control of Visible Emissions *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:12:01 Restrictions on visible emissions 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:12:03 Exceptions granted to alfalfa pelletizers or dehydrators 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:13. Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:13:02 Minimum performance specifications for all continuous emission monitoring systems 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:13:03 Reporting requirements 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:13:04 Notice to department of exceedance 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:13:06 Compliance certification 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:13:07 Credible evidence 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:13:08 Compliance assurance monitoring 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:18. Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:18:10 Visible emission limit for construction and continuous operation activities 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:20. Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:20:02 Construction permit required 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:20:05 Standard for issuance of construction permit 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21. Regional Haze Program *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:02 Definitions 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:04 Visibility impact analysis 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 74:36:21:05 BART determination 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 74:36:21:09 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 10/13/2015 11/14/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation], 10/13/2016 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-24648 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0486; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0223; EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0447; EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0358; FRL-9953-85-Region 1] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP), the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES), the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC). These SIP revisions address provisions of the Clean Air Act that require each state to submit a SIP to address emissions that may adversely affect another state's air quality through interstate transport. The EPA has concluded that all four States have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from significantly contributing to the nonattainment, or interfering with the maintenance, of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in any other state. The intended effect of this action is to approve the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established separate dockets for this action under Docket Identification No.'s EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0486 for Maine, EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0223 for New Hampshire, EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0447 for Rhode Island, and EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0358 for Vermont. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site, although some information, such as confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not publically available. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1664; burkhart.rich[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background II. Public Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    This rulemaking approves SIP submissions from the ME DEP, the NH DES, the RI DEM, and the VT DEC. The SIP revisions were submitted on the following dates: October 26, 2015 (Maine); November 17, 2015 (New Hampshire); June 23, 2015 (Rhode Island) and November 2, 2015 (Vermont). These SIP submissions address the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1

    1 We note that while the SIP revisions submitted by Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island address only the transport elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Vermont's submittal addresses all of the infrastructure elements of CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Today's action, however, only addresses the transport elements of Vermont's submittal.

    On August 23, 2016 (81 FR 57519), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing approval of these four SIP submissions. The specific details of each state's SIP submission and the rationale for EPA's approval of each SIP submission are discussed in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    II. Public Comments

    EPA did not receive any comments in response to the NPR.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by the states on the following dates as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS: October 26, 2015 (Maine); November 7, 2015 (New Hampshire); June 23, 2015 (Rhode Island); and November 2, 2015 (Vermont). EPA has reviewed these SIP revisions and has found that they satisfy the relevant CAA requirements.

    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, 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

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

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

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

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, 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 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 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 27, 2016. Michael Kenyon, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of 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 U—Maine 2. In § 52.1020, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard” to the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1020 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Maine Non Regulatory Name of
  • nonregulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date/effective
  • date
  • EPA approved
  • date  3
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard Statewide Submitted 10/26/2015 10/13/2016, [Insert Federal Register citation] State submitted a transport SIP for the 2008 ozone standard which shows it does not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment or maintenance in any other state. EPA approved this submittal as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
    Subpart EE—New Hampshire 3. In § 52.1520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard” to the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.1520 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    New Hampshire Non Regulatory Name of
  • nonregulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date/effective
  • date
  • EPA approved
  • date  3
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard Statewide Submitted 11/7/2015 10/13/16, [Insert Federal Register citation] State submitted a transport SIP for the 2008 ozone standard which shows it does not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment or maintenance in any other state. EPA approved this submittal as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
    Subpart OO—Rhode Island 4. In § 52.2070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard” to the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2070 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Rhode Island Non Regulatory Name of
  • nonregulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date/effective
  • date
  • EPA approved
  • date 
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard Statewide Submitted 6/23/2015 10/13/2016 , [Insert Federal Register citation] State submitted a transport SIP for the 2008 ozone standard which shows it does not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment or maintenance in any other state. EPA approved this submittal as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    Subpart UU—Vermont 5. In § 52.2370, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard” to the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2370 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Vermont Non-Regulatory Name of
  • nonregulatory SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal
  • date/effective
  • date
  • EPA approved
  • date
  • Explanations
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Transport SIP for the 2008 Ozone Standard Statewide Submitted 11/2/2015 10/13/2016 , [Insert Federal Register citation] State submitted a transport SIP for the 2008 ozone standard which shows it does not significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment or maintenance in any other state. EPA approved this submittal as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    [FR Doc. 2016-24491 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384 [Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0051] RIN 2126-AB68 Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends its commercial driver's license (CDL) regulations to ease the transition of military personnel into civilian careers driving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by simplifying the process of obtaining a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or CDL. This final rule extends the period of time for applying for a skills test waiver from 90 days to 1 year after leaving a military position requiring the operation of a CMV. This final rule also allows a State to accept applications from active duty military personnel who are stationed in that State as well as administer the written and skills tests for a CLP or CDL. States that choose to accept such applications are required to transmit the test results electronically to the State of domicile of the military personnel. The State of domicile may issue the CLP or CDL on the basis of those results.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration this final rule must be submitted in accordance with 49 CFR 389.35 to: FMCSA Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590- 0001 no later than November 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Selden Fritschner, CDL Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 202-366-0677. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Final Rule is organized as follows:

    I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents B. Privacy Act II. Executive Summary III. Legal Basis IV. Background V. Proposed Rule VI. Discussion of Comments and Responses VII. Changes from the NPRM VIII. Today's Final Rule IX. International Impacts X. Section-by-Section XI. Regulatory Analyses A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property) J. Privacy K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovermental Review) L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards) O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice) I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2016-0051 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    B. 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.

    II. Executive Summary

    Section 32308 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 794, July 6, 2012] required FMCSA to undertake a study to assess Federal and State regulatory, economic, and administrative challenges faced by current and former members of the armed forces, who operated qualifying motor vehicles during their service, in obtaining CDLs. As a result of this study, FMCSA provided a report to Congress titled “Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses” (November 2013) (available in the docket for this rulemaking). The report contained six recommended actions, and two elements of the report comprise the main parts of this rulemaking. These actions are: (1) Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) governing the military skills test waiver to extend the time period to apply for a waiver from 90 days to 1 year within which service members were regularly employed in a position requiring operation of a CMV; and (2) Revise the definitions of CLP and CDL in 49 CFR 383.5 and 384.301 and related provisions governing the domicile requirement, in order to implement the statutory waiver enacted by the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-196, 126 Stat. 1459, Oct. 19, 2012).

    This rule eases the current burdens on military personnel applying for CLPs and CDLs issued by a State Driver Licensing Agency (SDLA) in two ways. First, it extends the time in which States are allowed (but not required) by 49 CFR 383.77 to waive the skills test for certain military personnel from 90 days to 1 year. On July 8, 2014, FMCSA issued a temporary exemption under 49 CFR part 381 that extended the skills test waiver to 1 year [79 FR 38659].1 On June 29, 2016, FMCSA extended the temporary exemption for another two years, through July 8, 2018 (81 FR 42391). This final rule makes the waiver extension permanent. Second, this rule allows States to accept applications and administer all necessary tests for a CLP or CDL from active duty service members stationed in that State who are operating in a Military Occupational Specialty as full-time CMV drivers. States that choose to exercise this option are required to transmit the application and test results electronically to the SDLA in the service member's State of domicile, which would then issue the CLP or CDL. This enables service members to complete their licensing requirements without incurring the time and expense of returning to their State of domicile. FMCSA encourages, but does not require, the State of domicile to issue the CLP or CDL on the basis of this information in accordance with otherwise applicable procedures.

    1 Available in the docket for this rulemaking.

    FMCSA evaluated potential costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking and estimates that these changes could result in net benefits between $3.2 million and $7.7 million over 10 years, discounted at 7%.

    III. Legal Basis

    This rulemaking rests on the authority of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts 382, 383, and 384. It responds to section 5401(b) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1547, December 4, 2015], which requires FMCSA to implement the recommendations included in the report submitted pursuant to section 32308 of MAP-21, discussed above. Section 5401(c) of the FAST Act also requires FMCSA to implement the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 [49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(C)]. As explained later in the preamble, this rule will give military personnel all of the benefits of the Military CDL Act, while providing options.

    The CMVSA provides broadly that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle” (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). Those regulations shall ensure that “(1) an individual issued a commercial driver's license [must] pass written and driving tests for the operation of a commercial motor vehicle that comply with the minimum standards prescribed by the Secretary under section 31305(a) of this title” (49 U.S.C. 31308(1)). To avoid the withholding of certain Federal-aid funds, States must adopt a testing program “consistent with the minimum standards prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 31305(a) of this title” (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(1)).

    Potential CMV drivers often obtain CDL training outside their State of domicile. Driver training schools typically provide their students with a “representative” vehicle to use for the required skills test (see 49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(2)), as well as a CDL holder to accompany the applicant to the test site. Until 2012, however, the CMVSA provided that a CDL could be issued only by the driver's State of domicile (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(A)). The cost to applicants trained out-of-State of traveling to their State of domicile to be skills tested can be substantial in terms of both personal time and financial expense. Therefore, on the basis of the authority cited in the previous paragraph, FMCSA's final rule on “Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards” (76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011) required States where a driver is domiciled to accept the result of skills tests administered by a different State where the driver completed training (49 CFR 383.79).

    Legal residence or “domicile” is the State that individuals consider their permanent home, where they pay taxes, vote, and get a driver's license. Military personnel are frequently stationed outside their State of domicile. The Military CDL Act allows a State to issue CDLs to certain military personnel not domiciled in the State, if their temporary or permanent duty stations are located in that State (49 U.S.C. 31312(a)(12)(C)). However, this procedure creates problems for service members trying to maintain legal domicile in another State. Because drivers' licenses are often treated as proof of domicile, obtaining a CDL from the State where they are stationed could result in the loss of domicile and corresponding benefits (e.g., tax breaks) in what they consider their “home” State.

    This final rule therefore utilizes the CMVSA's broader authority to allow the State where military personnel are stationed to accept CLP or CDL applications and to administer written and skills tests for the CDL. The rule requires a State that utilizes this procedure to transmit the application and test results electronically to the State of domicile, which is permitted, but is not required, to issue the CLP or CDL. This maintains the link between the issuing State and the driver's State of domicile that was mandated by the CMVSA [49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)] until the Military CDL Act authorized an exception (with problematical implications) for military personnel.

    Section 5401(a) of the FAST Act added to 49 U.S.C. 31305 a new paragraph (d), which requires FMCSA to (1) exempt certain ex-military personnel from the CDL skills test if they had military experience driving heavy military vehicles; (2) extend the skills test waiver to one year; and (3) credit the CMV training military drivers receive in the armed forces toward applicable CDL training and knowledge requirements. This rule addresses the first and second of these requirements in considerable detail; the third, however, will require subsequent rulemaking.

    Section 5302 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to give priority to statutorily required rules before beginning other rulemakings, unless it determines that there is a significant need for the other rulemaking and so notifies Congress. This rule is required by the provisions of section 5401. Even in the absence of those mandates, however, FMCSA believes the need to improve employment opportunities for military personnel returning to civilian life justifies the publication of this rule.

    IV. Background

    States are allowed to waive the skills test for current or former military personnel who meet certain conditions and are or were regularly employed in the preceding 90 days in a military position requiring the operation of a CMV (49 CFR 383.77(b)(1)). Between May 2011 and February 2015, more than 10,100 separated military personnel took advantage of the skills test waiver. In the November 2013 Report to Congress titled, “Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses,” FMCSA concluded that lengthening that 90-day period would ease the transition of service members and veterans 2 to civilian life with no impact to safety. FMCSA recommended an extension of the period of availability to 1 year.

    2 Veteran: A person who served on active duty in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.

    The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently requested an exemption from § 383.77(b)(1) to allow a 1-year waiver period for military personnel (available in docket FMCSA-2014-0096). On April 7, 2014, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice announcing the request (79 FR 19170). Five comments were received; all supported the application, agreeing that extending the waiver period to 1 year would enable more military personnel to obtain CDLs. In addition, the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suggested “broader application of this exemption to all jurisdictions.” The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which represents State and Provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws, also requested that FMCSA consider a blanket exemption for all U.S. jurisdictions.

    FMCSA determined that the exemption requested by the Virginia DMV would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved without the exemption, as required by 49 CFR 381.305(a). The Agency, therefore, approved the exemption and made it available to all SDLAs (79 FR 38645, July 8, 2014). That nationwide exemption was extended for an additional 2 years by a notice published June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42391). However, neither exemption changed the language of § 383.77(b)(1) and the current exemption remains effective only until July 8, 2018.

    V. Proposed Rule

    On March 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012” (81 FR 14052). The proposed changes in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 were intended to ease the process of getting a CLP or CDL for both active duty and recently separated military personnel.

    VI. Discussion of Comments and Responses General Comments on the Rule

    The NPRM elicited 16 comments, the majority from SDLAs. Several SDLAs and individuals suggested changes to the proposal, but no commenters opposed the rule.

    A. Section 383.5: New Definition of “Military Services”

    Issue: The NPRM proposed adding a definition in § 383.5 of “military services” to the list of definitions in that section. A definition for “military services” is needed in order to interpret the new requirements in part 383 in this rulemaking.

    Comments: The Virginia DMV requested guidance on the meaning of the term “auxiliary units,” and suggested mirroring United States Code language.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA has removed the reference to “auxiliary units.” It was used to cover the Coast Guard Auxiliary, but should not have been included because the Auxiliary is a non-military organization [see 14 U.S.C. 821(a)] and its members are civilians. The definition of “military services” proposed in the NPRM follows the relevant definitions in the Armed Forces title of the United States Code (10 U.S.C. 101). Those definitions do not use the term “auxiliary units.”

    B. Section 383.77: Allowing States To Extend Their Waiver of the Skills Test for Separated Military Personnel From 90 Days to 1 Year

    Issue: The NPRM would have amended § 383.77(b)(1) to allow States to accept skills test waiver applications from military personnel for up to 1 year after they were regularly employed in a military position requiring operation of a CMV.

    Comments: The Virginia DMV and AAMVA reaffirmed their support for the proposal. The American Bus Association (ABA) stated that the proposal would “ease the administrative burden on state licensing agencies in no longer having to periodically apply for these extensions, but it would have a practical benefit to transitioning military CMV drivers looking for a new civilian CMV driving career.” The New York DMV favored the extension because it would alleviate some of the problems identified by FMCSA in its 2013 Report to Congress. The Montana Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division (DOJ/MVD), supported codifying the regulatory exemption. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicles (DPS/DV), favored the extension, as it mirrors Minnesota law. The Michigan Department of State (DOS), the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT), and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) supported the proposal.

    One individual commenter agreed with the concept but suggested an eight month timeframe instead of one year.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA adopts the proposal as drafted. FMCSA will extend the 90-day skills test waiver period to 1 year from the date the driver was last employed in a military position regularly requiring the operation of a CMV. This does not otherwise change the eligibility criteria for the exemption.

    Training for Military Drivers, How the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule Would Affect These Drivers (§ 383.77)

    Issue: Section 383.77 implies that a military or ex-military applicant would need a certain level of experience, but the proposal did not mandate any training.

    Comments: One individual commenter stated that, although she supported the rulemaking and easing the transition for returning veterans, CDL schools have a value. She stated that many veterans currently use the GI Bill to attend a CDL school. She also stated that the CDL curriculum is only 20 days.

    The New York DMV asked if proof of CMV driving would replace the Entry-Level Driver Training requirements, and if it could, how much would be required.

    ATA favored allowing non-military drivers, in addition to military personnel, to take the written and skills tests outside their State of domicile, and requested that FMCSA issue a supplemental NPRM on that subject.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that driver training is important, and recently published an NPRM that would require training for entry-level drivers (81 FR 11944, March 7, 2016). Under that proposal, entry-level driver training would not be required for “Veterans with military CMV experience who meet all the requirements and conditions of § 383.77 of this chapter” (49 CFR 380.603(a)(3)). Today's final rule extends the waiver period allowed by § 383.77, but does not address substantive training issues. Giving non-military drivers the same testing flexibility granted to military personnel is beyond the scope of this rule, and FMCSA declines to consider the ATA request at this time.

    C. Section 383.79: Allow the State Where the Person Is Stationed and the State of Domicile To Coordinate CLP and CDL Testing and CDL Issuance

    The NPRM would have allowed a State where active-duty military personnel are stationed to accept applications and administer CLP knowledge and CDL skills tests. That State would then have been required to transmit the application and test results to the driver's State of domicile, which would have been required to accept these documents and issue the CLP or CDL.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Licensing Variations

    Issue: The proposal did not account for licensing variations among the States, relying on the 2011 CDL rulemaking that standardized the elements of a license.

    Comments: Several commenters pointed out that States have different procedures for issuing CLPs and CDLs. AAMVA requested a list of data elements that needed to be transferred, as many States have variations. The Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) asked which SDLA (the State where the driver is stationed or the State of domicile) would handle the verification processes. The California DMV asked how to convert a CLP to a CDL under §§ 383.25 and 383.153, and did not address a non-domiciled variation. ATA supported allowing jurisdictions to test on behalf of each other, and stated that the knowledge and skills test should be standardized, per FMCSA's statements in the NPRM. Because of the standardization, ATA did not believe there would be any change or reduction in safety, and pointed out that costs for service members who want to obtain a CLP or CDL would likely decrease.

    FMCSA Response: The 2011 CLP/CDL rule (89 FR 26853) required States to adopt new minimum Federal standards for the CDL knowledge and skills tests and established new minimum procedures for States to issue the CLP. FMCSA has confirmed that all States meet those minimum standards. In addition, some States have adopted more stringent standards. While that is allowed by part 383, it does create variations among States.

    As proposed in the NPRM, the State of domicile will issue the CLP or CDL; this has always been a fundamental principle of the program. However, in response to comments, the NPRM requirement that the State of domicile must accept and act on information transmitted by the State where the driver is stationed has been removed. The final rule is entirely permissive. In other words, the State where the military driver is stationed may (but is not required to) administer the written and skills tests for the CLP and CDL—as proposed in the NPRM—and the State of domicile may (but is not required to) accept the testing information and documentation provided by the State where the driver is stationed and issue the CLP or CDL on that basis. This permissive approach will require coordination between two States, and among many pairs of States. At a minimum, the State where the driver is stationed will have to use administrative procedures, forms, etc., that are acceptable to the State of domicile, since that State would ultimately issue (or refuse to issue) the CLP or CDL. The Agency recognizes that States will have to harmonize different practices. If two SDLAs find that their licensing standards are incompatible, they will not reach agreement and military drivers will not be able to use the application and testing alternatives allowed by this rule. However, we are confident that most States will work out their mutual differences in order to help military personnel transition to civilian careers in the motor carrier industry.

    This final rule does not change the requirements for converting a CLP to a CDL. If eligible military CLP holders want to apply for a CDL, they could do so where they are stationed (assuming that State uses the option granted by this rule), but the CDL itself must still be issued by the State of domicile.

    Participating States have a 3 year period to adopt the framework of the rule. FMCSA, AAMVA, and the States will work together to reach agreement to implement the procedures after this time.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Fees

    Issue: The proposal was silent on the topic of fees charged by SDLAs for services rendered under proposed § 383.79.

    Comments: The New York DMV asked how the State of domicile will collect fees if the process is entirely electronic. The Oregon DMV voiced concern that drivers might be forced to pay both the State where the driver's application is filed and processed and the State of domicile, and stated that it was required by statute to collect fees before issuing CLPs and CDLs. The Michigan DOS asked for clarify concerning fees, and said there was an assumption of shared cost between the State of domicile and State of station. North Dakota stated that its fee has to be paid in person. The Minnesota DPS/DV wanted the issue of fees to be addressed explicitly. The California DMV stated that fees were not addressed in the proposal.

    FMCSA Response: Driver licensing fees are left to the discretion of the States, and FMCSA believes that States are best equipped to determine such fees. Some SDLAs currently waive fees for active-duty military personnel and may well continue to do so while utilizing this rule. On the other hand, it is possible that both States involved in the new testing and licensing procedures allowed by this rule may charge for their services. Even in that worst-case scenario, however, the driver is likely to find the new procedures cheaper than returning to his/her State of domicile to complete the necessary applications and tests. In cases where one State has to transmit all or part of a fee to another State, FMCSA is confident that current financial systems will be able to provide solutions. The reciprocal transfers among States required by the International Registration Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement suggest that options may be readily available.

    As discussed below in connection with Executive Order 12866, military drivers will retain the options: (1) To return to their State of domicile to apply for a CLP or CDL; and (2) to change their State of domicile to the State where they are stationed. If the distance between two States is small enough, and cost of returning to the State of domicile is cheaper than the fees charged, then the military driver may wish to apply for the CLP or CDL in person in the State of domicile. This rulemaking does not alter that ability.

    FMCSA believes the rule offers significant flexibility that will reduce the cost to most military drivers of obtaining a CDL. Nonetheless, each driver will have to balance application fees versus travel costs, and the advantages of maintaining and switching State of domicile.

    Procedural Inconsistences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Forms and Applications

    Issue: The NPRM was silent on which State (State of domicile or State of station) would supply the application for a CLP or a CDL.

    Comments: Several SDLAs had concerns about issuing or processing CLPs and CDLs on behalf of another State. Several mentioned that different States require different information.

    The Arizona DOT said that it could not enforce another State's standard. The Oregon DMV stated that CLP and CDL applications are not uniform, and neither are the skills and knowledge tests. The Oregon DMV is prohibited by statute from using another State's application to issue an Oregon license. Oregon also stated that any expectation of enforcing another State's applications and forms is unreasonable. The New York DMV stated that the applications are too varied, and requested guidelines to ensure each State receives the data it needs. The Arizona DOT argued that requiring States to handle other States' applications infringes upon State laws, and it is not realistic for personnel to handle forms from other SDLAs, as they would require different information. Arizona also noted that States might require legislative changes in order to implement the regulatory revisions adopted here. Minnesota DPS/DV pointed out that each SDLA has a different form; Minnesota does not use an electronic form. The Michigan DOS and Virginia DMV suggested national forms and applications as possible solutions for consistency. The Michigan DOS also asked how the State where the driver is stationed would verify a credential in the State of domicile. Virginia requested AAMVA's involvement in developing a national application, if one were to be developed. AAMVA asked for clarification about which elements needed standardization.

    The Nebraska DMV requested clarification of what parts of the application would be mandatory for transmission. North Dakota said that the process in the NPRM did not provide enough information for a State of station to adequately maintain records and process records for the State of domicile. North Dakota said that its own application must be used.

    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees that clarification would be needed if FMCSA were adopting forms, applications, and procedures. However, FMCSA is not adopting national forms that States must use when implementing this final rule. The outlines of a national standard are already specified in considerable detail in §§ 383.25 Commercial learner's permit (CLP) and 383.71 Driver application and certification procedures. As indicated above, the Agency is allowing any two States involved in the issuance of a CLP or CDL to military personnel stationed outside their State of domicile to work out between themselves any remaining differences in their respective procedures and requirements. The most obvious solution would be for the State where the driver is stationed to use the forms and follow the procedures required by the State of domicile. FMCSA will work with the SDLAs and AAMVA during the implementation period to assist in determining common data points that meet the needs of the States that wish to participate.

    Some States may decide not to process or accept CLP and/or CDL applications transmitted by another State. The rule does not require any State to enforce another State's standard. The State of station will collect applications on behalf of the State of domicile. It will be the applicant's responsibility to ensure both that the State where he/she is stationed will entertain an application and that his/her State of domicile will accept and process the application and test results provided by the former and issue a CLP or CDL.

    Again, the final rule is entirely permissive. Each pair of States potentially involved in the licensing procedures allowed by this rule can opt out if the involved States are unable to reach agreement. The Agency believes that many States will find ways to harmonize their forms, procedures, and other requirements—but we recognize that some States will not be able to do so. FMCSA has expanded the description of the requirements in today's final rule, including making it clear that States have the option—but are not required—to process applications and test results on behalf of other States and to accept those applications and test results collected by other States.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): License Used for Non-Driving Purposes

    Issue: The NPRM was silent on the topic of licenses being used for purposes other than driving.

    Comments: The Montana DOJ/MVD asked how this proposed rule would impact voting. The New York DMV asked if there would be an impact on drivers who no longer have current addresses within the State of domicile. The Oregon DMV stated that each SDLA has its own standards for domicile, and it will be impossible for another State's SDLA to verify them.

    FMCSA Response: The Agency notes the concerns about voting rights, as well as the domicile status and addresses of applicants, but believes that most States will be able to resolve such questions in cooperation with other States. Drivers who obtain a CLP or CDL through this process will retain their State of domicile, and will therefore never be entered into the pool of voters in the State where they are stationed, or need to update their addresses. From the perspective of the SDLA in the driver's State of domicile, nothing has changed.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): In-Person Requirements

    Issue: FMCSA did not address photo or other in-person licensing requirements.

    Comments: Several SDLAs pointed to inconsistencies in procedures between States for parts of the license that must be done in person, such as facial recognition and signature.

    AAMVA asked for clarification on which jurisdiction would be responsible for the photography element; it also mentioned the REAL ID Act provision that requires digital pictures on a driver's license, as well as tracking of denied REAL ID applications. AAMVA said that all SDLAs are not following the REAL ID requirements, and that if the driver's picture is taken in the State where he/she is stationed, this could have an additional cost. When a license is issued, the Oregon DMV takes a photograph which is digitized and compared to a database with facial recognition software. The New York DMV mentioned other in-person requirements in addition to a photograph, including a Social Security Number and other State-specific identity confirmation.

    The Virginia DMV stated its concern about a driver using the new provisions of § 383.79 if he or she did not have an existing license; Virginia mentioned that this might be a concern for issuing a photograph of the driver on the license. The Montana DOJ/MVD mentioned that the initial issuance of a license can only take place in person; an in-person signature may also be required from those drivers who are domiciled in Montana, but have not provided a digital signature recently, and this would require a data base modification.

    North Dakota stated that many of its requirements, like digital photo processing, eye exams, and fees, must be done in person; not allowing the State of domicile to insist on these requirements is “unacceptable.” The Michigan DOS mentioned that facial recognition, fingerprinting, and retinal scanning often occur in the State of domicile when a new CLP or CDL is issued. The California DMV asked whether a State that requires facial recognition would process a CLP or CDL application without the applicant appearing in person. The Arizona DOT listed a number of in-person-only requirements. These included facial recognition, original documents for citizenship verification, and digital signatures.

    FMCSA Response: As explained above, this final rule is permissive, not mandatory. If a State of domicile concludes that another SDLA cannot properly administer its processing procedures, it can decline to issue CLPs/CDLs to military personnel stationed in that State. And a State that knows its processing standards are inconsistent with those of another State can decline even to accept CLP/CDL applications from military personnel domiciled in that State.

    It is worth noting, however, that there is no Federal requirement on where a photograph is taken. That factor alone should not impede a State of domicile from accepting a CLP/CDL application from a State where a military driver is stationed.

    FMCSA disagrees with the Virginia DMV's comment concerning drivers who do not have existing licenses; only drivers who have an existing license are eligible for relief under § 383.79. As for Montana's comment, today's final rule applies only to a driver with an existing license from his/her State of domicile. An initial license would never be issued by the State where the individual is stationed.

    Other in-person procedures would be left to the discretion of the two SDLAs; they could determine whether it would be possible to meet criteria for facial recognition, digital signatures, REAL ID Act requirements, and other processes normally done in-person. The Agency declines to add these provisions to a final rule, as it believes that the best practices will be implemented at the State level. If our assistance is sought, FMCSA will work with AAMVA to create best practices.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Verification of Military Station or Military Status

    Issue: The proposed rule did not address how to verify the military station or status of applicants.

    Comments: AAMVA pointed out that proof of State of station should be provided, and asked FMCSA to issue guidance on this topic. The New York DMV and the Nebraska DMV asked for clarification on how to prove the State of station.

    FMCSA Response: The applicant must provide proof of his or her active duty status in the form of a valid active duty military identification card. In addition, the applicant must show the driver licensing agency either a copy of his or her current orders or a current Military Leave and Earning Statement (Jan 2002) to prove where he or she is stationed.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Credentialing, License Issuance

    Issue: Due to the issuance of the 2011 CDL and CLP rule referenced previously, FMCSA believed that all States met the same minimum standard when issuing CLPs and CDLs.

    Comments: Several SDLAs mentioned credentialing concerns. The California DMV asked how to destroy another State's license in accordance with § 383.73(c)(6). AAMVA stated that it was concerned there was no mechanism to issue a new CLP or CDL. AAMVA stated that some SDLAs mail licenses to the applicants, but there is no standardized process. AAMVA also expressed concerns about multiple-document retention, and gave an example where an applicant ended up with several licenses at the same time; AAMVA said that the rule should address the surrendering of licenses. The Minnesota DPS/DV wanted a clear explanation of which State should destroy the old credentials. The Arizona DOT pointed to § 384.211 and stated that it requires the destruction of old credentials before the issuance of new credentials; that process would leave drivers not present in that State without a license in the interim.

    ATA stated that if there was a lag time in issuing new credentials, the driver should be given an alternate document (coordinated by the two States involved) for proof of licensure during that time. ATA suggested allowing the State where the driver is stationed to issue CLPs and CDLs on behalf of the State of domicile.

    FMCSA Response: The application and testing procedures allowed by this rule are available only to military drivers who already have a non-CDL license from their State of domicile. That State is responsible for issuing the new CLP or CDL. Although this rule leaves the repossession of the previous license (usually a standard automobile license) to the discretion of the States involved, there would seem to be two basic alternatives. Either the State of domicile would send the CDL document to the State where the driver is stationed, which in turn would demand and destroy the previous license when it delivered the CDL to the driver; or the State of domicile would require the driver to mail his/her previous license to that SDLA, which would destroy it and then mail the CDL back to the driver. The second procedure would leave the driver without a driver's license for a few days. FMCSA believes that participating States will be able to utilize these or other agreed-upon procedures without incurring any serious risk that a driver could hold multiple driving credentials or would be without any credentials for an interim period.

    Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (§ 383.79): Citizenship

    Issue: The proposed rule did not address citizenship.

    Comments: The Montana DOJ/MVD and the New York DMV asked which State would verify citizenship or lawful permanent residency, since not all holders of automobile licenses will be United States citizens. New York asked how a processing State would send citizenship information to a domicile State, if that was the procedure chosen. New York DMV pointed out that checking this information is required under §§ 383.71 and 383.73. The Virginia DMV asked for clarification of “legal presence” as well. Referring to § 383.71, the Arizona DOT said that its policy was to require original documents to verify citizenship, and that this could not be done through the mail.

    FMCSA Response: Proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency will necessarily be included in the application process. Ultimately, the responsibility for verifying the driver's status rests with the State of domicile, since it will issue the CLP or CDL, but the State where the applicant is stationed can verify these matters on behalf of the State of domicile. The two States involved will have to work out the necessary administrative steps between themselves. It must be noted that § 383.71(a)(2)(v) and § 383.73(a)(2)(vi) both require proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency. This rule does not change either of these requirements, and the CLP/CDL remains available only to citizens and lawful permanent residents.

    Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (§ 383.79): Mandatory Use of Systems

    Issue: The results of the completed knowledge and skills test would be transmitted the same way the skills test scores are transmitted today for out of state testers—electronically. Only passing results would be transmitted.

    Comments: Several SDLAs voiced concern about variances in data between States and asked the Agency to identify the system to be used for data transfer. The California DMV mentioned that the system used would have to protect personally identifiable information (PII), and should have standardized data elements. AAMVA stated that the systems developed to transmit skills test results pursuant to the 2011 CLP/CDL rule would have to be modified to accommodate the knowledge test results and the application itself. The New York DMV echoed this point and asked what format would be used to transfer applications and test results, as the current systems do not do this. The Virginia DMV stated that transmittal must be done electronically for security, and requested the enhancement and explicit requirement for use of the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS) and the Report Out-Of-State Test Results (ROOSTR) system. The Nebraska DMV also requested an explicit CSTIMS and ROOSTR transmission requirement.

    The Montana DOJ/MVD stated that current information transmission systems were inadequate and that there would be technical, procedural, and legal issues. It referred to several AAMVA-run systems, and stated that digital image access would need to be added, as would a method of transferring knowledge test scores. The Missouri DOR mentioned that it did not use REAL ID, or any of the AAMVA systems. ABA supports the use of data systems to speed up the licensing process, but has concerns about the systems' infrastructure.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA will not require the use of any specific system for transferring licensing information between States. However, the AAMVA-maintained CSTIMS and ROOSTR systems could be appropriate methods of electronic transfer. FMCSA agrees with the need to protect PII, but does not establish any new procedures for doing so. In any case, no Federal records are created by this rule. The information transferred by the State where the military driver is stationed to his or her State of domicile will be entered into the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS). That system, however, involves records created and maintained by the States. This rule does not result in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

    Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (§ 383.79): Cost of Systems

    Issue: The NPRM concluded that there would be a cost for using AAMVA-run systems, but that the cost would be included in the existing arrangements for States to maintain and use these systems.

    Comments: Both the Missouri DOR and AAMVA stated that using AAMVA systems to transfer skills tests electronically would involve a cost. AAMVA also mentioned that the CLP/CDL application and the electronic-transfer requirement would have a cost as well. The Missouri DOR stated that several SDLAs have opted not to use an electronic system; reversing that policy would generate costs, including training for the system. The Montana DOJ/MVD mentioned that the cost to upgrade the systems would be substantial.

    FMCSA Response: Today's final rule requires electronic transfer of test results, but does not specify the methods of that transfer. There is no requirement to procure and use a data system not already in place. States are currently required to transmit the results of skills test electronically, and FMCSA assumes that the States will use the same method of transfer for the knowledge test results. Forty-seven SDLAs use the AAMVA-owned and -operated CSTIMs and/or ROOSTR systems to transfer skills test results. FMCSA anticipates that AAMVA will update these systems to allow for transmission of knowledge test results during a routine IT upgrade cycle, with minimal additional cost. In the regulatory analyses section below, FMCSA estimates that drivers affected by this rule will pay a processing fee to their State of station that will cover the costs of information transfer between the State of station and the State of domicile.

    Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (§ 383.79): Fraud

    Issue: FMCSA did not discuss fraud in the NPRM, as the proposal relied upon existing systems that have built-in protection against fraud.

    Comments: Several SDLAs thought that the proposal did not adequately address concerns over fraud. Oregon took issue with the fact that it would have to rely upon other SDLAs to verify information. The Montana DOJ/MVD thought the NPRM downplayed the risk of fraud, especially due to the photography and documentation requirements, and argued that the rule would need fine-tuning.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that States will take appropriate steps to protect against attempted fraud by applicants. FMCSA takes fraudulent behaviors seriously, has conducted yearly audits of all States for the past three years, and will continue to be vigilant in this regard.

    Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (§ 383.79): Other Forms

    Issue: The proposal did not address the transfer of additional certifications between States.

    Comments: The New York DMV asked how the processing State would collect a driver's medical certification and self-certification and submit it to the State of domicile.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA expects SDLAs to coordinate the transfer of certifications, presumably in the same way that they transfer the CLP/CDL applications and test results.

    D. Legal Concerns

    Issues: The Oregon DMV suggested that the proposal overstepped the requirements of the Military CDL Act, which should be followed instead. Oregon felt that the NPRM was unnecessarily complex and should more closely track with the statutory language.

    The New York DMV believes that the proposal contradicted the recent CDL rulemaking, and undermined the work States have done to meet its requirements.

    The Minnesota DPS/DV raised a concern that the requirement to accept applications on behalf of other States violated State laws. The Montana DOJ/MVD referenced a Montana State law that requires “verification through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program (SAVE).”

    FMCSA Response: The Military CDL Act of 2012 does indeed allow States to issue CDLs to military personnel who are stationed, but not domiciled, there. As discussed in this rule, however, obtaining a CDL where he or she is stationed may void the driver's domicile in his/her “home” State and with it certain benefits, e.g., lower taxes, in-State tuition, etc. The Agency determined in the 2011 final rule that the general CDL statute—the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, as amended—is sufficiently broad to authorize a rule requiring States to accept the results of skills tests administered outside the driver's State of domicile. The NPRM in this rulemaking expanded that analysis and conclusion to require States of domicile to accept the results of CDL written and skills tests administered to military personnel by States where these personnel are stationed but not domiciled. That approach allowed the State of domicile to issue the CLP and CDL, thus eliminating any inadvertent transfer of domicile that might occur if a military driver received a CDL from the State where he/she was stationed. However, in view of the comments submitted to the docket, the Agency has decided—as described above—not to require the State of domicile to accept the test results recorded by another State, but rather to allow the State of domicile to do so. With this change, the argument that the NPRM requires the violation of certain State laws simply disappears. The success of this final rule will depend on the willingness and ability of the State of domicile and the State where the driver is stationed to work out mutual differences in their forms, procedures, and other requirements. We are confident that most States will manage that task effectively. This final rule provides relief for a very limited population of military service members who want to become commercial drivers. Additionally, the rule relies heavily on the standardization of licensing and other requirements put into place by the 2011 CDL rule.

    E. Other Alternative Processes Suggested

    Issue: FMCSA did not suggest any regulatory alternatives to this proposal.

    Comments: The New York DMV suggested an FMCSA-Department of Defense (DOD) partnership using an AAMVA CDL test model, or allowing transfer of current, non-CDL licenses to their State of station as a non-domiciled driver. The second alternative process suggested would allow military drivers to transfer domicile to any State after leaving the service. New York thought that these would provide sufficient relief as well as not impose additional burdens on the SDLAs.

    FMCSA Response: New York's suggestions are beyond the scope of the NPRM. The Agency believes the relief provided by this final rule will be substantial. FMCSA, AAMVA, and the States will work together to reach agreement to implement the procedures during the implementation period.

    Military Occupational Codes Eligible

    Issue: The executive summary in the NPRM included the following proposal: “Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(3) to add the option to qualify for a CDL based on training and experience in an MOC [Military Occupational Specialty] dedicated to military CMV operation.” However, this proposal was not in the regulatory language or discussed at any level in the preamble. Additionally, the MOC was incorrectly referenced in proposed § 383.79.

    Comments: ABA requested either guidance or a list of which MOCs would be able to take advantage of relief from the regulation, referring to a proposal in § 383.77(b)(3).

    The Virginia DMV asked for clarification on how to confirm the MOC of the applicants under § 383.79. The New York DMV also asked why proof of a military CMV status would be necessary for the provisions of § 383.79. The Michigan DOS/MVD stated that if military testing meets or exceeds CDL requirements, a CDL should be issued without testing. The California DMV understood the § 383.79 proposal to include a requirement that drivers wishing to seek a CDL in their State of domicile via a State where they are stationed would need to be operating in a CMV-driving MOC, and asked for clarification of which MOCs would be included.

    FMCSA Response: The § 383.77(b)(3) proposal was inadvertently left in the executive summary for the NPRM; it was not intended to be a part of this rulemaking, was not in the proposed regulatory language, and is not included in today's final rule. FMCSA will consider this as a potential topic for a future rulemaking.

    The provisions under § 383.79 pertain to anyone in the military; they do not waive any of the requirements for obtaining a CLP or CDL. This section simply allows drivers to seek CDLs in the State of station rather than the State of domicile.

    Procedural Concerns

    Comments: The ATA requested an extension of the proposal in § 383.79 to non-military personnel as well, and requested that CDL schools outside the State of licensure be allowed to teach drivers.

    The Nebraska DMV asked several questions about service members who pass the knowledge test in their States of station returning to their State of domicile, and about passing the knowledge tests in other States. AAMVA asked a similar question, about applicants who begin the testing process in one State and then are transferred to another State.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA declines ATA's request for a Supplemental NPRM. The comments to this rulemaking docket identified challenges to out-of-State testing which persuaded the Agency to adopt a more modest, permissive approach. ATA's request would significantly exacerbate the difficulties outlined by State commenters. Training schools routinely enroll students from other States, but allowing large numbers of civilian students to be knowledge-tested outside their State of domicile is well beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Military drivers are a special class being accommodated in this rule because of the Military CDL Act of 2012, which was intended to ease their transition to civilian life.

    The rulemaking did not discuss the knowledge test requirements. FMCSA's intent was to make the licensing process easier for service members. Ultimately, however, the SDLAs control their own processes. While it is possible, though not likely, that a service member may be transferred from one duty station to another between the time he/she applies for the CLP and wants to take the skills test, the national uniformity of skills test procedures should make no difference to the acceptability of the results to the State of domicile.

    VII. Changes From the NRPM

    Section 383.5. Definitions. A new definition of “military service member” was added, along with a revised definition of “military services,” where the phrase “auxiliary units” was removed.

    Section 383.77 Substitute for driving skills tests for drivers with military CMV experience, is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

    Section 383.79 Skills testing of out-of-State students; Knowledge and skills testing of military personnel. The title of this section has been revised to differentiate the two concepts addressed within it. The discussion of electronic transmission of documents has been somewhat expanded.

    Section 384.301 Substantial compliance general requirements. This section is adopted as proposed.

    VIII. Today's Final Rule Section 383.77: Extension of the Skills Test Waiver

    Eligible Military Personnel. The first part of the rule addresses military personnel recently separated from active duty. These veterans must have been operating in a position where they regularly drove a military CMV.

    Current Procedures. Currently, the standard at § 383.77 authorizes States to allow these drivers up to 90 days following separation from a military position requiring operation of a CMV to apply to waive the skills test. In 2015 the Agency granted relief through an exemption that allowed a 1-year waiver period, without changing the regulation.

    Changes today. Today's regulation would codify that extension, meaning that States would be authorized to accept applications for a skills test waiver for up to 1 year rather than 90 days.

    Requirements for States. All States currently waive the skills test for this population of applicants; this rule changes neither the eligible population nor State procedures. Only the duration of the allowable waiver period is changed.

    Section 383.79: CLP and CDL

    Eligible military personnel. The second part of the rule addresses active duty military service members who are stationed in a State different from the State in which they claim domicile. These members would need to verify with the State of station and the State of domicile that both States plan to participate in the licensing procedures allowed by this rule.

    Current procedures. Currently, if active duty service members wish to obtain a CLP or CDL, they must either (1) apply for a CLP or CDL in person in their State of domicile, or (2) transfer their existing license, and thereby State of domicile, to the State where they now live or are stationed.

    Changes today. Today's final rule enables States to allow eligible military personnel to apply and be tested for a CLP or CDL in the State where they are stationed, without having to travel to or change their State of domicile.

    Requirements for States. Today's final rule is permissive. SDLAs are permitted (but not required) to accept CLP/CDL applications from eligible military personnel stationed there. However, the information, forms, and procedures used by the State where the driver is stationed would have to be acceptable to the State of domicile. If either State in this pair decided not to cooperate with the other State, the licensing alternative allowed by this rule would not be possible with respect to those two States.

    Description of the procedure for exchanging a CLP or CDL. As noted elsewhere in this rule, FMCSA is allowing flexibility for individual States to reach agreements on the most efficient means of allowing a military member stationed outside his or her domicile State to obtain a CDL without physically returning to that State. FMCSA recognizes that States might have unique CDL licensing requirements or processes and is therefore not establishing a single process that all States must follow. One possible scenario for how this could work is presented below, but other alternatives may also work. FMCSA encourages the States to find the most efficient process that minimizes variations in their individual licensing procedures to support the affected military members.

    Example: An active duty member of the armed forces is stationed at State 1 (State of station) but domiciled in State 2 (State of domicile or home State). The driver has a current non-CDL driver's license in the State of domicile, and wants to get a CDL while maintaining his or her current State of domicile.

    Step One: The service member contacts both State 1 and State 2 SDLAs to determine if State 1 will give the knowledge and skills tests, and if State 2 will accept the results of those tests administered by State 1 and issue a CDL.

    If both States do not agree to the process, then the service member cannot use this exemption, and must either change his or her State of domicile, or return to the State of domicile for issuance of a CLP or CDL.

    Step Two: If both SDLAs agree to the licensing alternative allowed by this rule, the service member fills out State 2's CLP application which can be on line or hard copy, whichever is State 2's preference.

    If State 2 charges a fee, the service member pays State 2.

    Step Three: The service member goes to State 1's SDLA with his/her military ID and proof of being stationed in State 1 and shows either his/her paper application from State 2 or proof of filling out State 2's application electronically.

    If State 1 charges a fee, the service member pays State 1.

    If the service member seeks a CDL, State 1 validates his/her identity at the counter, as well as proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency; valid CDL medical certification; and expected interstate or intrastate operation.

    Step Four: For a CLP, State 1 gives the knowledge test, and transmits passing results to State 2 electronically.

    Step Five (a): State 2 sends a CLP document to State 1; or Step Five (b): State 2 sends a CLP document directly to the service member.

    Step Six: If following Step Five (a), the service member goes to State 1's SDLA where he or she took the knowledge test and receives the CLP document.

    Step Seven: The service member trains and practices driving, and presents himself/herself to State 1 to take the skills test, where his/her identity and citizenship are again verified by the State 1 SDLA. If the driver passes the skills test, the result is transmitted to State 2 electronically.

    Step Eight: Either

    a. State 2 SDLA sends a CDL to State 1's SDLA. or

    b. The service member mails his/her CLP and non-CDL license issued by State 2, to State 2, and State 2 sends the new State 2-issued CDL by mail to the applicant.

    Step Nine: If option a. is followed, the service member goes to the State 1 SDLA where he or she took the skills test, and surrenders his/her CLP and non-CDL license issued by State 2 (which State 1 then destroys), and receives the State 2-issued CDL.

    IX. International Impacts

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

    X. Section-by-Section

    Section 383.5 adds definitions of “military service member” and “military services” in alphabetical order.

    Section 383.77 extends the period during which States may waive the skills test of certain former military drivers from 90 days to 1 year in § 383.77(b)(1).

    Section 383.79 is slightly revised. The title of this section is changed to reflect the expanded content: “Skills testing of out-of-State students; Knowledge and skills testing of military personnel.”

    Section 383.79(a)(1) and (2) contain the material previously designated as § 383.79(a) and (b), concerning CDL applicants trained out-of-State.

    New § 383.79(b), Military service member applicants for a CLP or CDL, includes the licensing options described above. Paragraph (b)(1), State of duty station, along with its three subparagraphs, authorize (but do not require) States where active-duty military personnel are stationed, but not domiciled, to accept and process CLP and CDL applications from such personnel, to administer the required tests for these licenses, and to destroy existing licenses. Paragraph (b)(2), Electronic transmission of the application and test results, details the process for the State where these military personnel are stationed to transmit the necessary forms and test results to the applicant's State of domicile. Paragraph (b)(3), State of domicile, along with its two subparagraphs, explains that the State of domicile may (but is not required to) accept such forms and test results; if it does so, it will issue the appropriate CLP or CDL.

    Section 384.301 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to require substantial compliance by States three years from the effective date of the final rule.

    XI. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. However, FMCSA did evaluate the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. This rulemaking will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, lead to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant adverse effects on the United States economy. This rule amends existing procedures and practices governing administrative licensing actions.

    Costs and Benefits

    FMCSA evaluated potential costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking and estimates that these changes could result in net benefits between $3.2 million and $7.7 million over 10 years, discounted at 7%. The following sections provide an overview of this analysis.

    Section 383.77

    The final rule will extend the time States are allowed to accept applications for a skills test waiver from certain former service members from 90 days to 1 year. This action codifies an existing exemption published on July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38645). That notice granted immediate relief from 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) to certain military service members separating from active duty. The exemption did not change the CFR language and is effective for only 2 years, although it could be extended.

    As the final rule will codify an existing practice, FMCSA does not expect this revision to have any significant economic impact. However, the Agency believes that permanently granting military personnel with CMV driving experience more time to apply for a CDL after separation from service will be beneficial to both service members and prospective employers by creating more employment opportunities.

    Section 383.79(b)

    This rule will allow States to accept CLP and CDL applications from certain military drivers stationed in that State; to test their knowledge and skills; and to submit the results of both tests to the drivers' State of domicile for issuance of the CLP and CDL. This information can be transmitted using the same electronic system that was previously established for the skills test. The rule will not require States to use either the CSTIMS or ROOSTR. Both of these systems are currently managed by AAMVA, and States that are already using them would incur minimal costs to use them to transmit CLP/CDL test results. While some software modifications and updates may be required to allow transmission of the knowledge test results (as only skills test results are presently transmitted via these systems), FMCSA anticipates that AAMVA will update CSTIMS and ROOSTR to allow for transmission of knowledge test results during a routine IT upgrade cycle, with minimal additional cost. However, the final rule does not require use of either of these systems. States may incur costs for working out the details of application transmission between States. FMCSA expects that States will take advantage of the flexibilities allowed in the final rule, and participate when it is cost effective to do so. Additionally, the State of station can charge a processing fee to recoup the cost of providing this service.

    FMCSA expects that this rule will ultimately result in a cost savings for drivers, but some of the cost savings will be offset by the additional processing fee. Based on comments received on the NPRM, FMCSA anticipates that drivers will continue to pay the CDL licensing and application fee to their State of domicile, and will pay an additional processing fee to the State of station. FMCSA estimates that the processing fee will be similar to the State CDL application fee. Many States do not publish their application fee separately, but bundle it with the license fees. The average CDL application and license fee for all 50 States and the District of Columbia is $50. However, the CDL term for States ranges from 4 to 8 years. On an annual basis, the cost of the average CDL application for all 50 States and the District of Columbia is $10. Therefore, FMCSA estimates that the one-time processing fee will range from $10 to $50 per driver, and conservatively estimates a fee of $50 for the purposes of this analysis. Both States utilizing the alternative licensing procedures allowed by this rule might charge fees, but some currently waive their normal fees for veterans or active-duty military personnel and may continue to do so. Because FMCSA cannot predict the number of military drivers who would have their additional processing fee waived by the State of Station, we have based our calculations on each military driver paying an extra fee.

    To estimate how many drivers might take advantage of this provision, FMCSA started with the number of drivers who have used the military skills test waiver. Between May 2011 and February 2015, more than 10,100 skills test waivers were granted for military drivers, or an average of approximately 2,460 per year.3 For purposes of this analysis, FMCSA assumed that number would remain constant in future years. To estimate the number of drivers who may be stationed in a State other than their State of domicile and who, thus, could potentially take advantage of this provision, FMCSA used an estimate of the number of drivers who attend training outside their State of domicile from the Regulatory Evaluation conducted for the 2011 “Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards” final rule.4 According to this evaluation, approximately 25 percent of drivers obtained training outside their State of domicile. It is likely that more than 25 percent of military personnel are stationed outside their State of domicile. However, for purposes of this analysis FMCSA used the 25 percent estimate to calculate the population of drivers who may apply for a CLP/CDL outside their State of domicile. Based on these assumptions, this provision affects approximately 660 drivers each year.

    3 Estimated based on information from an assessment of SDLAs, conducted by FMCSA in February 2015.

    4 Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation. Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards. 76 FR 26853. May 9, 2011. Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/09/2011-10510/commercial-drivers-license-testing-and-commercial-learners-permit-standards.

    FMCSA estimated the processing fee by multiplying the 660 drivers by the per-driver processing fee of $50. The 10-year costs for the additional processing fee total $330,000 undiscounted, $290,000 discounted at 3%, and $248,000 discounted at 7%.

    This rule will also result in cost savings, or benefits, for drivers in the form of reduced travel costs. The rule will allow States where active-duty military personnel are stationed to accept CLP or CDL applications and administer knowledge and skills tests for those personnel. The rule will allow any such State to transmit copies of the application and test results for military personnel to the driver's State of domicile, which in turn may—but is not required to—issue a CLP or CDL on the basis of that information. Absent this rule, drivers would be required to travel to the State of domicile in order to apply for a CLP or CDL. For example, if the driver is stationed in Virginia but his/her State of domicile is Texas (and both States use the licensing alternative allowed by this rule), Texas will be able to issue the driver a CLP and CDL based on an application and successful testing conducted in Virginia. The driver would be spared the travel costs of returning to Texas in order to file an application for a CLP or CDL.

    FMCSA does not have information on the States where these drivers are domiciled or stationed. To estimate the potential costs savings, FMCSA used the scenario of a driver who is stationed in Virginia but domiciled in Texas. To present an upper and lower bound estimate of the potential cost savings, FMCSA evaluated two scenarios in which the driver travels between Norfolk, Virginia, and Houston, Texas. In the first scenario, the driver takes a commercial flight. FMCSA estimates that a typical roundtrip flight between Norfolk and Houston costs approximately $700.5 In the second scenario, the driver drives a private vehicle between these locations. The current private vehicle mileage rate from the General Services Administration (GSA) is $0.575 per mile 6 and the distance between Norfolk and Houston is approximately 2,800 miles, roundtrip. FMCSA estimates that it would cost the driver approximately $1,610 to drive between Virginia and Texas for CDL testing.

    5 The flight price $700 was estimated using the General Service Administration Airline City Pairs Search Tool for flights between Norfolk, Virginia and Houston, Texas. http://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/.

    6 U.S. General Services Administration. Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates, as of January 1, 2015. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715.

    To estimate the potential cost savings, FMCSA multiplied the round trip flight price by the annual affected driver population to calculate the lower-bound estimate, and multiplied the mileage cost by the annual affected driver population to calculate the upper-bound estimate. Based on the estimated participation rates, the total savings would be between $4.6 million and $10.6 million undiscounted, $4.1 million and $9.3 million discounted at 3%, $3.5 million and $8.0 million discounted at 7%. In addition, the driver might incur lodging costs and other expenses depending on the location of the testing; however, these potential cost savings were not included in this analysis.

    FMCSA calculated the net benefits of this rule by subtracting the processing fee cost from the travel cost savings. As shown in Table 1, the per driver benefits range from $650 to $1,560. The total 10-year net benefits range from $3.2 million to $7.7 million, discounted at 7%.

    Table 1—Estimated Annual and 10-Year Net Benefits for Out of State Drivers Scenario Drivers per
  • year
  • Net benefits
  • per driver
  • Total net
  • benefits
  • per year
  • 10-year
  • total
  • (3% discount rate)
  • 10-year
  • total
  • (7% discount rate)
  • Lower-Bound (flight) 660 $650 $429,000 $3,769,241 $3,224,035 Upper-Bound (car travel) 660 1,560 1,029,600 9,046,178 7,737,683

    In addition to the cost savings described above, there may be other non-quantified benefits associated with these provisions. For example, this proposal also allows military personnel to enter the job market more quickly after separation from service. This rulemaking may also increase the availability of drivers qualified to work for motor carriers, since military personnel would be able to complete their testing and licensing during their separation process. Finally, reducing unemployment for former military personnel may also reduce the amount of unemployment compensation paid by the Department of Defense to former service members.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

    Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857) (SBREFA), this rule will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the revisions would either codify an existing practice or allow States to provide more flexibility for military personnel seeking to obtain a CDL. FMCSA does not expect the changes to impose any new or increased costs on small entities. Consequently, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, taken together, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.

    G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

    H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

    I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

    J. Privacy

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

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program. All records associated with this rulemaking are State, not Federal, records.

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. As a result, FMCSA has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

    K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rule.

    L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

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

    M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

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

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph 6.s.(6). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.s.(6) covers a requirement for States to give knowledge and skills tests to all qualified applicants for commercial drivers' licenses which meet the Federal standard. The content in this rule is covered by this CE and the final action does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under I. Rulemaking Documents.

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

    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this final rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that it has no environmental justice implications, nor is there any collective environmental impact that will result from its promulgation.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 384

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, parts 383 and 384 to read as follows:

    PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES 1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Amend § 383.5 by adding definitions of “military service member” and “military services” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 383.5 Definitions.

    Military service member means a member of the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and their associated reserve, and National Guard units.

    Military services means the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and their associated reserve and National Guard units.

    3. Amend § 383.77 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 383.77 Substitute for driving skills tests for drivers with military CMV experience.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Is regularly employed or was regularly employed within the last year in a military position requiring operation of a CMV;

    4. Revise § 383.79 to read as follows:
    § 383.79 Skills testing of out-of-State students; Knowledge and skills testing of military personnel.

    (a) CDL applicants trained out-of-State—(1) State that administers the skills test. A State may administer its skills test, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, to a person who has taken training in that State and is to be licensed in another United States jurisdiction (i.e., his or her State of domicile). Such test results must be transmitted electronically directly from the testing State to the licensing State in an efficient and secure manner.

    (2) The State of domicile. The State of domicile of a CDL applicant must accept the results of a skills test administered to the applicant by any other State, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, in fulfillment of the applicant's testing requirements under § 383.71, and the State's test administration requirements under § 383.73.

    (b) Military service member applicants for a CLP or CDL—(1) State of duty station. A State where active duty military service members are stationed, but not domiciled, may:

    (i) Accept an application for a CLP or CDL from such a military service member who has

    (A) A valid driver's license from his or her State of domicile,

    (B) A valid active duty military identification card, and

    (C) A current copy of either the service member's military leave and earnings statement or his or her orders;

    (ii) Administer the knowledge and skills tests to the military service member, as appropriate, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, or waive the skills test in accordance with § 383.77; and

    (iii) Destroy a driver's license on behalf of the State of domicile, unless the latter requires the license to be surrendered to its own driver licensing agency.

    (2) Electronic transmission of the application and test results. The State of duty station must transmit the completed application, the results of knowledge and skills tests, and any supporting documents, by a direct, secure, and efficient electronic system.

    (3) State of domicile. Upon completion of the applicant's application and testing requirements under § 383.71, and the State's test administration requirements under § 383.73, the State of domicile of the military service member applying for a CLP or CDL may

    (i) Accept the completed application; the results of knowledge and skills tests administered to the applicant by the State where he or she is currently stationed, or the notice of the waiver of the skills test, as authorized by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and any supporting documents; and

    (ii) Issue the applicant a CLP or CDL.

    PART 384—STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM 5. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 103 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    6. Add paragraph (j) to § 384.301 to read as follows:
    § 384.301 Substantial compliance general requirements.

    (j) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in effect as of December 12, 2016 as soon as practicable, but, unless otherwise specifically provided in this part, not later than December 12, 2019.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: October 4, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24749 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 198 Thursday, October 13, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9189; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-114-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of passenger service units (PSUs) becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 airplane incidents that exceeded the design emergency load requirements for the PSUs. This proposed AD would require modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by removing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels. We are proposing this AD to prevent PSUs and life vest panels from detaching from the supporting airplane structure, which could lead to passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during evacuation.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, 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-2016-9189.

    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-2016-9189; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Craig, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone 425-917-6592; fax 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9189; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-114-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received reports of PSUs becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 airplane incidents that exceeded the design emergency load requirements for the PSUs. These incidents resulted in injuries to passengers' faces and heads, which may have occurred when the PSUs became dislodged and encroached into the passengers' occupiable space. Additionally, many of the PSUs above aisle seats that separated from their overhead bins were found in the cabin aisle. Such an obstruction in the rows and aisles, especially at overwing emergency exits, could delay emergency evacuation for passengers and crew. Detached PSUs and life vest panels, if not corrected, could result in passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during evacuation.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015. The service information describes procedures for modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by removing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9189.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,087 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
    PSU modification 68 work-hours × $85 per hour = $5,780 $16,100 $21,880 $23,783,560 Life vest panel modification 9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 2,004 2,769 3,009,903
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9189; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-114-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 28, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25; Equipment/furnishings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of passenger service units (PSUs) becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 airplane incidents that exceeded the design emergency load requirements. We are issuing this AD to prevent PSUs and life vest panels from detaching from the supporting airplane structure, which could lead to passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during evacuation.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the applicable actions required in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015.

    (1) For all airplanes: Remove the existing lanyard and install new lanyard assemblies in the PSUs.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015: Remove the existing lanyard and install new lanyard assemblies in the life vest panels.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Scott Craig, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone 425-917-6592; fax 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) 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. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 27, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24508 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9173; Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-2] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Barter Island, AK AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Barter Island LRRS Airport, Barter Island, AK because the North Slope Borough is relocating the airport. The FAA found modification of this airspace and adjustment of the airport's geographic coordinates necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9173; Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-9173/Airspace Docket No. 16-AAL-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Barter Island LRRS Airport, Barter Island, AK. The North Slope Borough is relocating the airport approximately 2 miles southwest to address oceanic erosion issues at this remote location. The airspace would be modified to a 6.4-mile radius of the airport. Modification of the airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, the airport's geographic coordinates would be updated to lat. 70°06′47″ N., long. 143°39′13″ W.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AAL AK E5 Barter Island, AK [Modified] Barter Island LRRS Airport, AK (Lat. 70°06′47″ N., long. 143°39′13″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Barter Island LRRS Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 83-mile radius of Barter Island LRRS Airport, excluding that airspace east of 141° west longitude and excluding that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 3, 2016. Richard Roberts, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24625 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 19 CFR Part 360 [Docket Number: 160803687-6687-01] RIN 0625-AB09 Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) publishes this proposed rule to request public comments on proposed modifications to the regulations for the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) System that would extend the system until March, 2022. Extension of the authority for the SIMA System will ensure the Department's ability to track as early as possible certain steel mill imports into the United States and make the import data publicly available approximately five weeks in advance of the full public trade data release by the Bureau of the Census. Having such access to information about steel imports provides the public with greater knowledge to evaluate current market conditions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before 5 p.m. November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    As specified above, to be assured of consideration, comments must be received no later than 30 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, into Docket Number ITA-2016-0008, unless the commenter does not have access to the Internet. Commenters that do not have access to the Internet may submit the original and two copies of each set of comments by mail or hand delivery/courier. Please address the written comments to the Secretary of Commerce, Attention: Steven Presing, Director for Industry Support and Analysis, Enforcement and Compliance, Room 2845, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, Constitution Avenue and 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for inspection at Enforcement and Compliance's Central Records Unit (Room 18022 of the Herbert C. Hoover Building) and on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/and on www.regulations.gov. address: [email protected]. All Federal Register notices regarding the SIMA system and comments can be accessed via http://enforcement.trade.gov/steel/license/SIMA-FR-Notices.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the SIMA System, please contact Steven Presing (202) 482-1672 or Julie Al-Saadawi (202) 482-1930.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On March 2, 2002, President George W. Bush authorized the implementation of a steel import licensing and monitoring program by issuing Proclamation 7529, which placed temporary tariffs on certain steel imports. The monitoring system outlined in Proclamation 7529 required all importers of steel products to obtain a license from the Department of Commerce prior to completing Customs entry summary documentation. This monitoring tool ensured that the effectiveness of the safeguard was not undermined by large quantities of imports originating from countries that were excluded from the application of the tariffs. Pursuant to Proclamation 7529, on December 31, 2002, the Department of Commerce issued final regulations setting forth the ”Steel Import Licensing and Surge Monitoring Program” (67 FR 79845). In Proclamation 7741 of December 4, 2003 (68 FR 68483), the President terminated the temporary tariffs, but directed the Secretary of Commerce to continue the steel import licensing and monitoring system until the earlier of March 21, 2005, or such time as the Secretary of Commerce established a replacement monitoring program. On December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68594), the Department published a notice stating that the monitoring system would continue to be in effect as described in Proclamation 7741 until March 21, 2005. Prior to the March 21, 2005, termination date, the Department of Commerce determined that there continued to be a need to collect import data, and published an interim rule (70 FR 12136, March 11, 2005) revising part 360 to slightly expand the monitoring program, and a final rule (70 FR 72373, December 5, 2005) continuing the program through March 21, 2009; at this time the system became known as SIMA. On March 18, 2009, the Department of Commerce published a final rule (74 FR 11474) in the Federal Register to continue the SIMA System and extend the program until March 21, 2013. On February 15, 2013, the Department of Commerce published a final rule (78 FR 11090) to continue the SIMA System and extend the program until March 21, 2017, unless further extended upon review and notification in the Federal Register.

    This proposed rule would extend the implementation of the SIMA System until March 21, 2022 (see 19 CFR part 360). This extension would continue the Department's ability to track certain steel mill imports into the United States and make the import data publicly available approximately five weeks in advance of the full trade data release.

    The purpose of the SIMA System is to provide steel producers, steel consumers, importers, and the general public with accurate and timely information on anticipated imports of certain steel products into the United States. Steel import licenses, issued through the online SIMA licensing system, are required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for filing entry paperwork for imports of certain steel mill products into the United States. Import data collected through the issuance of the licenses are aggregated weekly and posted on the publicly available Steel Import Monitor. Details of the current monitoring system can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/steel/license/.

    SIMA's renewal comes at a time of significant challenges to the steel sector due, in part, to the extensive structural excess production capacity currently present in the global steel industry, which exacerbates import pressures and increases market volatility. The domestic steel industry and other steel market participants have previously expressed support for the SIMA System because it permits all participants to monitor import fluctuations in a timely manner. See Steel Import Monitoring Analysis System, 78 FR 11090, 11091 (February 15, 2013).

    All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and available for public inspection and copying on www.Regulations.gov and at Enforcement and Compliance's Central Records Unit, Room 18022, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days.

    Classification

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. A summary of the factual basis for this certification is below.

    This rule, if implemented, would extend the current SIMA System until March 21, 2022. The entities that would be impacted by this rule are importers and brokerage companies who import steel mill products. These entities would be required to obtain steel import licenses through the online, automatic SIMA licensing system for filing entry paperwork required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for U.S. imports of steel mill products. Based on statistics derived from current license applications, of the approximately 1,600 licenses issued each day, the Department estimates that fewer than two percent of the licenses would be filed by importers and brokerage companies that would be considered small entities.

    Based on the current usage of SIMA, the Department does not anticipate that the extension of the SIMA System will have a significant economic impact. Companies are already familiar with the licensing of certain steel products under the current system. In most cases, brokerage companies will apply for the license on behalf of the steel importers. Most brokerage companies that are currently involved in filing documentation for importing goods into the United States are accustomed to Customs and Border Protection's automated entry filing systems. Today, more than 99% of the Customs filings are handled electronically. Therefore, the web-based, automated nature of this simple license application should not be a significant obstacle to any firm in completing this requirement. However, should an importer or brokerage company need to register for an account or apply for a license non-electronically, a fax/phone option will be available at the Department during regular business hours. There is no cost to register for a company-specific steel license account and no cost to file for the license. Each license form is expected to take less than 10 minutes to complete and collects much of the same information required on the Customs entry summary documentation. The steel import license is the only additional U.S. entry requirement that importers or their representatives must fulfill in order to import each covered steel product shipment.

    Although the Department does not charge for licenses, the Department estimates that the likely aggregate license costs incurred by small entities in terms of the time to apply for licenses as a result of this proposed rule would be less than two percent, or an estimated $37,151.00, of the estimated total $1,857,560.00 cost to all steel importers to process the on-line automatic licenses. These calculations were based on an hourly pay rate of $20.00 multiplied by the estimated 92,878 total annual burden hours. Based on the current patterns of license applications, the vast majority of the licenses are applied for by large companies. The approximate cost of a single license is less than 10 minutes of the applicant's time and this is reduced if applicants use templates or the electronic data interface for multiple licenses. This amounts to an average cost per license of $3.33.

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).

    These requirements have been approved by OMB (OMB No.: 0625-0245; Expiration Date: 1/31/2018). Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be less than 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Paperwork Reduction Act Data

    OMB Number: 0625-0245.

    ITA Number: ITA-4141P.

    Type of Review: Regular Submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Estimated Number of Registered Users: 3,500.

    Estimated Time per Response: Less than 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 92,878 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $0.00.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number.

    Executive Order 12866

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

    Executive Order 13132

    This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in EO 13132.

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 360

    Administrative practice and procedure, Business and industry, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steel.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. Ken Hyatt, Acting Under Secretary for International Trade.

    For the reasons discussed above, we propose amending 19 CFR part 360 as follows:

    PART 360—STEEL IMPORT MONITORING AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM 1. The authority citation for part 360 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    13 U.S.C. 301(a) and 302.

    2. Section 360.105 is revised to read as follows.
    § 360.105 Duration of the steel import licensing requirement.

    The licensing program will be in effect through March 21, 2022, but may be extended upon review and notification in the Federal Register prior to this expiration date. Licenses will be required for all subject imports entered during this period, even if the entry summary documents are not filed until after the expiration of this program. The licenses will be valid for 10 business days after the expiration of this program to allow for the final filing of required Customs documentation.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24649 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-442W] Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Temporarily Place Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine Into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of Notice of Intent; Solicitation of Comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 31, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to temporarily place mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are the main psychoactive constituents of the plant Mitragyna speciosa, also referred to as kratom, into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. Since publishing that notice, DEA has received numerous comments from members of the public challenging the scheduling action and requesting that the agency consider those comments and accompanying information before taking further action. In addition, DEA will receive from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for these substances, which DEA previously requested.

    DEA is therefore taking the following actions: DEA is withdrawing the August 31, 2016 notice of intent; and soliciting comments from the public regarding the scheduling of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine under the Controlled Substances Act.

    DATES:

    The notice of intent that was published on August 31, 2016 (81 FR 59929) is withdrawn as of October 13, 2016. The comment period will be open until December 1, 2016. All comments for the public record must be submitted electronically or in writing in accordance with the procedures outlined below. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before December 1, 2016. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period. Please note that if you previously submitted a comment via email or regular mail following the August 31, 2016 notice, that comment is being considered by DEA—it is not necessary to resubmit the same comment unless you wish to provide additional information, or you wish to have your comment posted for public view in accordance with the instructions provided below.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-442W” on all correspondence, including any attachments.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received in response to this notice are considered part of the public record. If you previously submitted a comment via email or regular mail following the August 31, 2016 notice, that comment is being considered by DEA—it is not necessary to resubmit the same comment unless you wish to provide additional information, or you wish to have your comment posted for public view in accordance with the instructions provided below.

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

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

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

    Background Withdrawal of Notice of Intent

    The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) contains a temporary scheduling provision, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), pursuant to which the DEA Administrator 1 may temporarily place a substance in schedule I where he finds that doing so is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. This provision of the CSA requires DEA to publish a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to issue a temporary scheduling order at least 30 days before issuing any such order. DEA published such a notice of intent on August 31, 2016, with respect to mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are the main psychoactive constituents of the plant commonly known as kratom. 81 FR 59929.

    1 The Attorney General has delegated her functions under the CSA to the DEA Administrator.

    In response to the notice of intent, DEA received numerous comments from the public on mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, including comments offering their opinions regarding the pharmacological effects of these substances. To allow consideration of these comments, as well as others received on or before December 1, 2016, DEA has decided to withdraw the August 31, 2016 notice of intent published at 81 FR 59929. DEA has also requested that the FDA expedite its scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for these substances, which DEA previously requested in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b).2

    2 Section 811(b) provides that the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation shall be conducted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). This function has been delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health. 58 FR 35460 (1993). Within HHS, the FDA has primary responsibility for conducting the evaluation and making the recommendation.

    Accordingly, the August 31, 2016, notice of intent to temporarily place mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine in schedule I is withdrawn. Mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine therefore remain—as has been the case—noncontrolled substances under federal law.3

    3 Under some state and local laws, kratom and/or its constituents mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine are currently listed as controlled substances or otherwise subject to control. Nothing in this publication alters the validity of such laws, or any pending state efforts to implement those laws or enact new laws controlling these substances.

    Consideration of Public Comments and FDA's Analysis

    With respect to mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, DEA will consider all public comments received under the above procedures, as well as FDA's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for these substances. Once DEA has received and considered all of this information, DEA will decide whether to proceed with permanent scheduling of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, or both permanent and temporary scheduling of these substances.

    Permanent Scheduling Process: As the CSA provides, if DEA determines that the medical and scientific facts contained in the FDA scheduling evaluation, along with all other relevant data and information, constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse to support permanent scheduling of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, DEA will publish in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking, which will give interested members of the public an additional opportunity to submit comments and request a hearing.4 As provided in 21 U.S.C. 811(a), permanent scheduling rules shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 553, 556, and 557.

    4 In permanent scheduling actions, when DEA reviews the FDA evaluation and scheduling recommendation, the FDA determinations as to scientific and medical matters are binding on DEA. 21 U.S.C. 811(b).

    Temporary Scheduling Process: The pendency of permanent scheduling proceedings for a substance does not preclude a simultaneous or subsequent order to temporarily control that substance. If DEA finds in light of FDA's scientific and medical evaluation and after consideration of all public comments and other relevant information that, based on the criteria of section 811(h), temporary placement of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine in schedule I is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, DEA will follow the statutory procedures for issuing such a temporary scheduling order. As indicated above, before issuing such a temporary scheduling order, DEA would be required to publish in the Federal Register a new notice of intent.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24659 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [REG-108934-16] RIN 1545-BN38 User Fees for Offers in Compromise AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed amendments to the regulations that provide user fees for offers in compromise. The proposed amendments affect taxpayers who wish to pay their liabilities through offers in compromise. The proposed effective date for these proposed amendments to the regulations is for offers in compromise submitted on or after February 27, 2017. This document also provides a notice of public hearing on these proposed amendments to the regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by November 28, 2016. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. must be received by November 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: Internal Revenue Service, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108934-16), Room 5203, Post Office Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108934-16), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-108934-16). The public hearing will be held in the Main IR Auditorium beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed amendments to the regulations, Maria Del Pilar Austin at (202) 317-5437; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson, at (202) 317-6901; concerning cost methodology, Eva Williams, at (202) 803-9728 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This document contains proposed regulations that would amend § 300.3 of the User Fee Regulations (26 CFR part 300), which provides for a user fee applicable to offers in compromise under section 7122 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).

    Section 7122(a) provides the Secretary the authority to compromise any civil or criminal case arising under the internal revenue laws, prior to the referral of that case to the Department of Justice. Section 7122(d)(1) requires the IRS to prescribe guidelines for officers and employees of the IRS to determine whether an offer in compromise is adequate and should be accepted to resolve a dispute. Those guidelines can generally be found in § 301.7122-1. Under those guidelines, an offer in compromise may be accepted if there is doubt as to liability, if there is doubt as to collectability, or if acceptance will promote effective tax administration. See § 301.7122-1(b).

    When the IRS receives an offer in compromise, it initially determines whether the taxpayer submitting the offer is eligible for the offer in compromise program and, if the taxpayer is eligible, whether the offer submitted is otherwise processable. Currently, a taxpayer may be ineligible for the offer in compromise program for a number of reasons, including if the taxpayer is in bankruptcy or has not filed all required tax returns. The IRS will return an offer as nonprocessable if the taxpayer is ineligible or if the offer has not been properly submitted.

    If the IRS determines the offer in compromise is processable, then except where the offer is made under section 7122(d)(3)(B) relating only to issues of liability and the case is processed without a financial investigation, the IRS investigates and verifies the taxpayer's financial information submitted with the offer to determine whether such a compromise is appropriate before accepting the terms of the offer in compromise. If the IRS initially rejects a processable offer in compromise based on an investigation of the taxpayer's financial position, section 7122(e)(1) provides that the IRS must conduct an independent administrative review of that decision before communicating the rejection to the taxpayer. If the independent administrative review upholds the IRS's initial decision to reject a processable offer in compromise, section 7122(e)(2) provides that the taxpayer is notified of the rejection and has the right to appeal the rejection to the IRS's Appeals Office. When the IRS accepts an offer in compromise, the IRS processes the payments and monitors the taxpayer's compliance with the terms of the offer.

    Under § 300.3, the IRS currently charges $186 for processing an offer in compromise, which includes reviewing and monitoring the offer. Under § 300.3(b)(2)(i) and (ii), if a fee is charged and the offer is accepted to promote effective tax administration or accepted based on doubt as to collectability where the IRS has determined that collection of an amount greater than the amount offered would create economic hardship, then the user fee is applied against the amount to be paid under the offer unless the taxpayer requests that it be refunded. Section 300.3(b)(1)(i) and (ii) provide that no fee is charged if an offer is based solely on doubt as to liability, or made by a low-income taxpayer.

    Explanation of Provisions A. Overview

    To bring the user fee rate for offers in compromise closer to the full cost to the IRS of providing this taxpayer specific service, the proposed regulations under § 300.3 would increase the user fee for an offer in compromise to $300. The proposed regulations do not modify other portions of the User Fee Regulations regarding offers in compromise, such as § 300.3(b)(1)(i) and (ii) which waive the user fee for offers in compromise submitted by low-income taxpayers and offers in compromise based solely on doubt as to liability. The increased user fee for offers in compromise is proposed to be effective for offers submitted on or after February 27, 2017.

    B. User Fee Authority

    The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to promulgate regulations establishing the charge for services provided by the agency (user fees). The IOAA provides that these user fee regulations are subject to policies prescribed by the President and shall be as uniform as practicable. Those policies are currently set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993; OMB Circular).

    The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The OMB Circular states that agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public are to establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing those services. The OMB Circular requires that agencies identify all services that confer special benefits and determine whether user fees should be assessed for those services.

    Agencies are to review user fees biennially and update them as necessary to reflect changes in the cost of providing the underlying services. During this biennial review, an agency must calculate the full cost of providing each service, taking into account all direct and indirect costs to any part of the U.S. government. The full cost of providing a service includes, but is not limited to, salaries, retirement benefits, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs, as well as an appropriate allocation of overhead and other support costs associated with providing the service.

    An agency should set the user fee at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing the service unless the agency requests, and the OMB grants, an exception to the full cost requirement. The OMB may grant exceptions only where the cost of collecting the fees would represent an unduly large part of the fee for the activity or any other condition exists that, in the opinion of the agency head, justifies an exception. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency does not collect the full cost of providing the service and therefore must fund the remaining cost of providing the service from other available funding sources. By doing so, the agency subsidizes the cost of the service to the recipients of reduced-fee services even though the service confers a special benefit on those recipients who should otherwise be required to pay the full costs of receiving that benefit as provided for by the IOAA and the OMB Circular.

    C. Offer in Compromise Program User Fee

    The offer in compromise program confers a special benefit on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public. A taxpayer with an accepted offer in compromise receives the special benefit of resolving his or her tax liabilities for a compromised amount, provided the taxpayer complies with the terms of the offer, and the benefit of paying the compromised amount over a period not to exceed 24 months. Further, section 6331(k)(1) of the Code generally prohibits the IRS from levying to collect taxes while a request to enter into an offer in compromise is pending, for 30 days after a rejection, and, if a timely appeal of a rejection is filed, for the duration of the appeal. Because of these special benefits, the IOAA and the OMB Circular authorize the IRS to charge a user fee for the offer in compromise that reflects the full cost of providing the service of the offer in compromise program to the taxpayer.

    The amount of the offer in compromise user fee was last changed in 2014. As required by the IOAA and the OMB Circular, the IRS completed its 2015 biennial review of the offer in compromise program and determined that the full cost of an offer in compromise is $2,450.

    In accordance with the OMB Circular, this proposed amendment to the regulations increases the offer in compromise fee to recover more of the costs associated with such offers. These proposed regulations propose to charge less than full cost. While agencies are generally required to charge full cost, the OMB Circular permits certain limited exceptions to this requirement. The IRS requested and the OMB approved an exception to the full cost requirement. The proposed fee for processing an offer in compromise is $300. In light of constraints on IRS resources for tax administration, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is necessary to recoup more of the costs of the offer in compromise program. The IRS will continue its practice of providing services subject to user fees at costs less than otherwise charged where there is a compelling tax administration reason to do so. Therefore, these proposed regulations do not modify the portions of the current regulations that except low-income taxpayers and offers based on doubt as to liability from the user fee. The proposed fee balances the need to recover more of the costs with the goal of encouraging offers in compromise.

    As required under the OMB Circular, the IRS will review the user fee for offers in compromise during its 2017 biennial review. The IRS also plans to evaluate the impact of the current proposed fee increase on the offer in compromise program, and the IRS will take this impact into consideration when revising the offer in compromise user fee in the future.

    D. Calculation of User Fees Generally

    User fee calculations begin by first determining the full cost for the service. The IRS follows the guidance provided by the OMB Circular to compute the full cost of the service, which includes all indirect and direct costs to any part of the U.S. government including but not limited to direct and indirect personnel costs, physical overhead, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs. The IRS's cost methodology is described below.

    Once the total amount of direct and indirect costs associated with a service is determined, the IRS follows the guidance in the OMB Circular to determine the costs associated with providing the service to each recipient, which represents the average per unit cost of that service. This average per unit cost is the amount of the user fee that will recover the full cost of the service.

    The IRS follows generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), as established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) in calculating the full cost of providing services. The FASAB Handbook of Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as amended, which is available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/2015_fasab_handbook.pdf, includes the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards SFFAS No. 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government (SFFAS No. 4). SFFAS No. 4 establishes internal costing standards under GAAP to accurately measure and manage the full cost of federal programs. The methodology described below is in accordance with SFFAS No. 4.

    1. Cost Center Allocation

    The IRS determines the cost of its services and the activities involved in producing them through a cost accounting system that tracks costs to organizational units. The lowest organizational unit in the IRS's cost accounting system is called a cost center. Cost centers are usually separate offices that are distinguished by subject-matter area of responsibility or geographic region. All costs of operating a cost center are recorded in the IRS's cost accounting system and allocated to that cost center. The costs allocated to a cost center are the direct costs for the cost center's activities as well as all indirect costs, including overhead, associated with that cost center. Each cost is recorded in only one cost center.

    2. Determining the Per Unit Cost

    To establish the per unit cost, the total cost of providing the service is divided by the volume of services provided. The volume of services provided includes both services for which a fee is charged as well as subsidized services. The subsidized services are those where OMB has approved an exception to the full cost requirement, for example, to charge a reduced fee to low-income taxpayers. The volume of subsidized services is included in the total volume of services provided to ensure that the IRS, and not those who are paying full cost, subsidizes the cost of the reduced-cost services.

    3. Cost Estimation of Direct Labor and Benefits

    Not all cost centers are fully devoted to only one service for which the IRS charges a user fee. Some cost centers work on a number of different services. In these cases, the IRS estimates the cost incurred in those cost centers attributable to the service for which a user fee is being calculated by measuring the time required to accomplish activities related to the service, and estimating the average time required to accomplish these activities. The average time required to accomplish these activities is multiplied by the relevant organizational unit's average labor and benefits cost per unit of time to determine the labor and benefits cost incurred to provide the service. To determine the full cost, the IRS then adds an appropriate overhead charge as discussed below.

    4. Calculating Overhead

    Overhead is an indirect cost of operating an organization that cannot be immediately associated with an activity that the organization performs. Overhead includes costs of resources that are jointly or commonly consumed by one or more organizational unit's activities but are not specifically identifiable to a single activity. These costs can include:

    • General management and administrative services of sustaining and support organizations.

    • Facilities management and ground maintenance services (security, rent, utilities, and building maintenance).

    • Procurement and contracting services.

    • Financial management and accounting services.

    • Information technology services.

    • Services to acquire and operate property, plants and equipment.

    • Publication, reproduction, and graphics and video services.

    • Research, analytical, and statistical services.

    • Human resources/personnel services.

    • Library and legal services.

    To calculate the overhead allocable to a service, the IRS first calculates the Corporate Overhead rate and then multiplies the Corporate Overhead rate by the direct labor and benefits costs determined as discussed above. The IRS calculates the Corporate Overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the Statement of Net Cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office. The Corporate Overhead rate is the ratio of the sum of the IRS's indirect labor and benefits costs from the supporting and sustaining organizational units—those that do not interact directly with taxpayers—and all non-labor costs to the IRS's labor and benefits costs of its organizational units that interact directly with taxpayers.

    The Corporate Overhead rate of 65.85 percent for costs reviewed during FY 2015 was calculated based on FY 2014 costs as follows:

    Indirect Labor and Benefits Costs $1,693,339,843 Non-Labor Costs + $2,832,262,970 Total Indirect Costs $4,525,602,813 Direct Labor and Benefits Costs ÷ $6,872,934,473 Corporate Overhead Rate 65.85% E. Calculation of Offer in Compromise User Fee

    The IRS used data from cost centers dedicated to the offer in compromise program and cost centers that work on the offer in compromise program, as well as other IRS programs, to determine the full cost of the offer in compromise program. The IRS used the most recent two years of data, in this case FY 2013 and FY 2014, and averaged those costs in order to assure anomalies, such as short term increases or decreases in costs or numbers of offers in compromise, would not artificially impact the measured costs.

    The offer in compromise program work is primarily performed by dedicated offices; therefore, the cost of most of the program can be determined through the costs recorded in the cost centers underlying the offices dedicated to the offer in compromise program. The IRS identified the offices that provide 100 percent of their time to this program (Offer in Compromise Offices), determined the full costs of the Offer in Compromise Offices for FY 2013 and 2014, and averaged the costs for those two years to determine the annual average costs of those offices. The average costs for the Offer in Compromise Offices were as follows:

    Offer in compromise offices Average costs Labor and Benefits $61,125,895 Non-Labor and Support Costs 90,730,487 Offer in Compromise Offices Full Cost 151,856,382

    Because overhead and support costs are already included in the “Non-Labor and Support Costs” allocated to these cost centers, a Corporate Overhead factor has not been added to determine the full cost of the Offer in Compromise Offices.

    There are three IRS organizations that perform work for the offer in compromise program, but that are not exclusively dedicated to the offer in compromise program (Non-OIC Dedicated Offices). Those organizations are:

    • Office of Chief Counsel

    • Small Business/Self-Employed (Examination)

    • Office of Appeals

    To calculate the average offer in compromise program costs attributable to these Non-OIC Dedicated Offices, the IRS obtained the time spent by each organization on the offer in compromise program for FY 2013 and 2014, calculated an annual average of that time for each office, and multiplied that annual average time by the average hourly rates for that organization. After determining the total labor and benefits costs for the Non-OIC Dedicated Offices, the IRS added the Corporate Overhead costs allocable to these organizations to determine the full cost of the services provided by the Non-OIC Dedicated Offices. The costs are calculated as follows:

    Non-OIC Dedicated Offices Office of Chief Counsel Average Hours 13,688 Average Salary and Benefits Rate $57.00 Chief Counsel Labor Cost $780,216 Examination Average Hours 3,723 Average Salary and Benefits Rate $52.72 Examination Labor Cost $196,277 Office of Appeals Average Hours 128,610 Average Salary and Benefits Rate $55.10 Examination Labor Cost $7,086,411 Total Cost for Chief Counsel, Examination and Appeals Total Labor and Benefits Cost $8,062,904 Corporate Overhead at 65.85% $5,309,422 Total Non-OIC Dedicated Offices Cost $13,372,326

    To determine the full cost of the offer in compromise program, the IRS combined the Offer in Compromise Offices' full cost and the Non-OIC Dedicated Offices' full cost. The IRS calculated the unit cost by dividing the total offer in compromise program cost by the average of offer in compromise cases that were closed in FY 2013 and in FY 2014. Closed offers are offers that have been issued an acceptance letter, closed as rejected or withdrawn/terminated, or returned. An offer may be returned either because the offer was not processable when received, or after the offer was initially determined to be processable circumstances occur that cause the offer to no longer be processable or the Service is unable to proceed with the offer investigation. The IRS closed 70,622 offer in compromise cases in FY 2013 and 64,332 offer in compromise cases in FY 2014, for an average of offer in compromise cases closed in FY 2013 and FY 2014 of 67,477.

    Unit Cost for Offer in Compromise Total Offer in Compromise Offices $151,856,382 Total Non-OIC Dedicated Offices $13,372,326 Offer in Compromise Program Full Cost $165,228,708 Average FY 2013 and 2014 Annual Volume of Closed Offers in Compromise 67,477 Unit Cost $2,450 Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the information that follows. The economic impact of these regulations on any small entity would result from the entity being required to pay a fee prescribed by these regulations in order to obtain a particular service. The dollar amount of the fee is not, however, substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entity subject to the fee because generally the fee is applied to offset an existing tax obligation that the entity owes the IRS. As such, the fee does not represent a payment of any amount greater than what a substantial number of entities owe the IRS. Low-income taxpayers and taxpayers making offers in compromise based on doubt as to liability will continue not to be charged a fee and therefore will not be impacted economically by these proposed regulations. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed amendments to the regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for December 16, 2016, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the Main IR Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written comments or electronic comments by November 28, 2016 and submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic (a signed original and 8 copies) by November 28, 2016 . A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Maria Del Pilar Austin of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—USER FEES Paragraph. 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 9701 * * *

    Par 2. In § 300.3, paragraphs (b)(1) introductory text and (d) are revised to read as follows:
    § 300.3 Offer to compromise fee.

    (b) Fee—(1) The fee for processing an offer to compromise submitted before February 27, 2017, is $186. The fee for processing an offer to compromise submitted on or after February 27, 2017, is $300. No fee will be charged if an offer is—* * *

    (d) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable beginning February 27, 2017.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24666 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 151006928-6899-01] RIN 0648-BF43 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Jonah Crab Fishery; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Scoping Process AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recommendations, we are issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking announcing our intent to develop regulations in support of an Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Jonah crab. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking is necessary to provide the public with background information and to alert interested parties of future regulations governing Jonah crab fishing in Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone. We are also announcing our intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. This notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process and potential development of a draft Environmental Impact Statement, and to outline opportunity for public participation in that process.

    DATES:

    Written and electronic comments must be received on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the Jonah Crab Plan, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0127, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0127, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Jonah Crab Plan.”

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

    Requests for copies of the Commission's Jonah Crab Plan should be directed to Robert Beal, Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1050 N. Highland St, Suite A-N, Arlington, VA 22201. It is also available electronically at: http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/55e9daffJonahCrabInterstateFMP_Aug2015.pdf.

    Requests for copies of the scoping document and other information should be directed to Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, NOAA Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, telephone (978) 281-9122. The scoping document will be available electronically at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, NMFS, [email protected], telephone (978) 281-9122.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Jonah crab (Cancer borealis), also known as rock crab, is not currently managed under Federal regulations. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Lobster Board, working through its public meeting process, approved an Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Jonah Crab in August 2015. The goal of the plan is to promote conservation, reduce the possibility of recruitment failure, and allow the industry to continue fishing the resource at present levels. The Commission's Jonah Crab Plan includes commercial and recreational measures, and reporting requirements, summarized in Table 1, below.

    Table 1—Commission-Recommended Jonah Crab Management Measures Description Commercial Management Measure Permits Limits participation in the directed trap fishery to only those vessels and permit holders that already hold a lobster permit, or can prove prior participation in the crab fishery before the June 2, 2015, control date. Minimum Size 43/4 inches (12.065 cm). Landing Disposition Whole crab fishery, with an exception for New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia harvesters who can demonstrate history in the claw-only fishery.* Broodstock Protection Prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing females. Incidental Catch Limit 1,000 crabs/trip for non-lobster trap and non-trap gear. Recreational Management Measures Possession Limit 50 whole crabs/person per day. Broodstock Protection Prohibition on the retention of egg-bearing females. Reporting Requirements Dealer Reporting 100-percent dealer reporting. Harvester Reporting 100-percent harvester reporting, but allows jurisdictions that currently require less than 100 percent of lobster harvesters to report are required to maintain its current reporting programs and extend them to Jonah crab. * The Commission is considering a coastwide claw-only fishery as part of Addendum II.

    Anticipating that the approved Jonah Crab Plan would include permitting requirements, the Commission requested that we issue a control date for the Jonah crab fishery. We published a notice (80 FR 31347; June 2, 2015) establishing June 2, 2015, as the control date. The notice advised Jonah crab harvesters to locate and preserve records. It also notified harvesters that landings after the control date may not be treated the same as landings that occurred prior to the control date.

    The Board recommended allowing any lobster permit holder to continue to fish for and retain Jonah crabs. The Board also recommended allowing access for historic crab-only harvesters to continue to fish for and retain Jonah crabs. The Board has not yet developed qualification criteria for historic crab-only harvesters in the Jonah Crab Plan. While the Board's Plan Development Team has investigated Jonah crab-only landings, it has not been able to investigate Jonah crab-only harvesters with substantial landings. We will work with the Commission and state partners through the development of these recommendations.

    In the Jonah Crab FMP, the Lobster Board recommended an incidental catch limit of 200 crabs/day, up to 500 crabs/trip. After the FMP was approved, the Board became aware that the approved limit might restrict some historical fishing practices, which was not intended. In November 2015, the Board initiated Addendum I to reconsider the incidental catch limit. At its May 2016 meeting, the Lobster Board finalized Addendum I by selecting an incidental catch limit of 1,000 crabs for a trip of any length for both non-trap and non-lobster trap gear.

    In May 2016, the Lobster Board initiated Addendum II to further develop claw-only fishery requirements. Although draft Addendum II has not yet been released for public comment, we expect it to contain alternatives that would allow a coastwide claw-only fishery, as well as an alternative that would restrict Jonah crab landings to only whole crabs (i.e., prohibit landing claws). We expect the draft addendum to be discussed in October 2016, and revised claw-only fishery requirements to be selected by the Lobster Board in February 2017, following public comment.

    States were required to implement Jonah Crab Plan requirements by June 1, 2016. In September, 2015, the Commission formally requested that we issue complementary regulations in Federal waters. We are reviewing the Commission's Jonah Crab Plan, available data, and are considering implementing complementary measures in Federal waters. We are seeking public comment on the Commission's recommended measures, as well as soliciting input on any additional alternatives that we should consider for managing the Federal Jonah crab fishery.

    Public Comment

    We are soliciting written comments to help us determine the scope of issues to be addressed by potential Federal regulations in support of the Jonah Crab Plan, as well as to identify significant issues for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement. We are particularly interested in comment on the Commission's recommended measures outlined in Table 1, including potential criterial for a possible limited access directed fishery. We are also interested in comment on the nature and extent of a possible claw-only fishery which may be revised in Addendum II. Scoping consists of identifying the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. After the scoping process is completed, we will begin development of Federal regulations and may prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the impacts of the range of alternatives under consideration. Impacts may be direct, indirect, or cumulative.

    In addition to having the opportunity to comment on this notice, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the measures and alternatives being considered through the public comment period and a public meeting, consistent with National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. We have scheduled a scoping webinar for October 20, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. during which we will take and discuss scoping comments on future Jonah crab regulations. Please use the link and call in information provided below:

    • Webinar: https://noaaevents.webex.com/noaaevents/onstage/g.php?MTID=ed272b501b73da9f75dff6eb36ca49229,

    • Webinar access code: Meeting123,

    • Telephone Number: 877-661-2084,

    • Participant Code: 613780.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24746 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 160728670-6904-01] RIN 0648-BG23 Fisheries off West Coast States; Highly Migratory Fisheries; California Drift Gillnet Fishery; Protected Species Hard Caps for the California/Oregon Large-Mesh Drift Gillnet Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is proposing regulations under the authority of Section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) to implement an immediate closure of the California thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (DGN) (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery if a hard cap (i.e., limit) on mortality/injury is met or exceeded for certain protected species during a rolling 2-year period. The length of the closure would be dependent on when—during the 2-year period—the hard cap is reached.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents must be submitted in writing by November 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, the draft Environmental Assessment (EA), draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123, 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-2016-0123, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Lyle Enriquez, NMFS West Coast Region, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123” 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 EA, draft RIR, IRFA, and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2016-0123 or by contacting the Regional Administrator, Barry Thom, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 NE. Lloyd Blvd., Portland, OR 97232-2182, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lyle Enriquez, NMFS, West Coast Region, 562-980-4025, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The DGN fishery for swordfish and thresher shark (14″ minimum mesh size) is federally managed under the Federal Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) and via regulations of the states of California and Oregon to conserve target and non-target stocks, including protected species that are incidentally captured. The HMS FMP was prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the MSA by regulations at 50 CFR part 660.

    The DGN fishery has been subject to a number of seasonal closures. Since 1982, it has been closed inside the entire U.S. West Coast exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from February 1 to April 30 of each year. In 1986, a closure was established within 75 miles of the California mainland from June 1 through Aug 14 of each year to conserve common thresher sharks; this closure was extended to include May in 1990 and later years. In 2001, NMFS implemented two Pacific sea turtle conservation areas on the U.S. West Coast with seasonal DGN restrictions to protect endangered leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles. The larger of the two closures spans the EEZ north of Point Conception, CA (34°27′ N. latitude) to mid-Oregon (45° N. latitude) and west to 129° W. longitude. DGN fishing is prohibited annually within this conservation area from August 15 to November 15 to protect leatherback sea turtles. A smaller closure was implemented to protect Pacific loggerhead turtles from DGN gear from June 1-August 31 of each year during a forecasted or occurring El Niño event, and is located south of Point Conception, CA, and east of 120° W. longitude (72 FR 31756). The number of active vessels in the DGN fishery has remained under 50 vessels since 2003, and there has been an average of 20 active vessels per year from 2010 through 2015.

    Since 1990, NMFS has targeted 20 percent observer coverage of the DGN fishery each year, per recommendations from the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS 1989). NMFS' fleet-wide observer coverage target has been 30 percent since 2013. Since some DGN vessels are unobservable due to safety or accommodations requirements, the observable vessels are observed at a rate higher than 30 percent to attain the fleet-wide 30 percent coverage. Four to six DGN vessels have been unobservable during each fishing season from 2011 to present.

    Council Background

    In March 2012, the Council tasked NMFS with determining the steps needed to implement protected species hard caps in the DGN fishery. Originally concerned with sea turtle interactions, the Council expanded its scope to include marine mammals at its June 2014 meeting. At that meeting, the Council directed its Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) to begin developing a range of alternatives to establish hard caps on high-priority protected species (i.e. sea turtles and marine mammals) incidentally caught in the DGN fishery. In September 2014, the Council selected a Range of Alternatives and Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA); however, the HMSMT identified implementation issues with the Council's PPA, and an additional PPA, identified as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) PPA, was selected in March 2015. In June, the Council added a 2-year hard cap sub-option to the Council hard cap PPA and the CDFW hard cap PPA, and an additional alternative that modified the CDFW PPA was added in September 2015. This alternative contained 2-year rolling hard caps based on observed mortality/injury; the Council selected this alternative as its Final Preferred Alternative (FPA).

    Proposed Regulations for Hard Cap Limits

    The implementation of hard caps is intended to manage the fishery under the MSA to protect certain non-target species. Its purpose is not to manage marine mammal or endangered species populations, but rather to enhance the provisions of ESA and the MMPA under MSA Section 303(b)(12) and National Standard 9. This proposed rule would implement the Council's FPA, which would establish 2-year rolling hard caps on observed mortality and injury to fin, humpback, and sperm whales, leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles, short-fin pilot whales, and bottlenose dolphins in the DGN fishery. The definition of injury is taken from the NMFS West Coast Region Observer Program field manual. Observers record protected species released as Alive, Injured, or Dead. Observer program staff reviews observer data forms and notes to make a final determination of the condition of entangled protected species. To determine whether a hard cap has been reached, NMFS would count observed mortalities and injuries to these species during the current DGN fishing season (May 1 through January 31) and the previous fishing season. If a cap were reached, the DGN fishery would close until the 2-year (i.e. two fishing seasons) mortality and injury for all species is below their hard cap value. The DGN fishery would then re-open on May 1 of the subsequent fishing season. The Council recommended hard cap values for when the DGN observer coverage level is less than 75 percent; the Council will revisit hard cap values when observer coverage becomes greater than 75 percent.

    Table 1—Proposed Protected Species Hard Caps for Drift Gillnet Fishery Species Rolling
  • 2-year
  • hard cap
  • Fin Whale 2 Humpback Whale 2 Sperm Whale 2 Leatherback Sea Turtle 2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 2 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 2 Green Sea Turtle 2 Short-fin Pilot Whale (CA/OR/WA stock) 4 Bottlenose Dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock) 4
    Fishery Closure Procedures

    NMFS will report observed protected species mortalities and injuries to help participants in the DGN fishery plan for the possibility of a hard cap being reached. If, as determined by NMFS, the DGN fleet meets or exceeds a hard cap during a rolling 2-year period, the fishery will be closed. NMFS will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the specified beginning and end dates of the closure. Upon the effective date identified in the Federal Register Notice, a DGN vessel may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land any additional fish using DGN gear in the U.S. West Coast EEZ during the period specified in the announcement. Any fish already on board a DGN fishing vessel on the effective date may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, if they are landed within 4 days after the effective date. NMFS will notify vessel owners/operators of the closure by Vessel Monitoring System communication to the fleet stating when large-mesh drift gillnet fishing is closed. Notification will also be made by postal mail and a posting on the NMFS regional Web site.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and existing collection-of-information requirements still apply under the following Control Numbers: 0648-0593. 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.

    NMFS prepared a draft EA for the proposed regulations that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. The proposed action will have minor beneficial environmental impacts on target, not-target, and protected species and negative economic impacts to the DGN fleet. All of the proposed alternatives would result in a negative economic impact; however, the Council's FPA would result in a limited economic impact when compared to the other alternatives (a more detailed explanation can be found in the IRFA). A copy of the draft EA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

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

    On December 29, 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    There are currently 73 individual permit holders with valid California Department of Fish and Wildlife drift gillnet permits; however, many permits remain inactive. On average, 20 vessels participated in the fishery each year from 2010 through 2015. In 2015, 18 vessels participated in the fishery with total landings equaling 96 metric tons (mt) (round weight), about 5.3 mt on average per vessel. Total landings included 18 mt of common thresher shark, 6 mt of shortfin mako shark, 66 mt of swordfish, and 5 mt of tunas. All participants in the fishery are considered small businesses since average annual per vessel revenues persist well below the $11 million threshold.

    The Council considered six alternatives for protected species hard caps for the DGN fishery before selecting Alternative 6 as their FPA. Compared to the baseline, the proposed regulatory action (i.e., based on Alternative 6) would result in a $4,596 annual loss per vessel based on a DGN fleet size of 20 vessels. These potential adverse economic effects of the proposed regulations appear to be limited. DGN effort is variable over the course of a fishing season, as vessels may choose to fish for salmon, albacore, and other marketable species based on abundance and environmental conditions, which may mitigate some of the anticipated economic losses. If vessel operators are successful in reducing the frequency of hard cap species catch in the future, the DGN fishery would close less often. However, given the many existing regulatory measures to reduce protected species interactions in the DGN fishery to minimal levels, the degree to which further take reductions can be realized through fishermen's deliberate effort to avoid reaching caps cannot be determined.

    Action Alternatives 1 through 4 were estimated to produce fewer costs to the fleet than the FPA; however, these alternatives presented significant implementation challenges. The evaluation of the fishery against hard caps in each of these Alternatives was based on an estimated mortality and serious injury (M&SI) calculation derived from observer coverage levels. The current NMFS process under the MMPA for making M&SI determinations is an extensive and multi-step process that takes months to complete and occurs at the end of each calendar year. It was deemed that this process, therefore, would not be responsive enough to inseason interactions with protected species. NMFS would have to create an expedited M&SI assessment process to make a more timely determination, which would have further delayed this action. Additionally, observer coverage rates for the DGN fishery vary between and within fishing seasons. This makes it difficult to determine the coverage rate at the time an interaction occurs and then extrapolate observed M&SI for comparison to the hard caps. Similarly, using a generalized observer coverage rate is problematic because DGN vessels often participate in multiple fisheries based on environmental factors and the presence of different species. This adds to the variation in observer coverage levels over the course of a fishing season. Lastly, because fishing effort has been low compared to historical levels, a small change in observed fishing effort can have a potentially big effect on the observer coverage rate if unobserved effort does not change commensurately.

    In response to the identified implementation issues with Alternatives 1 through 4, the CDFW proposed Alternative 5 with two sub-Alternatives. Based on Alternative 5 sub-option 1, the DGN fishery would be expected to meet or exceed a hard cap seven out of thirteen fishing seasons, using historical observations (there is, however, less fishing effort in recent years, so the fishery would be expected to close fewer than seven times under this Alternative). Using Alternative 5 sub-option 2, the fishery would be expected to close in 14.6 percent of simulated seasons, with the possibility of closing for more than one full fishing season. While Alternative 5 would produce greater beneficial effects to target, non-target, and protected species than the other alternatives, the results of the economic analysis indicate that it would have the greatest economic impact and not be conducive to supporting an economically viable swordfish fishery. The Council's FPA, Alternative 6, is the least costly alternative of those that did not present significant implementation issues.

    NMFS considers all entities subject to this action to be small entities as defined NMFS' size standards. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are all U.S. commercial DGN vessels that may be used in the California/Oregon large-mesh DGN fishery. Because each affected vessel is a small business, the proposed rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities. Therefore, the proposed action will impact all these small entities in the same manner. This rulemaking is not anticipated to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or place small entities at a disadvantage to large entities.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 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 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.702, add the definition for “Injury” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 660.702 Definitions.

    Injury, when referring to marine mammals and sea turtles, means the animal has been released with obvious physical injury or with attached fishing gear.

    3. In § 660.705, add paragraphs (tt) and (uu) to read as follows:
    § 660.705 Prohibitions.

    (tt) Fish with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone during the time the fishery is closed pursuant to § 660.713(h)(2)(ii).

    (uu) Retain on board, transship, or land any fish caught with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) later than 4 days after the effective date of a drift gillnet fishery closure and before the drift gillnet fishery re-opens pursuant to § 660.713(h)(2)(ii).

    4. In § 660.713, add paragraph (h) to read as follows:
    § 660.713 Drift gillnet fishery.

    (h) Limits on protected species mortalities and injuries.

    (1) Maximum 2-year hard caps are established on the number of sea turtle and marine mammal mortalities and injuries that occur as a result of observed interactions with large-mesh drift gillnets (mesh size ≥14 inches) deployed by vessels registered for use under HMS permits. Mortalities and injuries during the current fishing season (May 1 through January 31) and the previous fishing season are counted towards the hard caps. The mortality and injury hard caps are as follows:

    Species Rolling
  • 2-year
  • hard cap
  • Fin Whale 2 Humpback Whale 2 Sperm Whale 2 Leatherback Sea Turtle 2 Loggerhead Sea Turtle 2 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 2 Green Sea Turtle 2 Short-fin Pilot Whale (CA/OR/WA stock) 4 Bottlenose Dolphin (CA/OR/WA stock) 4

    (2) Upon determination by the Regional Administrator that, based on data from NMFS observers or a NMFS Electronic Monitoring program, the fishery has reached any of the protected species hard caps during a given 2-year period:

    (i) As soon as practicable, the Regional Administrator will file for publication at the Office of the Federal Register a notification that the fishery has reached a protected species hard cap. The notification will include an advisement that the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed, and that drift gillnet fishing in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone by vessels registered for use under HMS permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date and ending at a specified date. Drift gillnet fishing will then be allowed beginning May 1 of the year when observed mortality and injury of each species during the previous May 1 through January 31 fishing season is below its hard cap value. Coincidental with the filing of the notification, the Regional Administrator will also provide actual notice that the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed, and that drift gillnet fishing in the U.S. West Coast Exclusive Economic Zone by vessels registered for use under HMS permits will be prohibited beginning at a specified date, to all holders of HMS permits with a drift gillnet endorsement via VMS communication, postal mail, and a posting on the NMFS regional Web site.

    (ii) Beginning on the fishery closure date published in the Federal Register and indicated by the Regional Administrator in the notification provided to vessel operators and permit holders under paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and until the specified ending date, the large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches) fishery shall be closed. During the closure period commercial fishing vessels registered for use under HMS permits may not be used to target, retain on board, transship, or land fish captured with a large-mesh drift gillnet (mesh size ≥14 inches), with the exception that any fish already on board a fishing vessel on the effective date of the notice may be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed, to the extent authorized by applicable laws and regulations, provided such fish are landed within 4 days after the effective date published in the fishing closure notice.

    [FR Doc. 2016-24780 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 198 Thursday, October 13, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 7, 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 14, 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.

    Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: Industry Response to Noncompliance Records.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0146.

    Summary of Collection: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451, et seq.), and the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031). These statues mandate that FSIS protect the public by verifying that meat and, poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. If FSIS in-plant personnel discover noncompliance with regulatory requirements they issue Noncompliance Records (NRs). The Noncompliance Record, FSIS Form 5400-4 and FSIS 5400-4 FISH, serves as FSIS' official record of noncompliance with one or more regulatory requirements.

    Need and use of the Information: FSIS will use the form 5400-4 and 5400-4 FISH to document their findings and provided written notification of the establishment's failure to comply with regulatory requirement(s). The establishment management receives a copy of the form and has the opportunity to respond in writing using the Noncompliance Record form.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 7,057.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 119,969.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24733 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission business meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a Business Meeting of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will be convened at 10 a.m. on Friday, October 21, 2016.

    DATES:

    Friday, October 21, 2016, at 10 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 (Entrance on F Street NW.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement. Telephone: (202) 376-8371; TTY: (202) 376-8116; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda. II. Business Meeting A. Program Planning. • Discussion of Concept Papers • Update on Status of 2017 Statutory Enforcement Report B. State Advisory Committees. • State Advisory Committee Appointments • Pennsylvania • District of Columbia • Arkansas • Colorado C. Management and Operations • Staff Director's Report III. Break until 11 a.m. for Presentation by Sylvia Mendez about her experiences as the Plaintiff in Mendez v. Westminster School District • Presentation by Sylvia Mendez IV. Adjourn Dated: October 11, 2016. Brian Walch, Director, Communications and Public Engagement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24956 Filed 10-11-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of NIST's Mouse Cell Line Authentication Consortium AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of research consortium.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, is establishing the Mouse Cell Line Authentication Consortium and invites organizations to participate in this Consortium. The Consortium will collaborate to obtain concordant short tandem repeat (STR) profiles for mouse cell lines, draft consensus standards for mouse cell line authentication, and create a public database of STR profiles for mouse cell lines. The Consortium has been developed in collaboration with American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Participation in this Consortium is open to all eligible organizations, as described below.

    DATES:

    NIST will accept responses for participation in this Consortium on an ongoing basis. The Consortium's activities will commence on or about December 15, 2016 (“Commencement Date”). Acceptance of participants into the Consortium after the Commencement Date will depend on eligibility and the availability of testing reagents and other resources.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information in response to this Notice and requests for additional information about the Consortium can be directed via mail to the Consortium Manager, Jamie Almeida, Biosystems and Biomaterials Division of NIST's Material Measurement Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8312, or via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about participation opportunities or about the terms and conditions of NIST's Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), please contact Honeyeh Zube, CRADA and License Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by telephone at (301) 975-2209.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The estimated cost due to the use of misidentified and contaminated cell lines used in research exceeds millions of dollars. The authentication of cell lines is recommended by many journals and research funding entities prior to publication and funding, respectively. On June 9, 2015, the National Institute of Health issued a notice titled, “Enhancing Reproducibility through Rigor and Transparency” (NOT-OD-15-103) to address the revision of grant application instructions and grant review criteria to highlight the need to authenticate key biological materials, including cell lines. The NIH notice is available here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-103.html. Currently, there is a consensus standard in place for human cell line authentication using short tandem repeat (STR) profiling which describes in detail the specific procedures to obtain reliable genotyping results. Databases of human STR profiles and commercial kits for human STR genotyping are also available. For non-human cell line authentication, however, there are no standards, STR genotyping kits, or databases available to researchers.

    NIST researchers have developed a panel of STR markers specific to the mouse genus that can be used to discriminate among mouse cell lines. These STR markers are used in a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay and the PCR products are separated based on size using capillary electrophoresis (CE). This technology is the subject of a pending patent application owned by the United Stated Department of Commerce (US Patent Application Number 13/935,285).

    The purpose of this Consortium is to draft guidance documents or consensus documentary standards that will delineate the definitive methods for mouse cell line authentication based on the data collected in a concordance study conducted as a part of the Consortium. These efforts will enable quality services to be provided for mouse cell line authentication. The Consortium is managed by NIST in collaboration with ATCC. NIST and ATCC will provide protocol test reagent kit and DNA samples from mouse cell lines to the Consortium members under specific terms and conditions. NIST will provide the Consortium members with a standard operating procedure (SOP) and genotyping kit which each Consortium member will be required to use to generate data for the mouse cell line DNA samples. The Consortium members will determine the parameters for data analysis and define the rules for interpretation of identity guided by the data collected. NIST will collect concordant STR profile data for each mouse cell line which will be used to build a public database for mouse cell lines. NIST will anonymize the data from individual labs. NIST will share summaries of the data for all the mouse cell lines tested. NIST intends to publish the results of the research in the form of reports and publications in scientific journals with the members of the Consortium as co-authors, as appropriate.

    Participation Process: Researchers at university core labs, at companies offering cell line authentication methods, at cell line repositories, and at other organizations that would benefit from mouse cell line authentication services, are invited to respond to this Notice to participate in this Consortium. Eligibility will be determined solely by NIST based on the information provided by interested organizations in response to this Notice on a first-come, first-serve basis to the extent that interested organizations are eligible and that testing reagents and other resources are available to accommodate additional participants. In order to be eligible to participate, the Consortium member will be required to have expert experience in STR genotyping, human cell line authentication, and CE operation. Additionally, the Consortium member will need to demonstrate that it has access to a thermal cycler and CE instrumentation, as required to complete the tasks in the SOP. Consortium members will be responsible for their own consumables for PCR and CE fragment analysis, except for the mouse STR kit and mouse cell line DNA, which will be provided by NIST and ATCC. NIST will evaluate the written responses to this Notice to determine eligibility to participate in this Consortium. Organizations responding to this Notice should provide the following information to NIST's Consortium Manager:

    (1) A description of the experience in cell line authentication, STR analysis, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and STR genotyping software analysis. Please also indicate whether the organization offers cell line authentication services. Please also describe the methods and kits typically used by organization, and the number of years of experience of the researchers at the organization who have been doing this type of work and who would be participating in this Consortium.

    (2) Type of Instruments: The Consortium will provide STR profile concordance data for mouse cell lines. Please indicate the make and model of the thermal cycler and CE instrument that will be used to collect STR profile data. Also provide the type of polymer and array used for the CE instrument.

    (3) Type of Software: Please indicate the type of software that will be used to analyze and generate electropherograms from the CE fragment data.

    A responding organization may not include any business proprietary information in its response to this request for information. NIST will not treat any information provided in response to this Notice as proprietary information. NIST will notify each organization of its eligibility. All Consortium members will be required to sign the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST in order to participate in this Consortium. All Consortium members will be bound to the same terms and conditions.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24768 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Notice To Extend the Public Comment Period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan for the Proposed Designation of the He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawai'i AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notification of extension of public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan for the proposed designation of the He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawai'i.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management (OCM) is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 13-day extension to the public comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (DEIS/DMP) prepared for the proposed designation of the He'eia National Estuarine Research Reserve in Hawai'i. The initial Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2016 (81 FR 60676), and established a public comment period from September 2, 2016 through October 17, 2016. NOAA OCM is hereby extending the deadline for submitting public comments on this matter to October 30, 2016. NOAA will consider all relevant comments received by October 30, 2016. The October 6, 2016, date of the associated public hearing described in the September 2, 2016, Notice of Availability remains unchanged.

    DATES:

    NOAA is accepting public comments through 5:00 p.m. (HST), October 30, 2016. NOAA is soliciting the views of interested persons and organizations on the adequacy of the DEIS/DMP. All relevant comments received at the hearing and during the extended public comment period ending 5:00 p.m. (HST), October 30, 2016, will be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Management Plan (FMP).

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NOS-2016-0114, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Joelle Gore, Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA, 1305 East West Highway, N/ORM2, Room 10622 Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    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 NOAA. 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jean Tanimoto, Coastal Management Specialist, Policy, Planning, and Communications Division, Office for Coastal Management at (808) 725-5253 or via email at [email protected].

    Electronic copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan may be found on the OCM Web site at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/compliance/ or may be obtained upon request from [email protected].

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Keelin Kuipers, Division Chief, Policy, Planning and Communication, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.420, Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves)
    [FR Doc. 2016-24679 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE212 Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the adoption of the Final Endangered Species Act (ESA) Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan for the California Coastal (CC) Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Northern California (NC) steelhead (O. mykiss) Distinct Population Segment (DPS), and Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (O. mykiss) DPS. These species spawn and rear in streams and rivers along the central and northern California coast, and in tributaries to San Francisco Bay.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of the Public Final Recovery Plan are available online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_and_implementation/north_central_california_coast/north_central_california_coast_salmon_recovery_domain.html. A CD-ROM of these documents can be obtained by emailing a request to [email protected] or by writing to: Recovery Team, National Marine Fisheries Service, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Korie Schaeffer, (707) 575-6087, [email protected], or Erin Seghesio, (707) 578-8515, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires we develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species under our jurisdiction, unless it is determined that such plans would not promote the conservation of the species. The Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan was developed for: The CC Chinook salmon ESU, and NC and CCC steelhead DPSs. Between 1997 and 2000, NMFS listed the CCC steelhead DPS (62 FR 43937; August 18, 1997), the CC Chinook salmon ESU (64 FR 50394; September 16, 1999), and the NC steelhead DPS (65 FR 36074; June 7, 2000), as threatened under the ESA due to the precipitous and ongoing declines in their populations.

    We published a Notice of Availability of the Draft Recovery Plan in the Federal Register on October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60125) and held five public meetings to present and receive comments on the Draft Plan. In response to multiple requests, we extended the public comment period for an additional 45 days on December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75066). We received comments on the Draft Plan. We revised the Draft Plan based on the comments received, and this final version now constitutes the Coastal Multispecies Recovery Plan for the CC Chinook salmon ESU, and NC and CCC steelhead DPSs. Our goal is to restore the threatened CC Chinook salmon, and NC and CCC steelhead to the point where they are self-sustaining populations within their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA.

    The Final Recovery Plan

    The ESA requires recovery plans incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable: (1) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species is no longer threatened or endangered; (2) site-specific management actions necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the conservation and survival of the species; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions.

    The Recovery Plan provides background on the natural history, population trends and the potential threats to the viability of CC Chinook salmon, and NC and CCC steelhead. The Recovery Plan lays out a recovery strategy to address conditions and threats based on the best available science and incorporates objective, measurable criteria for recovery. The Recovery Plan is not regulatory, but presents guidance for use by agencies and interested parties to assist in the recovery of CC Chinook salmon, and NC and CCC steelhead. The Recovery Plan identifies actions needed to achieve recovery by improving population and habitat conditions and addressing threats to the species; links management actions to a research and monitoring program intended to fill data gaps and assess effectiveness of actions; and incorporates an adaptive management framework by which management actions and other elements may evolve as we gain information through research and monitoring. To address threats related to the species, the Recovery Plan references many of the significant efforts already underway to restore salmon and steelhead access to high quality habitat and to improve habitat previously degraded.

    Recovery of CC Chinook salmon, and NC and CCC steelhead will require a long-term effort in cooperation and coordination with Federal, state, tribal and local government agencies, and the community. Consistent with the Recovery Plan, we will implement relevant actions for which we have authority, work cooperatively on implementation of other actions, and encourage other Federal and state agencies to implement recovery actions for which they have responsibility and authority.

    Conclusion

    NMFS has reviewed the Recovery Plan for compliance with the requirements of the ESA section 4(f), determined that it does incorporate the required elements and is therefore adopting it as the Final Recovery Plan for the CC Chinook salmon ESU, NC steelhead DPS, and CCC steelhead DPS.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Daniel Bess, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24716 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE946 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) and Information and Education AP. The Snapper Grouper AP will meet to discuss items pertaining to the management of the snapper grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region. A meeting of the Council's Information and Education AP will follow with the AP addressing outreach efforts and communication needs. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The Snapper Grouper AP meeting will be held on Monday, October 31, 2016 and Tuesday, November 1, 2016, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., each day. The Information and Education AP meeting will be held Wednesday, November 2, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. and Thursday, November 3, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Blvd., North Charleston, SC 29418.

    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, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel will receive an update on the status of amendments to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) recently approved by the Council and submitted for Secretarial review, receive an update on Amendment 41, (addressing management of mutton snapper), and the draft For-Hire Electronic Reporting Amendment. In addition, the Panel will review and provide recommendations on actions proposed for inclusion in Amendment 43 (addressing red snapper), the Vision Blueprint Recreational Amendment, the Vision Blueprint Commercial Amendment, and Amendment 44 (addressing yellowtail snapper allocations). Other discussion items include possible implementation of limited-entry for the for-hire sector; catch history and its association with gear endorsements in the commercial sector; and updates on on-going projects/programs (SEDAR, characterization of the commercial snapper grouper fishery, and Citizen Science).

    The Information and Education AP will review and provide recommendations on the Council's Communication's Survey, approaches for the Council's Managed Areas outreach, the upgrade to the Council's Web site, and a possible online forum for stakeholder engagement. Other discussion items include information related to proposed management measures for red snapper and recreational reporting, evaluation of the Council's 2016-20 Snapper Grouper Vision Blueprint, and ideas for improving communication about fishery science and data collection.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SAFMC office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24677 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0649-XE951 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting via webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a Post Council Meeting Briefing for the public via webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Wednesday, October 26, 2016; starting at 6 p.m. EDT and ending no later than 9 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3042382036761235202.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Muehlstein, Fisheries Outreach Specialist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review of Council actions taken during the October, 2016 Council Meeting 3. Questions and Answers 4. Adjourn

    You may register for the Post October Council Meeting Briefing Webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3042382036761235202.

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24712 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Notice TIME AND DATE:

    Wednesday, October 19, 2016, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.

    Matters To Be Considered

    Decisional Matter: Fiscal Year 2017 Operating Plan (9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.)

    Briefing Matter: Portable Generators—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.)

    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: October 11, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24941 Filed 10-11-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Corrosion Technical Products; Perth, Western Australia AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), the Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Corrosion Technical Products; a corporation having its principle place of business at 4/44 Vinnicombe Drive, Canningvale, Perth, Western Australia 6155, exclusive license in all fields. The proposed license would be relative to the following: U.S. Patent Number 8,920,714 entitled “Corrosion Inhibiting Self-Expanding Foam”, Inventor Kelley, Issue Date December 30, 2014.

    DATES:

    The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321, Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, E-Mail: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    None.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24748 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially closed meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors will meet to make such inquiry, as the Board shall deem necessary, into the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, and academic methods of the Naval Academy. The executive session of this meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 5, 2016, will include discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishment proceedings involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade; the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For this reason, the executive session of this meeting will be closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The open session of the meeting will be held on December 5, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. The executive session held from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be the closed portion of the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD. The meeting will be handicap accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, 410-293-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The executive session of the meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on December 5, 2016, will consist of discussions of new and pending administrative/minor disciplinary infractions and non-judicial punishments involving midshipmen attending the Naval Academy to include but not limited to, individual honor/conduct violations within the Brigade. The discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters protected under sections 552b(c)(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

    (Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b) Dated: October 6, 2016. C. Mora, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24740 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [OE Docket No. EA-430] Application to Export Electric Energy; Calpine Energy Services, L.P. AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (Applicant or CES) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.

    DATES:

    Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code: OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350. Because of delays in handling conventional mail, it is recommended that documents be transmitted by overnight mail, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by facsimile to 202-586-8008.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to sections 301(b) and 402(f) of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7151(b), 7172(f)) and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

    On September 27, 2016, DOE received an application from CES for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Mexico as a power marketer for a five-year term using existing international transmission facilities.

    In its application, CES states that it does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, and it does not have a franchised service area. The electric energy that CES proposes to export to Mexico would be surplus energy purchased from third parties such as electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies pursuant to voluntary agreements. The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have previously been authorized by Presidential Permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.

    PROCEDURAL MATTERS: Any person desiring to be heard in this proceeding should file a comment or protest to the application at the address provided above. Protests should be filed in accordance with Rule 211 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211). Any person desiring to become a party to these proceedings should file a motion to intervene at the above address in accordance with FERC Rule 214 (18 CFR 385.214). Five copies of such comments, protests, or motions to intervene should be sent to the address provided above on or before the date listed above.

    Comments and other filings concerning CES's application to export electric energy to Mexico should be clearly marked with OE Docket No. EA-430. An additional copy is to be provided to both Sarah G. Novosel, Calpine Corporation, 875 15th Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005, and Neil L. Levy, KING & SPALDING LLP, 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after a determination is made by DOE that the proposed action will not have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

    Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above, by accessing the program Web site at http://energy.gov/node/11845, or by emailing Angela Troy at [email protected]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2016. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24757 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14471-001] West Street Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 14471-001.

    c. Date Filed: March 25, 2015.

    d. Submitted By: West Street Hydro, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Ashuelot River Dam Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Ashuelot River, in Cheshire County, New Hampshire. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Kenneth A. Stewart, West Street Hydro, Inc., 20 Central Square, Keene, NH 03431; phone: (603) 352-2448.

    i. FERC Contact: Michael Watts at (202) 502-6123; or email at [email protected]

    j. West Street Hydro, Inc., (West Street Hydro) filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on March 25, 2015. West Street Hydro provided public notice of its request on April 2, 2015. In a letter issued on May 13, 2015, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved West Street Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. West Street Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    n. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24730 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2708-000] Exelon West Medway II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Exelon West Medway II, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 25, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24763 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-21-000] Elevation Energy Group, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Elevation Energy Group, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 25, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24767 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 3063-020] Blackstone Hydro Associates; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 3063-020.

    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: Blackstone Hydro Associates.

    e. Name of Project: Central Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Blackstone River, in Providence County, Rhode Island. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Simeon Bruner, Blackstone Hydro Associates, 130 Prospect Street, Cambridge, MA 02139; phone: (617) 492-8400.

    i. FERC Contact: Michael Watts at (202) 502-6123; or email at [email protected]

    j. Blackstone Hydro Associates (Blackstone Hydro) filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on July 29, 2016. Blackstone Hydro provided public notice of its request on August 3, 2016. In a letter issued on September 15, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Blackstone Hydro's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Rhode Island State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. Blackstone Hydro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    n. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 3063. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by July 31, 2019.

    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24729 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-17-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-551); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-551, Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-17-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Please reference the FERC-551 in your comments.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-551, Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0243.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-551 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission has a statutory requirement to facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of physical natural gas in interstate commerce, having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of those markets, fair competition, and the protection of consumers. FERC-551 uses the information provided by pipelines as part of its overall implementation of the statutory provisions of sections 23(a)(1) of the Natural Gas Act, 16 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(1); Section 316 of EPAct 2005; section 23 to the Natural Gas Act; section 1281 of EPAct 2005 and section 220 to the Federal Power Act. More specifically, the Commission uses the pipelines' FERC-551 postings as part of fulfilling the transparency provisions of section 23(a)(1) of the Natural Gas Act as mandated by Congress. FERC relies is part on section 23(a)(1) of the Natural Gas Act, for authority to collect this information. The data requirements for pipelines are in listed the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 284.13, reporting requirements for interstate pipelines. The Commission has directed the data requirements under FERC-551 are to be posted on interstate pipelines' Web sites and not filed on formatted/printed forms.

    FERC is obligated to prescribe rules for the collection and dissemination of information regarding the wholesale, interstate markets for natural gas and electricity. The Commission is authorized to adopt rules to assure the timely dissemination of information about the availability and prices of natural gas and natural gas transportation and electric energy and transmission service in such markets.

    The posting requirements are based on the Commission's authority under section 23 of the NGA (as added by Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPAct 2005), which directs the Commission, in relevant part, to obtain and disseminate “information about the availability and prices of natural gas at wholesale and in interstate commerce.” 1 This provision enhances the Commission's authority to ensure confidence in the nation's natural gas markets. The Commission's market-oriented policies for the wholesale natural gas industry require that interested persons have broad confidence that reported market prices accurately reflect the interplay of legitimate market forces. Without confidence in the efficiency of price formation, the true value of transactions is very difficult to determine. Further, price transparency facilitates ensuring that jurisdictional prices are “just and reasonable.” 2

    1 Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 & Supp. V 2005).

    2See sections 4 and 5 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717c and 717d.

    The posting for FERC-551 occurs on a daily basis. The data must be available for download for 90 days and must be retained by the pipeline for 3 years.

    The daily posting requirements for major non-interstate pipelines prescribed in the Commission's Order No. 720 are no longer required. The number of respondents used to develop the burden estimates does not include any major non-interstate pipelines (18 CFR 284.14).

    Type of Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:3 The Commission estimates the total public reporting burden and cost for this information collection as follows:

    3 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-551: Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden & cost per response 4 Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Burden hours & cost per respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) FERC-551 169 365 61,685 0.5 hours; $30.22 30,842.50 hrs.; $1,864,120.70 182.5 hrs.; $11,030.30.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    4 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response × $60.44 per hour = Average Cost per Response. This figure includes wages plus benefits and comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm data from May 2015) using Management Analyst category (code #13-1111).

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24727 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1307-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Annual Penalty Revenue Credit Report of WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Filed Date: 9/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160930-5361.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1306-001.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Volume No. 2—Neg. Rate Agmt—MEX Gas Supply, S.L. SP301591—Amended to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 06, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24766 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status McHenry Battery Storage, LLC EG16-126-000 East Pecos Solar, LLC EG16-127-000 Solverde 1, LLC EG16-128-000 Antelope DSR 1, LLC EG16-129-000 Cimarron Bend Wind Project I, LLC EG16-130-000

    Take notice that during the month of September 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24762 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2880-014] Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2880-014.

    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the Broad River, in Cherokee, County, South Carolina. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Beth Harris, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street, Piedmont, SC 29673; (864) 846-0042; email—[email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at (202) 502-6093; or email at [email protected]

    j. Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on August 2, 2016. Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC provided public notice of its request on September 16, 2016. In a letter dated October 6, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. With this notice, we are designating Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

    m. Cherokee Falls Hydroelectric Project, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2880. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by July 31, 2019.

    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24728 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR16-74-000.

    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1), (g): Compliance SOC CP16-101 to be effective 9/29/2016; Filing Type: 1330.

    Filed Date: 9/29/2016.

    Accession Number: 201609295156 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-75-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Gas Company.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): So Cal Gas—Rate Change Filing—Sept 2016 to be effective 9/1/2016; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 9/30/2016.

    Accession Number: 201609305001 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/29/16.

    Docket Number: PR17-1-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1)/.: COH SOC Effective 9-28-2016 to be effective 9/28/2016; Filing Type: 980.

    Filed Date: 10/3/2016.

    Accession Number: 201610035128.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements—10/1/2016 to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5011.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-2-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—BP Energy K510941 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-3-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Total Penalty Revenue Credits of Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-4-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Linked Firm Service Penalty Revenue Credits of Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-5-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Report Detailing 2015 Surcharge of Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5334.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1288-001.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Docket No. RP16-1288-000 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161003-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/17/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24765 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2374-012; ER10-1533-013.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Macquarie Energy LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2016 Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northwest Region of Puget Sound Energy, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2211-001.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Wisconsin Electric FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 9-2016 Compliance filing to be effective 9/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-24-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-DOM IA RS No. 196 Sedge-Hill Concurrence Filing to be effective 9/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-25-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC SFA to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-26-000.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Modification Pursuant to Order No. 828 to be effective 10/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-27-000.

    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Revisions Attachments N and O to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-28-000.

    Applicants: Elizabethtown Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff for Elizabethtown Energy to be effective 10/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-29-000.

    Applicants: Lumberton Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff for Lumberton Energy to be effective 10/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-30-000.

    Applicants: Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC, Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Kingman Wind Energy I, LLC and Kingman Wind Energy II, LLC SFA to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24761 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-2-000] Arizona Public Service Company; Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on September 7, 2016, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (Pinnacle West) filed a petition for declaratory order concerning the treatment of certain funds that APS and its parent company, Pinnacle West, have placed in trust to fund future Post-Employment Benefits other than Pensions liabilities, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    1 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2016).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 7, 2016.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24726 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2725-000] PSEG Energy Solutions LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of PSEG Energy Solutions LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is October 25, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24764 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-2-000.

    Applicants: North Lancaster Ranch LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of North Lancaster Ranch LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20161004-5167.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2708-000.

    Applicants: Exelon West Medway II, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Initial MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 9/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160930-5394.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-13-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: BPA NITSA (CEC Load) to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20161004-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-14-000.

    Applicants: Big Turtle Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence Filing to be effective 9/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20161004-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-15-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-10-04_3rd Quarter MISO Tariff Clean-Up Filing to be effective 10/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/4/16.

    Accession Number: 20161004-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-16-000.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 827 828 661 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5031.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-17-000.

    Applicants: Essential Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MBR Tariff Revisions re Order No. 819 to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5033.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-18-000.

    Applicants: James River Genco, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Third Party Ancillary Services Revisions re Order No. 819 to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-19-000.

    Applicants: Red Oak Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff re Order No. 819 to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-20-000.

    Applicants: Rhode Island State Energy Center, LP.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff re Order No. 819 to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5037.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-21-000.

    Applicants: Elevation Energy Group, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rates Tariff to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-22-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Dominion and Duke Energy Progress submit amended Interconnection Agreement 3453 to be effective 9/28/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-23-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SPS-OrWR-682-0.1.0-NOC to be effective 10/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20161005-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24760 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9954-11-OGC] Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement to settle a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade, and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy (“Petitioners”), in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, Case No. 15-1210. On July 10, 2015, Petitioners filed a petition for review challenging a final action issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entitled “New and Revised Emission Factors for Flares and Other Refinery Process Units and Determination for No Changes to VOC Emission Factors for Tanks and Wastewater Treatment Systems.” 80 FR 26925 (May 11, 2015) (“Emission Factor Action”). Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, if EPA performs specified actions by December 16, 2016, the Petitioners will dismiss their lawsuit.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0582, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.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, 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:

    Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1272; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On May 1, 2013, Petitioners filed a lawsuit against EPA alleging that the EPA had failed to review and, if necessary, revise emissions factors at least once every three years as required in CAA section 130. Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:13-cv-00621-KBJ (D.D.C.). In that lawsuit, the Petitioners sought to compel EPA to review the volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions factors for industrial flares (“flares”), liquid storage tanks (“tanks”), and wastewater collection, treatment and storage systems (“wastewater treatment systems”), and, if necessary, revise those emission factors. EPA entered into a consent decree with the Petitioners to settle that lawsuit. Under the terms of the consent decree, on April 20, 2015, EPA finalized a new VOC emissions factor for flares and finalized a determination that it was not necessary to revise the VOC emissions factors for tanks and wastewater treatment systems, and posted these actions on its AP-42 Web site (“the Emission Factor Action”). AP-42 is a guidance document that contains emissions factors and process information for more than 200 air pollution source categories.

    On July 10, 2015, the Petitioners filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking judicial review of EPA's Emission Factor Action posted on its Web site on April 20, 2015, which was taken in response to the consent decree described above. Petitioners have challenged the Emission Factor Action by raising the following five issues: (1) The total hydrocarbon (“THC”) emissions factor for flares used in Section 13.5 of EPA's official Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors known as “AP-42”; (2) the minimum heat value of the gas in the combustion zone of the flare test data used to develop the VOC emissions factors in Section 13.5 of AP-42; (3) the average destruction efficiency of the flare test data used to develop the VOC emissions factor in Section 13.5 of AP-42; (4) the molecular weights used in the calculation of the VOC emissions factor in Section 13.5 of AP-42; and (5) the source classification codes (“SCCs”) associated with the flare emissions factors in Section 13.5 of AP-42.

    The proposed settlement agreement would settle Petitioners' lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging, under CAA section 307(b)(1), the Emission Factor Action. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, if EPA performs specified actions by December 16, 2016, the Petitioners will dismiss their lawsuit. Consistent with EPA practice and the terms of the settlement agreement, EPA will post any actions it takes on its AP-42 Web site at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors. The proposed settlement agreement also provides for each party to bear its own litigation costs.

    For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to the agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement Agreement A. How can I get a copy of the proposed settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0582 contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Gautam Srinivasan, Acting Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24782 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0110] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communication Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before November 14, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0110.

    Title: Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 303-S; Section 73.3555(d), Daily Newspaper Cross-Ownership.

    Form Number: FCC Form 303-S.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondent and Responses: 3,821 respondents, 3,821 responses.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits—Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.25-12 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Every eight year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,403 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $3,886,358.

    Nature of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the collection is contained Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 303-S is used in applying for renewal of license for commercial or noncommercial AM, FM, TV, FM translator, TV translator, Class A TV, or Low Power TV, and Low Power FM broadcast station licenses. Licensees of broadcast stations must apply for renewal of their licenses every eight years.

    This collection also includes the third party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR Section 73.3580. This rule requires local public notice of the filing of the renewal application. For AM, FM, Class A TV and TV stations, these announcements are made on-the-air. For FM/TV Translators and AM/FM/TV stations that are silent, the local public notice is accomplished through publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the community or area being served.

    47 CFR Section 73.3555 is also included in this information collection. Section 73.3555 states that in order to overcome the negative presumption set forth in 47 CFR Section 73.3555(d)(4) with respect to the combination of a major newspaper and television station, the applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that the co-owned major newspaper and station will increase the diversity of independent news outlets and increase competition among independent news sources in the market, and the factors set forth in 47 CFR Section 73.3555(d)(5) will inform this decision. (OMB approval was previously received for the information collection requirements contained in this rule section (waiver showings/filings)).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24725 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, September 29, 2016; Sunshine Period Prohibition Lifted for Expanding Consumers' Video Navigation Choices; Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices October 6, 2016.

    The Federal Communications Commission deleted the following agenda item from the list of items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, September 29, 2016, Open Meeting (81 FR 66963, September 29, 2016). Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), the item remained under the sunshine period prohibition in 47 CFR 1.1203 until further notice.

    This public notice establishes that the sunshine restrictions applicable to the item below are hereby lifted. The item remains subject to the ex parte rules governing permit-but-disclose proceedings in 47 CFR 1.1206.

    TITLE:

    Expanding Consumers' Video Navigation Choices (MB Docket No. 16-42); Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices (CS Docket No. 97-80).

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission will consider a Report and Order that modernizes the Commission's rules to allow consumers to use a device of their choosing to access multichannel video programming instead of leasing devices from their cable or satellite providers.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24781 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-1077] Final Notice of Intent To Declare the International Section 214 Authorization of IP To Go, LLC Terminated AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the International Bureau (Bureau) affords IP To Go, LLC (IPTG) final notice and opportunity to respond to the April 11, 2016 letter submitted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting that the FCC terminate, declare null and void and no longer in effect, and/or revoke the international section 214 authorization issued to IPTG under file number ITC-214-20090508-00208.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before October 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Bureau is serving a copy of the Public Notice on IPTG by certified mail, return receipt requested at the last addresses of record appearing in Commission records. IPTG should send its response to Denise Coca, Chief, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau via email at [email protected] and to Veronica Garcia-Ulloa, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau at Veronica.Garcia[email protected] and file it in IBFS under File No. ITC-214-20090508-00208 via IBFS at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/pleading.do.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Veronica Garcia-Ulloa, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, at (202) 418-0481 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the DOJ April 11, 2016 Letter, DOJ states that it believes IPTG is dissolved and claims that IPTG is therefore unable to comply with the conditions of its international section 214 authorization. The Commission conditioned the grant of authority on IPTG abiding by the commitments and undertakings set forth in the November 21, 2011 Agreement from the president of IPTG to DHS. On July 5, 2016, the Bureau's Telecommunications and Analysis Division sent a letter to IPTG at the last known addresses on record via certified, return receipt mail, asking IPTG to respond to DOJ's allegations by August 3, 2016. The Bureau July 5, 2016 Letter stated that failure to respond would result in the issuance of an order to terminate IPTG's international section 214 authorization. IPTG did not respond to the request.

    In addition, IPTG may also be in violation of several other Commission rules and requirements. After having received an international section 214 authorization, pursuant to section 63.21(a), a carrier “is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications made in its application” and must correct information no longer accurate “as promptly as possible and, in any event, within thirty (30) days.” There is no indication that IPTG is currently providing service pursuant to its international section 214 authorization. If IPTG has discontinued service that affected customers, it may also be in violation of section 63.19(a) of the Commission's rules requiring prior notification for such a discontinuance. As part of its authorization, IPTG must file annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue as required by section 43.62 of the Commission rules. Section 43.62(b) states that “[n]ot later than July 31 of each year, each person or entity that holds an authorization pursuant to section 214 to provide international telecommunications service shall report whether it provided international telecommunications services during the preceding calendar year.” Our records indicate that IPTG failed to file an annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue report indicating whether or not IPTG provided services in 2014 and 2015 and may be in violation of section 43.62 of the Commission rules. All carriers were required to file their section 43.62 traffic and revenue reports for data as of December 31, 2014 by July 31, 2015 and for data as of December 31, 2015 by July 31, 2016. Furthermore, IPTG has an outstanding debt and consequently its account is red lighted through the Red Light Display System. IPTG must visit the Commission's Red Light Display System's to pay its outstanding debt. IPTG's outstanding debt involves regulatory fees. In addition to financial penalties, section 159(c)(3) of the Communications Act and section 1.1164(f) of the Commission's rules grant the Commission the authority to revoke authorizations for failure to timely pay regulatory fees.

    IPTG's failure to respond to this Public Notice will be deemed as an admission of the facts alleged by DOJ and of the violation of the statutory and rule provisions set out above. The Bureau hereby provides final notice to IPTG that it intends to take action to declare IPTG's international 214 authorization terminated for failure to comply with conditions of its authorization. We further advise IPTG that its non-compliance with the applicable regulatory provisions would warrant termination wholly apart from demonstrating IPTG's inability to satisfy the conditions of its authorization. IPTG must respond to this Public Notice and the issues alleged in the DOJ April 11, 2016 Letter, no later than 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    The proceeding in this Notice shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Denise Coca, Chief, Telecommunications & Analysis Division, International Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24770 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 010099-062.

    Title: International Council of Containership Operators.

    Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; CMA. CGM, S.A.; China COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan), Ltd.; Hamburg-Süd KG; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line, Ltd.; Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd.; United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.); Wan Hai Lines Ltd.; Yang Ming Transport Marine Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.

    Filing Party: John Longstreth, Esq.; K & L Gates LLP; 1601 K Street NW.; Washington, DC 20006-1600.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (and its subsidiary COSCO Container Lines Co., Ltd.), and China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (and its subsidiary China Shipping Container Lines Company Limited) as separate members of the agreement because they have merged into one entity, China COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited.

    Agreement No.: 012058-002.

    Title: Hoegh Autoliners/K-Line Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hoegh Autoliners AS and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

    Filing Party: John P. Meade, Esq.; “K” Line America, Inc.; 6199 Bethlehem Road; Preston, MD 21655.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds the trade between Mexico and Puerto Rico to the geographic scope of the Agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24769 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice October 11, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 20, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

    STATUS:

    Open.

    Matters To Be Considered

    The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company, Docket No. LAKE 2014-219-M (Issues include whether the Judge erred in interpreting a regulation that addresses the reporting of eye injuries.)

    Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

    Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24942 Filed 10-11-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 25, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Treynor Bancshares, Inc., Treynor, Iowa; to continue to engage in lending and servicing activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 5, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24670 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 3, 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, upon its conversion from a savings bank to a commercial bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 6, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24672 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 7, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Central Federal Corporation, Worthington, Ohio; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of CF Bank, Fairlawn, Ohio, upon its conversion to a national bank.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 7, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24753 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 2, 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. Big Creek Bancshares, Inc., Moro, Arkansas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Forrest City Financial Corporation and thereby indirectly acquire Forrest City Bank, N.A., both of Forrest City, Arkansas.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Caldwell Holding Company, Columbia, Louisiana; to acquire Progressive National Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Progressive National Bank, both of Mansfield, Louisiana.

    C. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

    1. Cathay General Bancorp, Los Angeles, California to acquire SinoPac Bancorp and thereby indirectly acquire Far East National Bank, all of Los Angeles, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 5, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24669 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 24, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. John R. Hill and Carol J. Hill, both of Fort Scott, Kansas, and Robb B. Hill and Carolyn S. Hill, both of West Des Moines, Iowa; to acquire control of City Bancshares, Inc., parent of City State Bank, both in Fort Scott, Kansas. In addition, David L. Thompson and Sharon K. Thompson, both of Independence, Kansas, to retain shares of City Bancshares, Inc., and be approved as members of the Hill/Thompson group acting in concert.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 5, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24671 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or [email protected]

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Wednesday, October 19, July 15, 2016. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Purpose

    The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

    II. Agenda

    The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at www.webconferences.com/ahrq. The meeting will begin with an update on AHRQ's current research, programs, and initiatives.

    Following this update, the agenda will focus on a discussion of the learning health care system. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site at www.AHRQ.gov no later than Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24742 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-0997] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Standardized National Hypothesis Generating Questionnaire (OMB Control Number 0920-0997, Expiration Date 10/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    It is estimated that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases. CDC and partners ensure rapid and coordinated surveillance, detection, and response to multi-state outbreaks, to limit the number of illnesses, and to learn how to prevent similar outbreaks from happening in the future.

    Conducting interviews during the initial hypothesis-generating phase of multi-state foodborne disease outbreaks presents numerous challenges. In the U.S. there is not a standard, national form or data collection system for illnesses caused by many enteric pathogens. Data elements for hypothesis generation must be developed and agreed upon for each investigation. This process can take several days to weeks and may cause interviews to occur long after a person becomes ill.

    CDC requests a revision to the Standardized National Hypothesis-Generating Questionnaire (SNHGQ), used with individuals who have become ill during a multi-state foodborne disease event. Since the questionnaire is designed to be administered by public health officials as part of multi-state hypothesis-generating interview activities, this questionnaire is not expected to entail significant burden to respondents.

    The Standardized National Hypothesis-Generating Core Elements Project was established with the goal to define a core set of data elements to be used for hypothesis generation during multistate foodborne investigations. These elements represent the minimum set of information that should be available for all outbreak-associated cases identified during hypothesis generation. The core elements would ensure that similar exposures would be ascertained across many jurisdictions, allowing for rapid pooling of data to improve the timeliness of hypothesis-generating analyses and shorten the time to pinpoint how and where contamination events occur.

    The SNHGQ was designed as a data collection tool for the core elements, to be used when a multistate cluster of enteric disease infections is identified. The questionnaire is designed to be administered over the phone by public health officials to collect core elements data from case-patients or their proxies. Both the content of the questionnaire (the core elements) and the format were developed through a series of working groups comprised of local, state, and federal public health partners.

    Many of the updates to the SNHGQ were made to better align with the questions from other existing questionnaires. Changes include: Exposure sections rearranged to improve interview flow, addition of antibiotic exposures and descriptive clinical questions, aligning demographic questions to conform with other OMB-approved questionnaires, addition of new exposure questions of interest, deletion of exposure questions that do not need to be assessed, and re-wording of existing questions to better align with other OMB-approved questionnaires and to improve question comprehension. For this revision, CDC also seeks to incorporate a number of public recommendations received during the 60-day public comment period.

    The total estimated annualized burden for the Standardized National Hypothesis Generating Questionnaire is 3,000 hours (approximately 4,000 individuals identified during the hypothesis-generating phase of outbreak investigations × 45 minutes/response). There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of
  • respondents
  • Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Individuals Standardized National Hypothesis Generating Questionnaire (Core Elements) 4,000 1 45/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24668 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-16BGH; Docket No. CDC-2016-0097] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on data collection project entitled “Data Collection for Canine Leptospirosis Surveillance in Puerto Rico.” The goals of the project are to characterize the epidemiology of canine leptospirosis, assess the applicability of canine Leptospira vaccines used in Puerto Rico, and determine potential rodent, livestock, and wildlife reservoirs for leptospirosis. Findings from the study will be used to develop recommendations for the prevention of leptospirosis in dogs, focus human surveillance efforts, and guide further investigations on leptospirosis in Puerto Rico.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0097 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    “Data Collection for Canine Leptospirosis Surveillance in Puerto Rico”—Existing Collection in Use without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Bacterial Special Pathogens Branch (BSPB) requests approval of data collection tools to be used for active surveillance of canine leptospirosis in Puerto Rico. Active surveillance will allow for the collection of prospective data on acute cases to determine the incidence and distribution of leptospirosis in dogs, assess risk factors for infection, characterize circulating Leptospira serovars and species, assess applicability of vaccines currently in use based on serovar determination, and assess rodent, livestock, and wildlife reservoirs of leptospirosis based on infecting serovars found in dogs. Findings from this study will aid in the development of evidence-based, targeted interventions for the prevention of canine leptospirosis, be used to focus human leptospirosis surveillance efforts, and guide future investigations on leptospirosis in humans and animals in Puerto Rico.

    The information collection for which approval is sought is in accordance with BSPB's mission to prevent illness, disability, or death caused by bacterial zoonotic diseases through surveillance, epidemic investigations, epidemiologic and laboratory research, training and public education. Authorizing Legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241). Successful execution of BSPB's public health mission requires data collection activities in collaboration with the state health department in Puerto Rico and with local veterinary clinics and animal shelters participating in the study.

    These activities include collecting information about dogs that meet the study case definition for a suspect case of leptospirosis seen at participating veterinary clinics and shelters. The information is collected by veterinarians or their veterinary technical staff by interviewing the dog owner and reviewing medical and administrative records, as necessary. Basic information about the participating sites will also be collected for study management, as well as to augment data analysis.

    Approval of this data collection tool will allow BSPB to collect information from veterinarians, vet staff and dog owners about the dog's signalment, risk factors, clinical signs and symptoms, laboratory results, treatment, and outcome. The study will also collect basic site information from participating clinics and shelters, including information about site capacity, vaccination practices, origin of dogs, and resources available at the sites.

    Data collection tools will be completed onsite. For dogs that have an owner, information about the dog may be collected by veterinarians and their vet staff by interviewing the dog owner. Otherwise, data collection tools may be completed by reviewing administrative and medical records, as necessary. Data will be recorded on paper forms. Study coordinators will enter collected data into an electronic database.

    BSPB estimates involvement of at least 411 respondents (385 from the general public and 26 veterinarians and their veterinary technical staff) and estimates a total of 168 hours of burden for research activities each year. The collected information will not impose a cost burden on the respondents beyond that associated with their time to provide the required data.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Veterinarians or vet technical staff Enrollment Questionnaire 26 1 5/60 2 Veterinarians or vet technical staff Log Sheet 26 24 1/60 10 Veterinarians or vet technical staff Case Questionnaire 26 24 15/60 156 Total 168
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24667 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Times and Dates:

    8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., EDT, November 2, 2016. 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m., EDT, November 3, 2016.

    Place: CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Tom Harkin Global Communications Center, Building 19, Auditorium B, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people. This meeting will also be webcast, please see information below.

    Purpose: This Committee is charged with providing scientific and technical advice and guidance to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Assistant Secretary for Health; the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The advice and guidance pertain to general issues related to improvement in clinical laboratory quality and laboratory medicine practice and specific questions related to possible revision of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) standards. Examples include providing guidance on studies designed to improve safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity, and patient-centeredness of laboratory services; revisions to the standards under which clinical laboratories are regulated; the impact of proposed revisions to the standards on medical and laboratory practice; and the modification of the standards and provision of non-regulatory guidelines to accommodate technological advances, such as new test methods, the electronic transmission of laboratory information, and mechanisms to improve the integration of public health and clinical laboratory practices.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda will include agency updates from CDC, CMS, and FDA. Presentations and discussions will include a report on the cytology workload assessment and time measure study; an update on CLIAC recommendations for laboratory biosafety; laboratory preparedness and response: The case of Zika; a report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) CLIAC workgroup; and future CLIAC topics.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Webcast: The meeting will also be webcast. Persons interested in viewing the webcast can access information at: http://cdclabtraining.adobeconnect.com/novembercliac/.

    Online Registration Required: All people attending the CLIAC meeting in-person are required to register for the meeting online at least 5 business days in advance for U.S. citizens and at least 10 business days in advance for international registrants. Register at: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/Meetings/MeetingDetails.aspx. Register by scrolling down and clicking the “Register for this Meeting” button and completing all forms according to the instructions given. Please complete all the required fields before submitting your registration and submit no later than October 27, 2016 for U.S. registrants and October 20, 2016 for international registrants.

    Providing Oral or Written Comments: It is the policy of CLIAC to accept written public comments and provide a brief period for oral public comments on agenda items. Public comment periods for each agenda item are scheduled immediately prior to the Committee discussion period for that item.

    Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting to make oral comments will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Speakers must also submit their comments in writing for inclusion in the meeting's Summary Report. To assure adequate time is scheduled for public comments, speakers should notify the contact person below at least one week prior to the meeting date. Written Comments: For individuals or groups unable to attend the meeting, CLIAC accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated). However, it is requested that comments be submitted at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Committee for their consideration and public distribution. Written comments, one hard copy with original signature, should be provided to the contact person at the mailing or email address below, and will be included in the meeting's Summary Report.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: To support the green initiatives of the federal government, the CLIAC meeting materials will be made available to the Committee and the public in electronic format (PDF) on the internet instead of by printed copy. Check the CLIAC Web site on the day of the meeting for materials: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/Meetings/MeetingDetails.aspx. Note: If using a mobile device to access the materials, please verify that the device's browser is able to download the files from the CDC's Web site before the meeting.

    Alternatively, the files can be downloaded to a computer and then emailed to the portable device. An internet connection, power source, and limited hard copies may be available at the meeting location, but cannot be guaranteed.

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Nancy Anderson, Chief, Laboratory Practice Standards Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services, Office of Public Health Scientific Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop F-11, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; telephone (404) 498-2741; or via email at [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register Notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24785 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR14-227, Workers' Compensation Surveillance.

    Time and Date:

    1:00 p.m.-6 p.m., EST, November 9, 2016 (Closed)

    Place: Teleconference

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters For Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “PAR14-227, Workers' Compensation Surveillance, PAR14-227.”

    Contact Person For More Information: Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morg Building H, Room 1806, Mailstop 1808, Morgantown, WV 26506, Telephone: (304) 285-5951, [email protected].

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24786 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Scientific and Technical Review Board on Biomedical and Behavioral Research Facilities.

    Date: November 9, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ross D. Shonat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6196, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2786, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24684 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center For Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship, Career Development, and Research Grant Programs.

    Date: November 22, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Viatcheslav A Soldatenkov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24695 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the meetings.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Biomedical Library and Informatics Review Committee.

    Date: March 9-10, 2017.

    Time: March 9, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Time: March 10, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Contact Person: Zoe E. Huang, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, NIH, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-594-4937, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24704 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-DK-16-021: NIDDK Short-Term Research Experience Program for Underrepresented Persons (STEP-UP) (R25).

    Date: November 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Improving Diabetes Management in Pre-teens, Adolescents and/or Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (DP3).

    Date: November 9, 2016.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452 (301) 594-8895, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Ancillary Studies.

    Date: November 11, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-8886, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24691 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: November 28-30, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jane K. Battles, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30B, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5029, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24685 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Review of NIGMS Maximizing Investigator's Research Award (R35) Applications.

    Date: November 9-10, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda Downtown, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Robert Horowits, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.18, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-6904, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Review of K99 Applications.

    Date: December 1, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Cambria Suites Rockville, 1 Helen Heneghan Way, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Contact Person: Tracy Koretsky, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12F, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-2886, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24683 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NHLBI Phase IIB Bridge Awards.

    Date: November 4, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The River Inn, 924 25th Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Susan Wohler Sunnarborg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7182, Bethesda, MD 20892 [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24707 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: November 9-10, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Jane K. Battles, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F30B, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5029, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24687 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; 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 a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The next meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council (OARAC) will be devoted to presentations and discussions on “Research Toward a Cure.” In addition, an update will be provided on the latest changes made to the HHS treatment and prevention guidelines by the OARAC Working Groups responsible for the guidelines.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Terrace Level Conference Center, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Paul A. Sato, Medical Officer, Office of AIDS Research, Office of the Director, NIH, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 2E62, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-480-2330, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.oar.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24688 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, October 21, 2016, 08:30 a.m. to October 21, 2016, 05:00 p.m., Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2016, 81 FRN 193.

    The meeting date has changed from October 21, 2016 to November 21, 2016. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24706 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    Date: April 6-7, 2017.

    Open: April 6, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Review of research and development programs and preparation of reports of the Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: April 6, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications, performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: April 7, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications, performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Karen Steely, Program Assistant, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room 7S707, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-4385, [email protected].

    Open: April 7, 2017, 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: Review of research and development programs and preparation of reports of the Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Karen Steely, Program Assistant, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room 7S707, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-4385, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, 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.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24705 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Human Tissue Models For Infectious Diseases (U19).

    Date: November 16, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Scientific Review Program, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G13, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5047, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24686 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by writing to the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology descriptions follow.

    Enhanced Functionalization of Carbon Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications Description of Technology

    The invention pertains to methods of increasing the density of carboxylic acids on the surface of a carbon nanoparticle that can be functionalized with biologically relevant molecules, such as antibodies or peptides, for biomedical applications. Advantageously, the method could increase functionalization of a nanoparticle by at least about 1x107 functional groups/g of nanoparticle. The method includes contacting an oxygen-containing functional group on a surface of a carbon nanoparticle with a reducing agent to provide a hydroxyl group; reacting the hydroxyl group with a diazoacetate ester in the presence of a transition metal catalyst to provide an ester and then cleaving the ester to provide a carboxylic acid group. The carboxylic acid can further be secondarily functionalized to an acyl chloride, an amide, pegylated, a biotinylate, a folate, a thiol, a maleimide, an active ester, an amine, a chelated gadolinium, an azide, an alkyne, a protein tag, or a dendrimer. Examples of notable nanoparticles that can be derivatized using this method include carbon nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, graphenes, graphene oxides, and nanodiamonds; with or without fluorescent properties. Fluorescent nanoparticles are of particular interest for functionalization as they are applicable to both research and diagnostic applications and can be visualized through microscopy.

    Potential Commercial Applications • Imaging • Therapeutics Competitive Advantages • Higher degree of functionalization for carbon nanoparticles Development Stage • Early Stage

    Inventors: Keir Neuman, Rolf Swenson, Ganesh Shenoy, Chandrasekhar Mushti (all of NHLBI).

    Publications: 1. Mochalin, V. N.; Shenderova, O.; Ho, D.; Gogotsi, Y., The Properties and Applications of Nanodiamonds. Nature Nanotechnology 2012, 7 (1), 11-23. 2. Huang, J.; Deming, C. P.; Song, Y.; Kang, X.; Zhou, Z.-Y.; Chen, S., Chemical Analysis of Surface Oxygenated Moieties of Fluorescent Carbon Nanoparticles. Nanoscale 2012, 4 (3), 1010-1015. 3. Nystrom, R. F.; Brown, W. G., Reduction of Organic Compounds by Lithium Aluminum Hydride. I. Aldehydes, Ketones, Esters, Acid Chlorides and Acid Anhydrides. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1947, 69 (5), 1197-1199. 4. Nystrom, R. F.; Brown, W. G., Reduction of Organic Compounds by Lithium Aluminum Hydride. Ii. Carboxylic Acids. Journal of the American Chemical Society 1947, 69 (10), 2548-2549. 5. Aller, E.; Brown, D. S.; Cox, G. G.; Miller, D. J.; Moody, C. J. Diastereoselectivity in the O-H Insertion Reactions of Rhodium Carbenoids Derived from Phenyldiazoacetates of Chiral Alcohols. Preparation Of .Alpha.-Hydroxy And .Alpha.-Alkoxy Esters. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 1995, 60 (14), 4449-4460. 6. Hoehnel, S; Lutolf, M.P., Capturing Cell-Cell Interactions via SNAP-tag and CLIP-tag Techology. Bioconjugate Chemistry 2015, 26, 1678-1686. 7. Moon, W. K.; Lin, Y.; O'Loughlin, T.; Tang, Y.; Kim, D.-E.; Weissleder, R.; and Tung, C.-H., Enhanced Tumor Detection Using a Folate Receptor-Targeted Near-Infrared Fluorochrome Conjugate. Bioconjugate Chemistry 2003, 14, 539-545. 8. Fu, C. C.,Lee, H. Y., Chen, K. C., Lim, T. S.,Wu, H. Y., Lin, P. K.,Wei, P. K., Tsao, P. H., Chang, H. C., Fann, W. Characterization and application of single fluorescent nanodiamonds as cellular biomarkers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007, 104(3), 727-732. 9. Chang, B. M., Lin, H. H., Su, L. J., Lin, W. D., Lin, R. J., Tzeng, Y. K, Lee, R. T., Lee, Y. C., Yu, A. L., Chang, H. C., Highly Fluorescent Nanodiamonds Protein-Functionalized for Cell Labeling and Targeting. Advanced Functional Materials 23(46): 5737-5745.

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-207-2016/0.

    • US Provisional Patent Application No. 62/402,339 filed 30 September 2016.

    Licensing Contact: Michael Shmilovich, Esq, CLP; 301-435-5019; [email protected]

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Michael Shmilovich, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24693 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; NHLBI Mentored Transition to Independence Review Committee.

    Date: November 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The William F. Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive, Potomac, MD 20854.

    Contact Person: Giuseppe Pintucci, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0287, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24694 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Notice of Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee meeting SUMMARY:

    The Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC) will hold a meeting on October 18, 2016. The subject of the meeting will be “How Reproducible Are People? Understanding Health Histories Using Medicare Claims Data.” The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 18, 2016; from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Individuals wanting to present oral comments must notify the contact person at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Democracy 2 Building at 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD, in Conference Room 7050.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information concerning this meeting, see the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov, or contact Dr. B. Tibor Roberts, Executive Secretary of the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 31 Center Drive, Building 31A, Room 9A19, MSC 2560, Bethesda, MD 20892-2560, telephone: 301-496-6623; FAX: 301-480-6741; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DMICC, chaired by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) comprising members of the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies that support diabetes-related activities, facilitates cooperation, communication, and collaboration on diabetes among government entities. DMICC meetings, held several times a year, provide an opportunity for Committee members to learn about and discuss current and future diabetes programs in DMICC member organizations and to identify opportunities for collaboration. The October 18, 2016 DMICC meeting will focus on How Reproducible Are People? Understanding Health Histories Using Medicare Claims Data.

    Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee should notify the contact person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives or organizations should submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented, and a written copy of their oral presentation in advance of the meeting. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present; oral comments and presentations will be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes. Printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the Committee by forwarding their statement to the contact person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Because of time constraints for the meeting, oral comments will be allowed on a first-come, first-serve basis.

    Members of the public who would like to receive email notification about future DMICC meetings should register for the listserv available on the DMICC Web site, www.diabetescommittee.gov.

    Dated: October 4, 2016. B. Tibor Roberts, Executive Secretary, DMICC, Office of Scientific Program and Policy Analysis, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24777 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The portions of the meeting devoted to the review and evaluation of journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the presence of individuals associated with these publications could significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual journals.

    Name of Committee: Literature Selection Technical Review Committee.

    Date: February 23-24, 2017.

    Open: February 23, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.

    Agenda: Administrative.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894.

    Closed: February 23, 2017, 10:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894.

    Closed: February 24, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate journals as potential titles to be indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894.

    Contact Person: Joyce Backus, M.S.L.S., Associate Director, Division of Library Operations, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Building 38, Room 2W04, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-3497, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, 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.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24703 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine Extramural Programs Subcommittee.

    Date: February 7, 2017.

    Closed: 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, Conference Room B, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Patricia Flatley Brennan, RN, Ph.D., Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Building 38, Room 2E17, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-6661, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.

    Date: February 7-8, 2017.

    Open: February 7, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: Program Discussion.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: February 7, 2017, 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: February 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Program Discussion.

    Place: National Library of Medicine, Building 38, 2nd Floor, The Lindberg Room, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Patricia Flatley Brennan, RN, Ph.D., Director, National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Building 38, Room 2E17, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-6661, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, 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.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nlm.nih.gov/od/bor/bor.html, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available. This meeting will be broadcast to the public, and available for at viewing at http://videocast.nih.gov on February 7-8, 2017.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24702 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—C.

    Date: November 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Lee Warren Slice, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 1 Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Blvd. Room 1068, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0807, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—B; Review of T32 Applications.

    Date: November 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Cambria Suites Rockville, 1 Helen Heneghan Way, Rockville, MD 20850.

    Contact Person: Lisa A. Newman, SCD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, 45 Center Drive, RM 3AN18A, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 435-0965, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—D; To review R25 Research Training Grant applications.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda Downtown, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 6, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24689 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute Of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Hubs to Reduce the Burden of Suicide among American Indian and Alaska Native Youth (U19).

    Date: October 26, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Marcy Ellen Burstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer,Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH,Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6143, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-9699, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; The Neural Mechanisms of Multi-Dimensional Emotional and Social Representation.

    Date: November 2, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott Georgetown,1221 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Rebecca Steiner Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6149, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-4525, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; NIMH Pathway to Independence Awards (K99).

    Date: November 2, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health,Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: David W. Miller, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-9734, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 5, 2016. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24692 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0913] Waterway Suitability Assessment for Construction of Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities; Brownsville, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard, at Sector Corpus Christi, announces receipt of a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterways Suitability Assessment (WSA) for three Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility construction projects in Brownsville, Texas. The LOI and WSA for Annova LNG Common Infrastructure, LLC (Annova LNG) and Texas LNG Brownsville LLC (Texas LNG) were submitted by Rodino, Inc. The LOI and WSA for Rio Grande LNG, LLC was submitted by AcuTech Group, Inc. The Coast Guard is notifying the public of this action to solicit public comments on the proposed construction of these LNG facilities, as defined by 33 CFR 127.005.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0913 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document: call or email MST2 Rebekah Wagner, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 361-888-3162, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related materials) on this notice for the waterway suitability assessments for the construction of these LNG facilities. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. More information regarding these projects can be found on the following Web sites: http://annovalng.com/project; http://www.txlng.com/theproject/project-overview.html; http://www.riograndelng.com/project/.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Discussion

    Under 33 CFR 127.007, an owner or operator intending to build a new facility handling LNG or Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG or LHG, where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification to an existing facility, must submit an LOI to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Annova LNG submitted an LOI and WSA on February 23, 2015; Texas LNG submitted an LOI and WSA on February 16, 2016; Rio Grande LNG, LLC submitted an LOI and WSA on March 18, 2015.

    For these projects, a Waterway Suitability Assessment Notice and Request for Comments was previously published in the Federal Register at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG 2016-0626. The comment period ran from August 23, 2016 to September 22, 2016. Twelve comments were received during the comment period. However, based on additional interest in the projects, we have decided to reopen the comment period for an additional 60 days to allow for more comments to be submitted.

    Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine traffic on the affected waterway.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed construction project as submitted by Rodino, Inc. on behalf of Annova LNG and Texas LNG and as submitted by AcuTech Group, Inc. on behalf of Rio Grande LNG, LLC. Input from the public may be useful to the COTP with respect to developing the LOR. The Coast Guard requests comments to help assess the suitability of the associated waterway for increased LNG marine traffic as it relates to navigation, safety, and security.

    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, “Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities.” NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to construct and operate LNG facilities. The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating the project included in the LOIs and WSAs submitted by Rodino, Inc. and AcuTech Group, Inc. A copy of NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this notice and also on the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.009, and 33 CFR 103.205.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. R.A. Hahn, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Corpus Christi, TX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24752 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0028] Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition To Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household, Form I-600, I-600A, and Supplement 1; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2016, at 81 FR 24625, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive 10 comments from 2 commenters in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected]. Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806. All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0028.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0020 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) 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;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-600, I-600A, and Supplement 1; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. The collection of this information is required to determine eligibility and suitability of U.S. adoptive parents and the eligibility of the orphan(s) they plan to adopt (or have already adopted).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600 is 1,307 and the estimated hour burden per response is .75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600A is 987 and the estimated hour burden per response is .75 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Supplement 1 is 467 and the estimated hour burden per response is .25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection is 1,147 for Home Study and the estimated hour burden per response is 25 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection is 3,466 for biometrics processing and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour and 10 minutes (1.17 hours); the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection is 13 for DNA biometrics processing and the estimated hour burden per response is 6 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 47,545 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $81,604,586.

    Dated: October 5, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24682 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-R-2016-N005; FXRS12610800000-167-FF08R0000] Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge, San Luis Obispo County, CA AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability: final comprehensive conservation plan.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge. The CCP/EA, prepared under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, describes how the Service proposes to manage the Refuge for the next 15 years. Compatibility determinations for three existing and proposed uses are also included with the Final CCP.

    DATES:

    The CCP and FONSI are available now. The FONSI was signed on July 29, 2016, allowing for implementation of the CCP.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy.

    Agency Web site: Download a copy of the document(s) at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Guadalupe-Nipomo_Dunes/.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Guadalupe CCP” in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: Attn: Michael Brady, (805) 644-1732.

    U.S. Mail: Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2493 Portola Road, Suite A, Ventura, CA 93003.

    In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Copies of the Final CCP and FONSI may also be viewed at the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2493 Portola Road, Suite A, Ventura, CA 93003 (805-644-5185).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Winnie Chan, Refuge Planner, at (510) 792-0222, or Michael Brady, Project Leader, at (805) 644-5185 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2000 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1537) to preserve and conserve Central California coastal dune and associated wetlands habitats and assist in the recovery of native plants and animals that are federally listed as threatened or endangered. The 2,553-acre Refuge is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean, lands owned by private agricultural interests to the east, Oso Flaco Lake Natural Area (a management unit of the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area) to the north, and Chevron Guadalupe Restoration Project (former Guadalupe Oil Fields) to the south.

    We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the final CCP for Guadalupe Nipomo Dunes NWR in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we included in the environmental assessment (EA) that accompanied the draft CCP. This notice is in addition to our announcement of the completion of the CCP process on the refuge's Web site.

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, requires the Service to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Improvement Act.

    Our Draft CCP and EA were available for a 45-day public review and comment period, which we announced via several methods, including press releases, updates to constituents, and a Federal Register notice (81 FR 10882, March 2, 2016). The Draft CCP/EA identified and evaluated three alternatives for managing the Refuge for the next 15 years.

    Under Alternative A (no action alternative), the current management actions, including habitat management, wildlife management, and public use opportunities, would be continued. Habitat and wildlife management activities would focus on wildlife surveys and invasive weed management. Guided interpretive walks would continue to be offered. Current staffing and funding would remain the same.

    Alternative B includes those actions in Alternative A. In addition, we would moderately expand wildlife and habitat management while incrementally increasing visitor service and environmental education activities. Additional wildlife management activities include improving western snowy plover hatch rate by reducing invasive weeds and predation. A feral swine control and monitoring plan would be implemented to protect the western snowy plover, California least tern, California red-legged frog, La Graciosa thistle, and marsh sandwort habitat. Habitat and monitoring would be improved for the listed La Graciosa thistle, marsh sandwort, and red-legged frog. Of the National Wildlife Refuge System's priority public uses—wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education—would all be enhanced on the Refuge. Public access through snowy plover breeding habitat to the back dunes of the Refuge would also be limited to a marked trail corridor (five-year pilot) to limit human disturbance. Refuge staff would develop a dedicated volunteer crew to support Refuge management and outreach. Additional staff and funding would be needed to implement this alternative.

    Under Alternative C, we would reduce wildlife and habitat management in light of forecasted declining National Wildlife Refuge System budgets. The Refuge would also be closed to the public. Wildlife management activities would be primarily focused on monitoring of the listed species present on the Refuge: western snowy plover, La Graciosa thistle, and marsh sandwort. Like Alternative B, a feral swine control and monitoring plan would be implemented. Fencing would be installed or maintained where listed plant species are present. Due to the forecasted declining budgets, no visitor services would be provided to instead focus on wildlife and habitat.

    We received 39 letters and 50 oral comments on the Draft CCP and EA during the review and comment period. We incorporated comments we received into the CCP when appropriate, and we responded to the comments in an appendix to the CCP. In the FONSI, we selected a modified Alternative A for implementation. The FONSI documents our decision and is based on the information and analysis contained in the EA.

    Under the selected alternative, we would continue most current management activities, but also include components from Alternative B including implementing the feral swine control plan and developing and implementing a predator management plan to protect western snowy plover and California least tern. Public access, guided interpretive walks, and environmental education would continue to be offered.

    The selected alternative provides guidance for achieving the Refuge's purpose, vision, and goals; forwards the Refuge System mission; addresses the significant issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. Based on the associated environmental assessment, this alternative is not expected to result in significant environmental impacts and therefore does not require an environmental impact statement.

    Alexandra Pitts, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24737 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLOR936000.L1440000.ET0000.17XL1109AF; HAG 17-0017; OROR-68370] Notice of Public Meeting for Amended Proposed Withdrawal; Oregon AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    A Notice of Amended Proposed Withdrawal was published in the Federal Register (FR) on September 30, 2016 for approximately 5,216.18 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed public domain and revested Oregon California Railroad lands and 95,805.53 acres of National Forest System lands (80 FR 37015). The amended application increased the proposed withdrawal term from 5 years to 20 years, and added the purpose of protecting the Southwestern Oregon watershed from possible adverse effects of mineral development. The amended application does not affect the current segregation, which expires June 28, 2017, unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. This notice announces the date, time, and location of a public meeting to be held for the amended application.

    DATES AND ADDRESSES:

    A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, November, 15, 2016, from 6:30 pm to 8 pm at Brookings-Harbor High School, 625 Pioneer Road, Brookings, OR 97415.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Childers, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6225; Candice Polisky, USFS Pacific Nort hwest Region, 503-808-2479. Please send email inquiries to [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact either of the above individuals. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FR notice published on September 30, 2016 stated that an opportunity for public meeting would be afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. The public will have the opportunity to verbally comment or provide written comments at the public meeting. The publication of the FR notice on September 30, 2016 was the official start of a 90-day public comment period that extends through December 29, 2016. Written comments should be sent to the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208-2965, or by email at [email protected]

    The meeting will be held in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2310.3-1.

    Leslie A. Frewing, Acting Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24743 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-BSD-CONC-22120; PPWOBSADC0, PPMVSCS1Y.Y00000 (177)] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; National Park Service Concessions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192; or [email protected] (email). Please include “1024-0029” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Brian P. Borda, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20005 (mail), (202) 513-7156 (phone), or [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Private businesses under contract to the National Park Service (we, NPS) manage food, lodging, tours, whitewater rafting, boating, and many other recreational activities and amenities in more than 100 national parks. These services gross more than $1 billion every year and provide jobs for more than 25,000 people during peak season.

    The regulations at 36 CFR part 51 primarily implement Title IV of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (54 U.S.C., § 101911 et seq., also referred to as Pub. L. 105-391), which provides legislative authority, policies, and requirements for the solicitation, award, and administration of NPS concession contracts.

    Furthermore, 54 U.S.C., § 101911 et seq. provides that “all proposed concession contracts shall be awarded by the Secretary to the person, corporation or other entity submitting the best proposal, as determined by the Secretary through a competitive selection process. Such competitive process shall include simplified procedures for small, individually-owned, concessions contracts.”

    We collect the following information associated with the administration of concessions:

    • Description of how respondent will conduct operations to minimize disturbance to wildlife; protect park resources; and provide visitors with a high quality, safe, and enjoyable visitor experience.

    • Organizational structure and history and experience with similar operations.

    • Details on violations or infractions and how they were handled.

    • Financial information and demonstration that respondent has credible, proven track record of meeting obligations.

    Concessioner Annual Financial Report (Forms 10-356, 10-356A, and 10-356B)

    The Concessioner Annual Financial Report provides concessioner financial information as required by each concession contract. This information is necessary to comply with the requirements placed on the Secretary of the Interior by Congress. Title IV, Section 407 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-391) requires that “a concessions contract shall provide for payment to the Government of a franchise fee or other such monetary consideration as determined by the Secretary, upon consideration of the probable value to the concessioner of the privileges granted by the particular contract involved. Such probable value shall be based upon a reasonable opportunity for net profit in relation to capital invested and the obligations of the contract.” 36 CFR part 51, subpart I requires that concession contracts “provide for payment to the Government of a franchise fee or other monetary consideration as determined by the Director upon consideration of the probable value to the concessioner of the privileges granted by the contract involved.” In order to verify the accuracy of the report and payments of franchise fees, concessioners with gross receipts of over $1 million are required to have financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant and have them express an opinion on the financial statements. Concessioners with gross receipts between $500,000 and $1 million must have a review opinion by an independent accountant, a lesser requirement and burden.

    Form 10-356, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report”, is an accumulation of various financial statements commonly used by industry for reporting in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The information provides a comprehensive view of the concessioner's financial situation at the end of its fiscal year and the concessioner's activity over the preceding year. Careful analysis provides an effective tool in the decision making process and for the tracking of concessioner and Government contractual obligations for payments and maintenance and construction requirements. The financial information being collected is necessary to provide insight into and knowledge of the concessioner's operation so that this authority can be exercised and franchise fees can be determined in a timely manner and without an undue burden on the concessioner. We collect the following information:

    • Cover sheet provides identifying information and the concessioner's certification as to the accuracy of the accompanying report.

    • Schedule A is an income statement summarizing the financial activity (gross receipts, expenses, and net income) of the period being reported on.

    • Schedule A-1 is a worksheet for calculating the comprehensive income.

    • Schedule B is a worksheet for calculating the franchise fee.

    • Schedule C is a balance sheet comparing the sources (liabilities and equity) with the uses (assets) of the capital of the company at the end of the fiscal year.

    • Schedule D is a detail of the fixed assets reported on the balance sheet with a special listing of possessory interest or leasehold improvement assets (potential obligations of the Government).

    • Schedule E is a statement of cash flows.

    • Schedule F is space reserved for explanatory notes to the report.

    • Schedule G is a breakdown of gross receipts by major departments.

    • Schedule H is a detail of departmental income and expenses.

    • Schedule I is a detail of general and administrative expenses.

    • Schedule J lists ownership and compensation to officers and owners.

    • Schedule K details the additions and disposals of fixed assets during the year.

    • Schedule L is a supporting schedule for any amounts that need further explanation or detail.

    • Schedule M contains various operational statistics commonplace for the major services provided in parks.

    • Schedule P provides an accounting for those concessioners who have a contractual repair and maintenance reserve requirement.

    • Schedule Q lists the projects from that reserve.

    Form 10-356A, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report (For Concessioners with Gross Receipts Less than $500,000)”—In an attempt to reduce administrative burden, concessioners with gross receipts under $500,000 submit only a shorter report (Form 10-356A). This “short form” is a simplified income statement, balance sheet, and operation statistics. Concessioners with gross receipts under $250,000 do not have to submit the balance sheet.

    Form 10-356B, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report (For Concessioners with Special Accounts and Utility Add-ons)”—A limited number of concessioners have special accounts in lieu of franchise fees or rate add-ons to offset high costs for unique operations. To reduce administrative burden, additional schedules for reporting on these unique contract inclusions are provided in a separate form. The additional schedules include:

    • Schedule N provides an accounting for those concessioners who have Special Accounts.

    • Schedule O lists expenditures from Special Accounts.

    • Schedule R provides an accounting for those concessioners who have approved rate add-ons.

    Proposals for Concession Opportunities

    The public solicitation process begins with the issuance of a prospectus to invite the general public to submit proposals for the contract. The prospectus describes the terms and conditions of the concession contract to be awarded, the procedures to be followed in the selection of the best proposal, and the information that must be provided.

    We collect the following information from every offeror.

    Offeror's Transmittal Letter. This letter identifies the name of the entity offering a proposal to operate a concession contract and that entity's contact information.

    Certificate of Business Entity Offeror. This form identifies the type of entity for the offeror, such as corporation, Limited Liability Company, partnership, etc.

    Business Organization Information Form for Corporation, Limited Liability Company, Partnership or Joint Venture. This

    Business Organization Information Form for Individual or Sole Proprietorship. This

    Business History Information Form. We request information about the offeror's business history to understand any adverse history that could impact future operations under a concession contract.

    Credit Report. We request offerors submit a credit report so that we can understand the offeror's credit history and any risks of contracting with the entity.

    In addition to this standard information, we also collect additional information in narrative and form format. The amount of information or degree of detail requested varies widely, depending upon the size and scope of the business opportunity. For example, a much greater amount of detailed information would be required for a multi-unit lodging and food service operation (such as that at Yellowstone), than would be required for a small firewood sales operation. This additional information includes the following which coincide with the five principal selection factors:

    • Proposals to protect, conserve and preserve resources of the park. These proposals respond to specific resource management objectives and issues at the park and contract in question.

    • Proposals to provide necessary and appropriate visitor services at reasonable rates. These proposals respond to specific visitor service questions at the park and contract in question.

    • The experience and related background of the offeror, including past performance and expertise of the offeror in providing the same or similar visitor services as those to be provided under the draft concession contract.

    • The financial capability of the offeror to carry out its proposal. In particular, we ask for projected financials including initial investments, startup expenses, income statement, operating assumptions, cash flow statement, recapture of investments, and all associated assumptions.

    • The amount of the proposed minimum franchise fee and other forms of financial consideration.

    We use all of the information provided to objectively evaluate offers received for a particular business opportunity, assure that the park resources will be adequately protected, and determine which offeror will provide the best service to visitors.

    Amendments

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.15, an offeror may not amend or supplement a proposal after the submission date unless requested by the Director to do so and the Director provides all offerors that submitted proposals a similar opportunity to amend or supplement their proposals. Permitted amendments must be limited to modifying particular aspects of proposals resulting from a general failure of offerors to understand particular requirements of a prospectus or a general failure of offerors to submit particular information required by a prospectus.

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.32, if the Director determines that a proposal other than the responsive proposal submitted by a preferred offeror is the best proposal submitted for a qualified concession contract, then the Director must advise the preferred offeror of the better terms and conditions of the best proposal and permit the preferred offeror to amend its proposal to match them. An amended proposal must match the better terms and conditions of the best proposal. If the preferred offeror amends the proposal within the time period allowed, and the Director determines that the amended proposal matches the better terms and conditions of the best proposal, then the Director must select the preferred offeror for award of the contract.

    Appeals

    Regulations at 36 CFR 51.47 state that any person may appeal to the Director, a determination that a concessioner is not a preferred offeror for the purposes of a right of preference in renewal and that the appeal must specify the grounds for the appeal. If the appellant does not identify the specific grounds on which it objects to the Director's initial preferred offeror determination, the Director could make a final determination without fully understanding the appellant's concerns or without taking into consideration important information the appellant may wish to submit in support of its position.

    Request To Construct a Capital Improvement

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.54, a request for approval to construct a capital improvement must include appropriate plans and specifications for the capital improvement. The request must also include an estimate of the total construction cost of the capital improvement. The estimate of the total construction cost must specify all elements of the cost in such detail as is necessary to permit the Director, NPS to determine that they are elements of construction cost. The approval requirements of this and other sections of 36 CFR part 51 also apply to any change orders to a capital improvement project and to any additions to a structure or replacement of fixtures.

    Construction Report

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.55, a concessioner obtaining a leasehold surrender interest must submit a construction report to the NPS. The construction report must be supported by actual invoices of the capital improvement's construction cost together with, if requested by the NPS, a written certification from a certified public accountant (CPA). The construction report must document, and any requested certification by the certified public accountant must certify, that all components of the construction cost were incurred and capitalized by the concessioner in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that all components are eligible direct or indirect construction costs. Invoices for additional construction costs of elements of the project that were not completed as of the date of substantial completion may subsequently be submitted to the Director for inclusion in the project's construction cost.

    Application To Sell or Transfer Concession Operation

    36 CFR part 51, subpart J, provides that a concessioner must obtain NPS approval to assign, sell, convey, grant, contract for, or otherwise transfer: Any concession contract; any rights to operate under or manage the performance of a concession contract as a subconcessioner or otherwise; any controlling interest in a concessioner or concession contract; or any leasehold surrender interest or possessory interest obtained under a concession contract. The amount and type of information to be submitted varies with the type and complexity of the proposed transaction. Information includes, but is not limited to:

    • Instruments proposed to implement the transaction.

    • Narrative description of the proposed transaction.

    • Opinion of counsel that the proposed transaction is lawful under all applicable Federal and State laws.

    • Statement as to the existence and nature of any litigation relating to the proposed transaction.

    • Description of the management qualifications, financial background, and financing and operational plans of any proposed transferee.

    • Description of all financial aspects of the proposed transaction.

    • Prospective financial statements (proformas).

    • Schedule that allocates in detail the purchase price (or, in the case of a transaction other than an asset purchase, the valuation) of all assets assigned or encumbered. In addition, the applicant must provide a description of the basis for all allocations and ownership of all assets.

    Recordkeeping

    In accordance with 36 CFR 51.98, a concessioner (and any subconcessioner) must keep and make available to NPS, records for the term of the concession contract and for 5 years after the termination or expiration of the concession contract.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-0029.

    Title: National Park Service Concessions, 36 CFR 51.

    Service Form Numbers: NPS Forms 10-356, 10-356A, 10-356B, 10-357A, 10-357B, 10-358, 10-359A, and 10-359B.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion for proposals, amendments, and appeals; annually for financial reports; and ongoing for recordkeeping.

    Estimated Nonhour Cost Burden: $425,000.

    Activity Total annual responses Completion time per response Total annual burden hours Concessioner Annual Financial Report Form 10-356, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report” 150 15 hours 2,250 Form 10-356A, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report (For Concessioners with Gross Receipts Less than $500,000)” 350 4 hours 1,400 Form 10-356B, “Concessioner Annual Financial Report (For Concessioners with Special Accounts and Utility Add-ons)” 30 2 hours 60 Proposals for Concession Opportunities Large Concession 30 240 hours 7,200 Small Concession 60 80 hours 4,800 Amendments 1 1 hour 1 Appeals 1 30 minutes 1 Request To Construct a Capital Improvement Large Projects 31 16 hours 496 Small Projects 89 8 hours 712 Construction Report Large Project 31 56 hours 1,736 Small Project 89 24 hours 2,136 Application To Sell or Transfer a Concession Operation 20 80 hours 1,600 Recordkeeping Large Concessions 150 800 hours 120,000 Small Concessions 350 50 hours 17,500 Totals 1,382 159,892 III. Comments

    On November 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 69695) a Notice of our intent to request that OMB approve the collection of information associated with soliciting, awarding, and administering NPS concessions. We solicited comments for 60 days ending on January 11, 2016. We received one comment in response to the Notice:

    Comment: A current concessioner commented that it is time consuming and expensive to have the Annual Financial Report reviewed by an accountant and then sent back to the concessioner before being submitted. The commenter recommended providing an upfront form that the accountant could fill out and submit without extra steps.

    NPS Response: We have historically provided the electronic forms on our Web site, and continue to do so. Some concessioners that work with accountants have their accountants submit the forms directly to the NPS, as the commenter suggested. This will continue to be allowed, so we will not take any action. In addition, in conjunction with updates to the forms, we are proposing to simplify the submission process by allowing concessioners or their accountants to email the electronic AFR form as an attachment.

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • 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 on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24751 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement [S1D1S SS08011000 SX066A0067F 178S180110; S2D2D SS08011000 SX066A00 33F 17XS501520] Notice of Proposed Information Collection; Request for Comments for 1029-0030 AGENCY:

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed approval for the collection of information for State Processes for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations. This collection request has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost.

    DATES:

    OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collections but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by November 14, 2016, in order to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Interior Desk Officer, via email at [email protected], or by facsimile to (202) 395-5806. Also, please send a copy of your comments to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240, or electronically to [email protected] Please reference 1029-0030 in your correspondence.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To receive a copy of the information collection request contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at [email protected] You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSMRE has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in: 30 CFR part 764—State Processes for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations. OSMRE is requesting a 3-year term of approval for each information collection activity.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 1029-0030, and is displayed in 30 CFR 764.10.

    As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 44043). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

    Title: 30 CFR part 764—State Processes for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations Areas designated by Act of Congress.

    OMB Control Number: 1029-0030.

    Summary: This part implements the requirement of section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), Public Law 95-87, which provides authority for citizens to petition States to designate lands unsuitable for surface coal mining operations, or to terminate such designation. The regulatory authority uses the information to identify, locate, compare and evaluate the area requested to be designated as unsuitable, or terminate the designation, for surface coal mining operations.

    Bureau Form Number: None.

    Frequency of Collection: Once.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or groups that petition the States, and the State regulatory authorities that must process the petitions.

    Total Annual Respondents: 1 petition and 1 regulatory authority.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 600 hours for individuals or groups, and 4,000 for the regulatory authority.

    Total Annual Non-wage Costs: $120.

    Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed under ADDRESSES. Please refer to OMB control number 1029-0030 in all correspondence.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. John A. Trelease, Acting Chief, Division of Regulatory Support.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24774 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-05-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments; Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Food Supplements and Vitamins, Including Ocular Antioxidants and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, DN 3177; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Kemin Industries Inc. and Kemin Foods, L.C. on October 6, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain food supplements and vitamins, including ocular antioxidants and components thereof and products containing the same. The complaint names as respondents OmniActive Health Technologies of India and OmniActive Health Technologies, Inc. of Morristown, NJ. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3177”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel 2 , solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS 3 .

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 6, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24711 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-977] Certain Arrowheads With Deploying Blades and Components Thereof and Packaging Therefor; Commission Decision To Review in Part an Initial Determination Granting Complainants' Motion for Summary Determination of a Violation of Section 337; Request for Submissions AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 10) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting complainants' motion for summary determination of a violation of section 337. The Commission also requests written submissions regarding remedy, bonding, and the public interest.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on December 22, 2015, based on a complaint filed on behalf of FeraDyne Outdoors LLC and Out RAGE LLC, both of Cartersville, Georgia. 80 FR 79612-13. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain arrowheads with deploying blades and components thereof and packaging therefor by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE44,144; 6,517,454 (“the '454 patent”); 8,758,176 (“the '176 patent”); 8,986,141 (“the '141 patent”); 9,068,806 (“the '806 patent”); 7,771,298 (“the '298 patent”); D710,962; D711,489; and of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,812,058. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named the following nine respondents: Linyi Junxing Sports Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Junxing Sports”) of Shandong, China; Ningbo Faith Sports Co., Ltd. (“Faith Sports”), Ningbo Forever Best Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Forever Best”), and Ningbo Linkboy Outdoor Sports Co., Ltd. (“Linkboy Outdoor”), all of Zhejiang, China; Shenzhen Zowaysoon Trading Company Ltd. (“Zowaysoon Trading”) of Shenzhen, China; Xiamen Xinhongyou Industrial Trade Co. Ltd. (“Xinhongyou Industrial”) and Xiamen Zhongxinyuan Industry & Trade Ltd. (“Zhongxinyuan Industry”), both of Fujian, China; and Zhengzhou IRQ Trading Limited Company (“IRQ Trading”) and Zhengzhou Paiao Trade Co., Ltd. (“Paiao Trade”), both of Henan, China. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also a party to the investigation.

    On April 28, 2016, complainants filed a motion for summary determination of a violation of section 337 pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2) to support its request for entry of a general exclusion order with respect to all asserted intellectual property. OUII filed a response in support of the motion.

    On May 10, 2016, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 6) finding the following seven respondents in default: Junxing Sports, Forever Best, Linkboy Outdoor, Zowaysoon Trading, Zhongxinyuan Industry, IRQ Trading, and Paiao Trade. On June 23, 2016, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 8) finding Xinhongyou Industrial in default. On June 28, 2016, the Commission issued notice of its determination not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 9) terminating the investigation as to (1) Faith Sports based on withdrawal of the complaint as to Faith Sports; and (2) claims 2-3, 5, and 8 of the '545 patent; claims 5 and 10 of the '298 patent; claim 3 of the '176 patent; claim 8 of the '141 patent; and claim 3 of the '806 patent based on withdrawal of these patent claims against all named respondents.

    The ALJ issued the subject ID on August 22, 2016, granting complainants' motion for summary determination. The ALJ found that all defaulting respondents met the importation requirement and that complainants satisfied the domestic industry requirement. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B), (a)(2). The ID finds that a violation of section 337 has occurred based on its finding that each of the defaulting respondents' accused products infringe one or more of the asserted claims of the patents at issue and infringe the trademark at issue as established by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence in accordance with Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2). The ID also contained the ALJ's recommended determination on remedy and bonding. The ALJ recommended issuance of a general exclusion order with respect to the asserted intellectual property, but did not recommend issuance of cease and desist orders directed against the defaulting respondents. No petitions for review were filed.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, the Commission has determined to review in part the subject ID. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review: (1) The ID's finding that complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(C) with respect to all asserted patents and the asserted trademark; and (2) the ID's finding that the Commission has personal jurisdiction over all defaulting respondents. The Commission also corrects typographical errors on pages 14, 18, and 24 of the subject ID. The last two sentences of the first full paragraph on page 14 are deleted (i.e., beginning with “In this investigation . . .”), and the two references to claim 32 of the '144 patent on pages 18 and 24 are corrected to reference claim 38 of the '144 patent. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the ID. On review with respect to issue (1), the Commission has determined to take no position on the ID's finding that complainants satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(C) with respect to all asserted patents and the asserted trademark. On review with respect to issue (2), the Commission has determined to modify the ID and adds the following sentence on page 8 of the ID (before the sentence beginning with “It is therefore found . . .”):

    Also, there is a sufficient connection between the defaulting respondents and the United States to make it fair to require them to defend the action at the Commission. See Mot. at 8-11, 66-68 (citing Certain Agricultural Tractors, Lawn Tractors, Riding Lawnmowers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-486, Comm'n Op., 2003 WL 22147635, at *12 (July 1, 2003)).

    As noted above, eight respondents were found in default. Section 337(g) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) authorize the Commission to order relief against respondents found in default unless, after considering the public interest, it finds that such relief should not issue. Before the ALJ, complainants sought a general exclusion order under section 337(g)(2) and cease and desist orders directed against the defaulting respondents. Because a general exclusion order is sought, complainants are required to establish that a violation of section 337 has occurred by substantive, reliable, and probative evidence pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16(c)(2).

    In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may (1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) issue one or more cease and desist orders that could result in the respondent(s) being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843, Comm'n Op. at 7-10 (December 1994). In particular, if complainants seek a cease and desist order directed against any defaulting respondent, please brief the following issues:

    (1) Please identify with citations to the record any information regarding commercially significant inventory in the United States as to each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought. If complainants also rely on other significant domestic operations that could undercut the remedy provided by an exclusion order, please identify with citations to the record such information as to each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.

    (2) In relation to the infringing products, please identify any information in the record, including allegations in the pleadings, that addresses the existence of any domestic inventory, any domestic operations, or any sales-related activity directed at the United States for each respondent against whom a cease and desist order is sought.

    If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

    If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.

    WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

    Parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding.

    Complainants and OUII are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is also requested to state the dates that the patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the names of known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on October 20, 2016. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on October 27, 2016. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-977”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/mles/handbook_on_electronic_filing.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

    Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 6, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24719 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2014-10, Direct Monitoring of Flare Combustion Efficiency

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 1, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2014-10, Direct Monitoring of Flare Combustion Efficiency (“PERF Project No. 2014-10”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., Houston, TX, has been added as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF Project No. 2014-10 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On February 18, 2016, PERF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 17, 2016 (81 FR 14486).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24717 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Opendaylight Project, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 9, 2016 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), OpenDaylight Project, Inc. (“OpenDaylight”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and China Mobile Communication Co., Ltd Research Institute, Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Radware Ltd., Telaviv, ISRAEL; Flextronics, Ebene, MAURITIUS; VMware Inc., Palo Alto, CA; and International Business Machines Inc., Endicott, NY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OpenDaylight intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On May 23, 2013, OpenDaylight filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39326).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 27, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48462).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24721 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 29, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on ROS-Industrial Consortium-Americas (“RIC-Americas”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its Membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 3M Company, St. Paul, MN, has been added as a party to this venture.

    Also, Ford Motor Company, Livonia, MI, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and RIC-Americas intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.

    On April 30, 2014, RIC-Americas filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32999).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 27, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 9, 2016 (81 FR 12526).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24720 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 30, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. (“IMS Global”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; Clayton County Public School, Jonesboro, GA; Japan Electronic Publishing Association, Tokyo, JAPAN; Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pittsburgh, PA; Polk County Public Schools, Bartow, FL; Portfolium, Inc., San Diego, CA; UNINETT AS, Trondheim, NORWAY; and The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, MediaCore, Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 8, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 6, 2016 (81 FR 44048).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24722 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 31, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (“CableLabs”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Chongqing Cable Networks Co., Ltd., Chongqing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 17, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22119).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24724 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—The Open Group, L.L.C.

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 24, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), The Open Group, L.L.C. (“TOG”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Specifically, Azeemi Technologies, Riyadh, SAUDI ARABIA; CTC TrainCanada, Inc., Ottawa, CANADA; DAIN s.r.o, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC; DRS Training & Control Systems, LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL; Impetus Consulting FZ-LLC, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; Informatica Corporation, Redwood City, CA; Institute for Information Industry, Taipei, TAIWAN; ITM Beratungsgesellschaft GmbH, Stuttgart, GERMANY; Koenig Solutions Limited, New Delhi, INDIA; Manipal Global Education Services Private Limited, Bangalore, INDIA; Methods Advisory Ltd., London, UNITED KINGDOM; National Security Agency, Fort Meade, MD; ORSYS Formation, Paris, FRANCE; People Media S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, MEXICO; Prism Tech, Woburn, MA; The Organization Zone LLC, San Jose, CA; ValueFlow IT Pty. Ltd., Cattai, AUSTRALIA; Vector Software, Inc., East Greenwich, RI; Vinsys IT Consulting, Pune, INDIA; VTS, Inc., Folsom, CA; and University of Warwick, Coventry, UNITED KINGDOM, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Alliant Techsystems Operations LLC, Clearwater, FL; Camber Corporation, Huntsville, AL; Chesapeake Technology International Corp., California, MD; Concurrent Computer Corporation, Duluth, GA; Deccan Global Solutions LLC, Cumming, GA; Department of Navy, Patuxent River, MD; European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company, Cedex, FRANCE; Fortescue Metals Group, East Perth, AUSTRALIA; Goobiz, Cergy, FRANCE; Intelligent Training de Colombia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; IRM United Kingdom Strategic IT Training, Pinner, UNITED KINGDOM; Juniper Networks, Herndon, VA; KPN Corporate Market B.V., Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS; Kwezi Software Solutions (Pty) Ltd., Woodmead, SOUTH AFRICA; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA; Sigma AB, Gothenburg, SWEDEN; and UTC Aerospace Systems, Windsor Locks, CT, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    In addition, Orbus Software has changed its name to Seattle Software, London, UNITED KINGDOM.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TOG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 21, 1997, TOG filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32371).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 13, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 21, 2016 (81 FR 40350).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24723 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—DVD Copy Control Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 30, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, AW Europe S.A., Braine-L'Alleud, BELGIUM; and CDA, Albrechts, GERMANY, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, Arvato Entertainment Europe GmbH, Gutersloh, GERMANY; Foryou General Electronics Co., Ltd., Huizhou, Guangdon, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; GM Records Marek Grela, Warsaw, POLAND; GZ Digital Media, A.S., Lodenice, CZECH REPUBLIC; Imagica Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN; NXP B.V., Eindhoven, THE NETHERLANDS; Optrom, Inc., Miyagi-ken, JAPAN; Promese Netherlands BV, Breda, THE NETHERLANDS; Regency Media Pty Ltd., Victoria, AUSTRALIA; Replic S.r.1., Milano, ITALY; SIIX Corp., Osaka, JAPAN; Stebbing Recording Centre Ltd., Auckland, NEW ZEALAND; and Tonfunk GmbH Ermsleben, Falkenstein Harz, GERMANY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 9, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2016 (81 FR 37214).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24718 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Directors and Its Six Committees AGENCY:

    Legal Services Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Change notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 11, 2016, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 70136) titled “Board of Directors and its Six Committees will meet on October 16-18, 2016, Mountain Standard Time (MST)”. The Board of Directors (Closed Session) is scheduled to meet on October 18, 2016, to approved the Board of Directors Closed Session minutes from July 17, 2016. A correction to change the date on item #2 on the Board of Directors Closed Session Agenda to July 19, 2016; all other items remain consecutively the same. The Federal Register Notice Foot Note stating all meeting times are Eastern Standard Time. A correction to change all meeting times to Mountain Standard Time.

    DATES:

    This change is effective October 11, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1500; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document changes the notice by revising the Board of Directors Closed Session Agenda by changing the date of the draft minutes to July 19, 2016.

    This document changes the Federal Register Notice Foot Note, changing all meeting times to Mountain Standard Time (MST).

    Changes in the Meeting: Item #2 of the Board of Directors Closed Session Agenda and the Foot Note in the Federal Register Notice.

    —Item #2 of the Agenda: Approval of minutes of the Board's Closed Session meeting of July 19, 2016

    and

    Foot Note in the Federal Register Notice stating all meeting start times are Mountain Standard Time (MST). Dated: October 11, 2016. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24935 Filed 10-11-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Institute of Museum and Library Services; Notice of Proposed Information Collection Request: “Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums”—A Museums for America Special Initiative AGENCY:

    Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for comments, collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Institute of Museum and Library Service (“IMLS”) as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This pre-clearance consultation program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments concerning Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums—A Museums for America Special Initiative.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For a copy of the documents contact: Mark Isaksen, Senior Museum Program Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024. Mr. Isaksen can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4662; fax: 202-653-4667; email: [email protected] or by or by teletype (TTY/TDD) for persons with hearing difficulty at 202-653-4614.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, learning and civic engagement. We provide leadership through research, policy development, and grant making. IMLS provides a variety of grant programs to assist the Nation's museums and libraries in improving their operations and enhancing their services to the public. (20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq.).

    The IMLS is particularly interested in comments which:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    II. Current Actions

    To administer a special initiative in the Museums for America (MFA) grant program titled Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums—A Museums for America Special Initiative.

    Museums for America (MFA) grants support projects that strengthen the ability of an individual museum to serve its public. This special MFA initiative will provide professional development and capacity building opportunities for eligible museums.

    As centers of innovation and discovery, as well as catalysts of community revitalization, museums are at the forefront of change in our communities. Like any other institution, museums need to remain dynamic to respond to fast-evolving technological advances and changing demographics. Museums also need to generate and share outcomes-based data and results of their community impact and develop sustainable organizational structures and strategies for continued growth and vitality. Professional Development is critical for museums to deliver on these areas of need.

    To support and empower museums of all sizes and disciplines in responding to the evolving needs and changes, this MFA special initiative has four areas of focus for professional development and capacity building 1. Diversity and Inclusion 2. Digital Technology 3. Evaluation 4. Organizational Management. Potential projects will address one of these four priority areas and help strengthen the capability of an individual museum to better serve its public.

    Funded projects may support a wide variety of training opportunities for museum staff at a variety of levels (senior leadership, middle management, front-line staff, interns and volunteers) and in various lines of museum work or a combination of (education and outreach, interpretation, curation, registration, conservation, exhibition design, administration, finance, marketing, public relations, community engagement, visitor services security and other).

    Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Services.

    Title: “Museums Empowered: Professional Development and Capacity Building Opportunities for Museums”—A Museums for America Special Initiative.

    OMB Number: TBD.

    Agency Number: 3137.

    Frequency: One time.

    Affected Public: Museums that meet the IMLS Museums for America institutional eligibility criteria.

    Number of Respondents: 100.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 40 hours.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,000.

    Total Annualized cost to respondents: $109,600.00.

    Total Annualized capital/startup costs: 0.

    Total Annualized Cost to Federal Government: $13,651.84.

    Public Comments Invited: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Burwell, Chief Information Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024-2135. Mrs. Burwell can be reached by Telephone: 202-653-4684, Fax: 202-653-4625, or by email at [email protected] or by teletype (TTY/TDD) at 202-653-4614. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Kim Miller, Grants Management Specialist.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24681 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts Arts Advisory Panel Meetings AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that 19 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference.

    DATES:

    All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate:

    Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 3, 2016; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 3, 2016; 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Music (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 7, 2016; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Music (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 7, 2016; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 9, 2016; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed.

    Date and time: November 10, 2016; 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Theater and Musical Theater (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 10, 2016; 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Arts Education (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 10, 2016; 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Arts Education (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 17, 2016; 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Arts Education (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 17, 2016; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Music (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 17, 2016; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Music (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 17, 2016; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Arts Education (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 21, 2016; 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Opera (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 21, 2016; 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Opera (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 21, 2016; 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 21, 2016; 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 21, 2016; 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 22, 2016; 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Visual Arts (review of applications): This meeting will be closed. Date and time: November 22, 2016; 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES:

    National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506; [email protected], or call 202/682-5691.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of July 5, 2016, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24750 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings of Humanities Panel AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation On The Arts and The Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold fourteen meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during November, 2016. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates. The meetings will open at 8:30 a.m. and will adjourn by 5:00 p.m. on the dates specified below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the National Endowment for the Humanities at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506, unless otherwise indicated.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

    1. Date: November 1, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of U.S. History and Culture: State, Regional, and Local History, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    2. Date: November 1, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of History, for the Public Humanities Projects—Community Conversations grant program (planning grants), submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    3. Date: November 2, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Film, Radio, and Web for Media Projects: Development Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    4. Date: November 2, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of U.S. History and Culture: African American History, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    5. Date: November 3, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Literature, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    6. Date: November 3, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Art and History, for the Public Humanities Projects—Community Conversations grant program (implementation grants), submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    7. Date: November 9, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Arts and Culture, for the Public Humanities Projects—Exhibitions grant program (planning grants), submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    8. Date: November 9, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of World Studies I: Ancient to Early-Modern Era, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    9. Date: November 10, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of American Studies II: Folkways and Popular Culture, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    10. Date: November 14, 2016.

    Address: Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (MINCYT), Polo Científico y Tecnológico, Godoy Cruz 2320, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, C1425FQD, Argentina.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the 2016 Digging into Data Challenge, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    11. Date: November 15, 2016.

    Address: Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (MINCYT), Polo Científico y Tecnológico, Godoy Cruz 2320, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, C1425FQD, Argentina.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the 2016 Digging into Data Challenge, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    12. Date: November 15, 2016.

    Address: Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (MINCYT), Polo Científico y Tecnológico, Godoy Cruz 2320, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, C1425FQD, Argentina.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the 2016 Digging into Data Challenge, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    13. Date: November 10, 2016.

    Address: The Library of Congress, Jefferson Building, 10 First Street, SE., Washington, DC 20540.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Kluge Fellowships, submitted to the Division of Research Programs.

    14. Date: November 30, 2016.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Archaeology and Ethnography, for the Humanities Collections and Reference Resources grant program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. The Committee Management Officer, Elizabeth Voyatzis, has made this determination pursuant to the authority granted her by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24714 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    PEACE CORPS Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review AGENCY:

    Peace Corps.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. We are conducting this process in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Denora Miller can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1236 or email at [email protected] Email comments must be made in text and not in attachments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Denora Miller at Peace Corps address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Peace Corps has mechanisms in place to gather information from active Volunteers and the host country nationals who work and live with them. Currently, there is no such mechanism for collecting comprehensive information from Volunteers after their service ends. To fill this gap, the Peace Corps proposes to conduct a survey with these returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs). The information collected through the proposed survey will augment the Peace Corps' other strategic planning activities and provide information for its annual Performance and Accountability Report. The survey will be conducted by Peace Corps' Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services (3GL). The information collected through the survey will support the Peace Corps' ability to report on its performance, as well as to provide information to inform Peace Corps Operations.

    OMB Control Number: 0420-xxxx.

    Title: 2016 Returned Peace Corps Volunteer Survey (RPCV Survey).

    Type of Review: New.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Respondents' Obligation To Reply: Voluntary.

    Burden to the Public

    a. Number of Respondents (first year): 25,000.

    b. Frequency of response: 1 response.

    c. Completion time: 0.33 hours.

    d. Annual burden hours: 8,333 hours.

    General Description of Collection: The information collected will support interpretation of performance data by the Office of Third Goal and Returned Volunteer Services, the Office Volunteer Recruitment and Selection, Peace Corps Response, the Office of Health Services, and the Office of Strategic Partnerships. If the information were not collected, long-range program planning and the ability of the Peace Corps to adapt its programs to the needs of those it serves would be negatively impacted.

    Request for Comment: Peace Corps invites comments on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the Peace Corps, including whether the information will have practical use; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    This notice issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2016. Denora Miller, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24715 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6051-01-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Federal Salary Council; Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Salary Council will meet on Friday, October 28, 2016, at the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy. The Council makes recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for General Schedule employees under § 5304 of title 5, United States Code. The Council's recommendations cover the establishment or modification of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the process of comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the level of comparability payments that should be paid.

    The Council will hear public testimony about the locality pay program, review the results of pay comparisons, and formulate its recommendations to the President's Pay Agent on pay comparison methods, locality pay rates, and locality pay areas and boundaries for 2018. The meeting is open to the public. Please contact the Office of Personnel Management at the address shown below if you wish to submit testimony or present material to the Council at the meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, October 28, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

    LOCATION:

    Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 1350, Washington, DC 20415.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda L. Roberts, Deputy Associate Director, Pay and Leave, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-0824; or email at [email protected]

    For The President's Pay Agent.

    Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24792 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Senior Executive Service—Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the OPM Performance Review Board.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmen Garcia, Employee Services—OPM Human Resources, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-1048.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES performance review boards. The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.

    Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

    The following have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:

    Kiran Ahuja, Chief of Staff Kathleen McGettigan, Chief Management Officer Michael Grant, White House Liaison Dennis Coleman, Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Foley, Director—Office of Planning and Policy Analysis Kenneth Zawodny, Associate Director for Retirement Services Joseph Kennedy, Associate Director for Human Resources Solutions Mark Reinhold, Associate Director for Employee Services and Chief Human Capital Officer Andrea Bright, Deputy Associate Director for Human Resources—Executive Secretariat
    [FR Doc. 2016-24789 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-45-P
    OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights, OMB No. 3206-0237 AGENCY:

    Office of Personnel Management.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a revised information collection request (ICR), OMB No. 3206-0237, Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, contact the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of Personnel Management or sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (81 FR 31267, May 18, 2016) allowing for a 60 day public comment period. No comments were received. Although the Office of Management and Budget did not receive any comments previously, we are particularly interested in seeking comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. 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;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Form RI 38-47 gives specific instructions on how to request reconsideration of an initial decision that affects an individual's rights and interests under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System. In addition, reconsideration rights are extended for denials of requests to enroll or change enrollment of health and life insurance benefits under the Federal Retired or Federal Employees Health Benefits program or the Federal Employees Group Life insurance program.

    Analysis

    Agency: Retirement Operations, Retirement Services, Office of Personnel Management.

    Title: Information and Instructions on Your Reconsideration Rights.

    OMB Number: 3206-0237.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Number of Respondents: 3,100.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 45 minutes.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,325 hours.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

    Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24791 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. CP2016-49; MC2017-1 and CP2017-1; MC2017-2 and CP2017-2; MC2017-3 and CP2017-3; MC2017-4 and CP2017-4] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: October 14, 2016 (Comment due date applies to all Docket Nos. listed above)

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: CP2016-49; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Change in Prices Pursuant to Amendment to Priority Mail Contract 166; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due: October 14, 2016.

    2. Docket No(s).: MC2017-1 and CP2017-1; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 245 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: October 14, 2016.

    3. Docket No(s).: MC2017-2 and CP2017-2; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 246 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: October 14, 2016.

    4. Docket No(s).: MC2017-3 and CP2017-3; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 247 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Katalin K. Clendenin; Comments Due: October 14, 2016.

    5. Docket No(s).: MC2017-4 and CP2017-4; Filing Title: Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 11 to Competitive Product List and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted Governors' Decision, Contract, and Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance Date: October 5, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative: Lyudmila Y. Bzhilyanskaya; Comments Due: October 14, 2016.

    This Notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24713 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    PRESIDIO TRUST Notice of Wireless Telecommunications Site AGENCY:

    The Presidio Trust.

    ACTION:

    Public notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from T-Mobile West LLC to construct and operate a new wireless telecommunications facilities site (“Project”) in the Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the Project is in the vicinity of 1450 Battery Caulfield Road.

    The Project involves (i) co-locating nine antennae and one microwave dish mounted at a centerline of 116 feet on a 130-foot lattice tower being constructed by Verizon Wireless, and (ii) placing the associated radio and communications equipment on a concrete pad adjacent to the tower. Power and fiber connections for the project will be provided through underground cables connected to existing power and fiber sources.

    Comments: Comments on the proposed project must be sent to Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, and be received by November 15, 2016. A copy of T-Mobile's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. Email: [email protected] Telephone: 415.561.5300.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Andrea M. Andersen, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24739 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Investment Company Act Release No. 32307; 812-14592] Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust, et al.; Notice of Application October 6, 2016. AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds; and (f) certain Funds (“Feeder Funds”) to create and redeem Creation Units in-kind in a master-feeder structure.

    Applicants:

    Hartford Funds Exchange-Traded Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust that will be registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Hartford Funds Distributor, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

    Filing Dates:

    The application was filed on December 15, 2015, and amended on June 9, 2016.

    Hearing or Notification of Hearing:

    An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on October 31, 2016, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Edward P. Macdonald, Esq., 5 Radnor Corporate Center, 100 Matsonford Road, Suite 300, Radnor, PA 19087.

    For Further Information Contact:

    Michael S. Didiuk, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8639, or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551-8090.

    Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).1 Fund shares will be purchased and redeemed at their NAV in Creation Units only. All orders to purchase Creation Units and all redemption requests will be placed by or through an “Authorized Participant”, which will have signed a participant agreement with a broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act (together with any future distributor, the “Distributor”). Shares will be listed and traded individually on a national securities exchange, where share prices will be based on the current bid/offer market. Certain Funds may operate as Feeder Funds in a master-feeder structure. Any order granting the requested relief would be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.

    1 Applicants request that the order apply to the Trust's initial index-based ETF series, as well as any additional series of the Trust, and any other open-end management investment company or existing or future series thereof that may be created in the future (each, included in the term “Fund”), each of which will operate as an ETF and will track a specified index comprised of domestic or foreign equity and/or fixed income securities (each, an “Underlying Index”). Any Fund will (a) be advised by the Initial Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Initial Adviser (each, an “Adviser”) and (b) comply with the terms and conditions of the application.

    2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond generally to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.2

    2 Each Self-Indexing Fund will post on its Web site the identities and quantities of the investment positions that will form the basis for the Fund's calculation of its NAV at the end of the day. Applicants believe that requiring Self-Indexing Funds to maintain full portfolio transparency will help address, together with other protections, conflicts of interest with respect to such Funds.

    3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.

    4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.

    5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price based on NAV. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in shares does not involve a Fund as a party and will not result in dilution of an investment in shares, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in shares will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants represent that share market prices will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, which should prevent shares from trading at a material discount or premium from NAV.

    6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.

    7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

    8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second-Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.3 The purchase of Creation Units by a Fund of Funds directly from a Fund will be accomplished in accordance with the policies of the Fund of Funds and will be based on the NAVs of the Funds.

    3 The requested relief would apply to direct sales of shares in Creation Units by a Fund to a Fund of Funds and redemptions of those shares. Applicants, moreover, are not seeking relief from section 17(a) for, and the requested relief will not apply to, transactions where a Fund could be deemed an Affiliated Person, or a Second-Tier Affiliate, of a Fund of Funds because an Adviser or an entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with an Adviser provides investment advisory services to that Fund of Funds.

    9. Applicants also request relief to permit a Feeder Fund to acquire shares of another registered investment company managed by the Adviser having substantially the same investment objectives as the Feeder Fund (“Master Fund”) beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(A) and permit the Master Fund, and any principal underwriter for the Master Fund, to sell shares of the Master Fund to the Feeder Fund beyond the limitations in section 12(d)(1)(B).

    10. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24708 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79069; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-26] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend BZX Rule 14.11(d) To Add the EURO STOXX 50 Volatility Futures to the Definition of Futures Reference Asset October 7, 2016. I. Introduction

    On June 23, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 14.11(d) in order to add the EURO STOXX 50 Volatility (“VSTOXX”) Futures (“VSTOXX Futures”) to the definition of Futures Reference Asset. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 12, 2016.3 On August 23, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.5 On September 30, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.6 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. This order grants approval of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78236 (Jul. 6, 2016), 81 FR 45185 (“Notice”).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78640, 81 FR 59257 (Aug. 29, 2016).

    6 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (a) Clarified that an issuer would be required to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure of Futures-Linked Securities to comply with the continued listing requirements; (b) provided additional information regarding the comparability of the VSTOXX Futures and the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”) Futures currently included in the definition of Futures Reference Asset; (c) included additional background regarding the EURO STOXX 50 Index; (d) clarified that VSTOXX levels will be calculated by STOXX (as defined herein) and disseminated by major market data vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters on a real-time basis throughout each trading day; and (e) made other grammatical corrections and typographical edits. Because the changes in Amendment No. 1 clarify certain statements in the proposal and do not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise any novel regulatory issues, it is not subject to notice and comment. Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety, is available on the Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-26/batsbzx201626-1.pdf.

    II. Exchange's Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 14.11(d) to add VSTOXX Futures to the definition of Futures Reference Asset.7 By adding VSTOXX Futures to the definition of Futures Reference Asset, the Exchange would be permitted to generically list and trade Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.8

    7 As defined in BZX Rule 14.11(d), “Futures Reference Asset” currently includes an index of (a) futures on Treasury Securities, GSE Securities, supranational debt and debt of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof, or options or other derivatives on any of the foregoing; or (b) interest rate futures or options or derivatives on the foregoing in this subparagraph (b); or (c) CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) Futures.

    8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to section (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading rules, procedures, and listing standards for the product class, and the SRO has a surveillance program for the product class.

    The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the proposal, including information and background relating to VSTOXX and VSTOXX Futures.9

    9 The Commission notes that additional information regarding EURO STOXX 50, VSTOXX, and VSTOXX Futures, among other things, can be found in the Notice. See Notice, supra note 3.

    A. Description of VSTOXX and VSTOXX Futures

    According to the Exchange, the VSTOXX was originally developed in 2005 and is based on EURO STOXX 50 Index 10 real-time option prices that are listed on the Eurex Deutschland (“Eurex”).11 The VSTOXX is designed to reflect market expectations of near-term to long-term volatility by measuring the square root of the implied variances across all options of a given time to expiration. The Exchange represents that the model for VSTOXX aims to make pure volatility tradable, i.e., it should be possible to replicate the indices with an options portfolio that does not react to price fluctuations, but to changes in volatility only. The VSTOXX does not measure implied volatilities of at-the-money EURO STOXX 50 Index options, but the implied variance across all options of a given time to expiry.12

    10 The EURO STOXX 50 Index includes 50 stocks that are among the largest free-float market capitalization stocks from 12 Eurozone countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. Additional details of the EURO STOXX 50 Index, including information relating to weighting and eligibility requirements for components, among other things, can be found in the Notice and Amendment No 1 to the proposed rule change. See Notice and Amendment No. 1, supra notes 3 and 6.

    11 The Exchange represents that Eurex is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) and, accordingly, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the underlying VSTOXX Futures contracts. For a list of the current members and affiliate members of ISG, see www.isgportal.com.

    12 The VSTOXX is calculated using a series of sub-indices that are based on put and call options on the EURO STOXX 50 Index in eight expiry months, with a maximum time to expiry of two years, in order to bracket a 30-day calendar period. VSTOXX levels will be calculated by STOXX and disseminated by major market-data vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. Additional details of the VSTOXX, including information relating to calculation methodology, can be found in the Notice and Amendment No 1 to the proposed rule change. See Notice and Amendment No. 1, supra notes 3 and 6.

    According to the Exchange, VSTOXX Futures are cash settled and trade between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Central European Time (2:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time).13 The VSTOXX Futures contract value is 100 Euros per index point of the underlying and it is traded to two decimal places, with a minimum price change of 0.05 points (equivalent to a value of 5 Euros). The daily settlement price is determined during the closing auction of the respective futures contracts. The last trading day and final settlement day is 30 calendar days prior to the third Friday of the expiration month of the underlying options, which is usually the Wednesday prior to the second-to-last Friday of the respective maturity month.

    13 The Exchange represents that additional information regarding the VSTOXX Futures can be found on the Eurex Web site. Additional details of the VSTOXX Futures, including monthly trading volume and open interest, among other things, also can be found in the Notice and Amendment No 1 to the proposed rule change. See Notice and Amendment No. 1, supra notes 3 and 6.

    B. Comparability of VSTOXX and VIX

    According to the Exchange, the VSTOXX and VIX are nearly identical calculations of expected volatility in the EURO STOXX 50 Index and the S&P 500, respectively, based on pricing in the applicable options. The exchange represents that both processes involve screening of available option prices, followed by the construction of variance terms and then the subsequent weighting of those terms into the index values, and that the differences between the two processes are largely cosmetic. VSTOXX employs the following screens on EURO STOXX 50 Index options: (i) All option prices that are one-sided or without both a bid and ask are screened out; (ii) only options that are quoted within an established maximum spread are eligible for inclusion; and (iii) options that are too far out of the money (i.e., that would change the index value less than 0.5 index points) are excluded. Similarly, VIX excludes options on the S&P 500 as follows: (a) All calls that have a bid price of zero are excluded, and, after two consecutive strikes have zero bid prices, no higher strikes are used; and (b) all puts that have a bid price of zero are excluded and after two consecutive strikes have zero bid prices, no lower strikes are used. The Exchange notes that, while these screens are not exactly the same, they are both designed to exclude options from their universe that do not have sufficient liquidity for the index to rely on their pricing for purposes of calculating volatility. In addition, after choosing the applicable options universe, both VSTOXX and VIX use essentially identical formulas for calculating variance across the included options. Finally, after determining the variance, both VSTOXX and VIX use a substantively identical formula for weighting each of the individual variances in order to calculate the respective index value.

    III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act 14 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.15 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    15 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    16 17 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Commission notes that VIX Futures are currently included as a Futures Reference Asset for Futures-Linked Securities.17 The Commission also notes that, based on the Exchange's representations, the VSTOXX and VIX employ nearly identical calculations of expected volatility in the EURO STOXX 50 Index and the S&P 500, respectively. In addition, both VSTOXX and VIX use essentially identical formulas for calculating variance across the included options, and, after determining the variance, use a substantively identical formula for weighting each of the individual variances in order to calculate the respective index value. Given the similarities between VSTOXX and VIX, which was previously approved by the Commission as a Futures Reference Asset, the Commission believes that it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to amend its listing standard to include VSTOXX as a Futures Reference Asset.

    17See supra note 7.

    In addition, the Commission notes that, notwithstanding the addition of VSTOXX Futures to the definition of Futures Reference Asset, the existing initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Linked-Securities, generally, and Futures-Linked Securities, specifically, would continue to apply. For example, the Exchange represents that any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures would be required to meet both the initial and continued listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(d)(2)(K)(iv)(b) and (c) or be subject to delisting or removal proceedings. These initial and continued listing standards require, among other things: (i) The value of the Futures Reference Asset be calculated and widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (ii) for Futures-Linked Securities that are periodically redeemable, the Intraday Indicative Value of the securities be calculated and widely disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors on at least a 15-second basis during the Exchange's regular market session; (iii) the aggregate market value or the principal amount of the Futures-Linked Securities be at least $400,000; and (iv) the value of the VSTOXX Futures be calculated and available. In addition, any Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures also would be required to meet the listing standards applicable to all Linked Securities under BZX Rule 14.11(d)(2). The Exchange represents that any securities it would list and trade pursuant to amended BZX Rule 14.11(d) would continue to comply with all Exchange rules applicable to the listing and trading of Linked Securities.

    Further, the Exchange represents that its existing surveillance procedures are adequate to continue to properly monitor the trading of the Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. Specifically, the Exchange stated that it intends to utilize its existing surveillance procedures applicable to derivative products, which includes Linked Securities, to monitor trading in the Futures-Linked Securities. The Commission notes that Eurex, on which VSTOXX Futures trade, is a member of ISG, and the Exchange represents that it may obtain information regarding trading in the underlying VSTOXX Futures.

    The Commission further notes that the issuer of a series of Linked Securities is and will continue to be required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act for the initial and continued listing of Linked Securities, as provided under BZX Rule 14.11(d)(2)(F). Moreover, the Exchange represents that prior to listing Futures-Linked Securities linked to VSTOXX Futures pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(c)(2)(K)(iv), an issuer would be required to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure of the Futures-Linked Securities to comply with the continued listing requirements.

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 18 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,19 that the proposed rule change (SR-BatsBZX-2016-26), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24776 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79060; File No. SR-ISEGemini-2016-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to a Proposal To Amend a Current Billing Practice With Respect to Billing Disputes October 6, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 22, 2016, ISE Gemini, LLC (“ISE Gemini” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend a current billing practice with respect to billing disputes.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to change the timeframe within which Members must dispute billing. Today, ISE Gemini Members must submit all disputes no later than ninety calendar days after receipt of an Exchange invoice. After ninety calendar days, all fees assessed by the Exchange are considered final. The Exchange is proposing to amend the policy from ninety to sixty days to submit a dispute. Today, the NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX”), and The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) all have a sixty day timeframe within which to dispute option invoices.3

    3See Phlx's Pricing Schedule. See also NOM and BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 7.

    The Exchange provides Members with both daily and monthly fee reports and thus believes Members should be aware of any potential billing errors within sixty calendar days of receiving an invoice. Requiring that Members dispute an invoice within this time period will encourage them to promptly review their invoices so that any disputed charges can be addressed in a timely manner while the information and data underlying those charges (e.g. applicable fees and order information) is still easily and readily available. This practice will avoid issues that may arise when Members do not dispute an invoice in a timely manner, and will conserve Exchange resources that would have to be expended to resolve untimely billing disputes. The Exchange notes that this type of provision is common among many other exchanges, which require that Members dispute invoices within sixty days.

    Billing disputes must continue to be submitted to the Exchange in writing,4 and must be accompanied by supporting documentation. The Exchange believes that this requirement, which is also similar to requirements of other exchanges,5 will further streamline the billing dispute process.

    4 The Exchange invoice specifies contact information for billing inquiries.

    5See note 3 above.

    The Exchange believes that this practice will conserve Exchange resources which are expended when untimely billing disputes require staff to research applicable fees and order information beyond two months after the transaction occurred. Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative processes related to the untimely review of billing disputes which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes.

    The sixty days would first apply to invoices related to transactional billing in November 2016 and would apply thereafter.6 The Exchange proposes to apply the billing policy to all charges reflected in its Schedule of Fees.

    6 This proposal would not apply to invoices related to October 2016 billing.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by providing a uniform practice for disputing fees.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the requirement that all billing disputes must be submitted in writing, and with supporting documentation, within sixty calendar days from receipt of the invoice is reasonable in the public interest because the Exchange provides ample tools to properly and swiftly monitor and account for various charges incurred in a given month. Moreover, the proposed billing dispute language, which will lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to billing dispute language adopted by other exchanges.9 Also, the Exchange's administrative costs would be lowered as a result of this policy because staff resources would not be diverted to review untimely requests regarding billing.

    9See note 3 above.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The billing policy would apply uniformly to all ISE Gemini Members. The policy is similar to rules adopted by other options exchanges.10

    10Id.

    Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative processes related to the untimely review of billing disputes which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-ISEGemini-2016-11 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2016-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISEGemini-2016-11 and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24697 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79064; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees To Make a Clarifying Change Related to the Tape B Quoting Tier October 6, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2016, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members 3 and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rules 15.1(a) and (c) in order to make a clarifying change related to the Tape B Quoting Tier.

    3 The term “Member” is defined as “any registered broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to make clear that the additional rebate per share for orders in Tape B securities associated with meeting the Tape B Quoting Tier (the “Tape B Rebate”) does not apply to the rebates set forth in footnote 14 part A of the fee schedule (the “LMM Incentive Program”). Specifically, this means that a Member does not receive the Tape B Rebate on top of the rebate that the LMM receives under the LMM Incentive Program for securities in which they are the LMM.4 The Exchange notes this clarification applies only to the rebates for securities in which a Member receives rebates under the LMM Incentive Program and that enrollment in LMP Securities is available to all Members, including LMMs, and Members that act as an LMM are eligible to receive the Tape B Rebate for securities in which the Member is not the LMM.

    4 As provided in the fee schedule, the Exchange notes that to the extent a Member qualifies for higher rebates than those provided by a tier for which such Member qualifies, such as the LMM Incentive Program, the higher rebates shall apply.

    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule effective immediately.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.5 Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,6 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to make any changes to the rebates or fees that it currently charges. As such, the Exchange believes that the change is reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because it is non-substantive and is designed to make sure that the fee schedule is as clear and easily understandable as possible.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The Exchange does not believe that the changes burden competition, as this change is intended to make the Exchange's fee schedule as clear and easily understandable as possible.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.8 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-64 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-64. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2016-64 and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24701 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79063; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-132] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule October 6, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on September 23, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective October 1, 2016. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to cap the Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) Rights Fees (“Rights Fee”) charged for lower-volume issues to encourage OTP Firms acting as LMMs to add more such issues to their allocation. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective October 1, 2016.

    The LMM Rights Fee is charged “on a per issue basis to the OTP Firm acting as LMM in the issue.” 4 Currently, the Exchange charges a Rights Fee on each issue in a LMM's allocation, with rates based on the Average National Daily Customer Contracts (“CADV”). The monthly Rights Fee ranges from $25 per month to $3,000 per month. Under the current Fee Schedule, the more active an issue is, the higher the Rights Fee, as set forth below:

    4See Fee Schedule, Endnote 2, available here,https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.

    Average national daily
  • customer contracts
  • Monthly issue fee
    0 to 100 $25 101 to 1,000 35 1,001 to 2,000 75 2,001 to 5,000 200 5,001 to 15,000 750 15,001 to 100,000 1,500 Over 100,000 3,000

    Earlier this year, the Exchange introduced an LMM Rights Fee Discount applicable to each issue in an LMM's appointment with a CADV above 5,000 based on the amount of monthly (i) total electronic volume and/or (ii) total posted volume executed by an LMM in the Market Maker range relative to other Marker Makers appointed in that issue (the “Discount”).5 This Discount was designed to incent LMMs that already transact a significant amount of business on the Exchange and trade competitively in their issues to increase their trading and achieve one of the Discounts as well as to incent LMMs to apply for new issue allocation. The Exchange now proposes a modification to its Fee schedule that is designed to encourage LMMs to add lower-volume issues to their appointments.

    5See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 77885 (May 23, 2016), 81 FR 33716 (May 23 [sic], 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-75).

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to cap at 50 issues the Rights Fee it charges OTP Firms for issues with a CADV of 0 to 100 contracts (“First Tier”). The Exchange would not charge for any First Tier issues in the LMM's allocation that exceed 50 issues. The Exchange also proposes to cap at 100 issues the Rights Fee it charges for issues with a CADV of 101 to 1000 (“Second Tier”). The Exchange would not charge for any Second Tier issues in the LMM's allocation that exceed 100 issues. The practical impact of this cap is that the maximum LMM Rights Fee charged to an OTP Firm for issues trading in the First Tier would be $1,250 (i.e., $25 × 50) and the maximum Rights Fee charged to an OTP Firm for issues trading in the Second Tier would be $3,500 (i.e., $35 × 100). For example, an OTP Firm acting as an LMM with 55 issues that trade in the First Tier, and another 130 that trade in the Second Tier, would be charged an LMM Rights fee of $4,750 ($1,250 (the max charged for First Tier issues) plus $3,500 (the max charged for Second Tier issues).

    The Exchange is setting the caps at different amounts for the First and Second Tiers because of the difference in the universe of available issues in each of these Tiers. The Exchange proposes a higher issue cap for options trading in the Second Tiers because there are more issues available in this Tier than in the First Tier and these issues are also more desirable because they trade more.6

    6 As of August 10, 2016, the Exchange had 647 issues listed in the First Tier and 985 issues in the Second Tier.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed caps to the LMM Rights Fee would increase interest of OTP Firms acting as LMMs in adding to their allocation issues in the First and Second Tiers.

    The Exchange notes that the proposed caps to the Rights Fees would not hinder an LMM's ability to achieve any of the existing discounts applicable to the Rights Fees; rather, to the extent that the caps encourage an OTP Firm acting as an LMM to increase the number of issues in its allocation, the proposal may increase an LMM's chances of achieving existing discounts (i.e., to achieve the 50% discount on the Rights Fee an LMM needs to trade 10,000 electronic contracts ADV in its appointment).

    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the Rights Fee at this time.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,8 in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed caps on the LMM Rights Fees for the First and Second Tier issues are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for a number of reasons. First, all LMMs trading First Tier issues with similar CADV levels would benefit from the proposed Rights Fee cap and have the same incentive to add the affected issues to their allocation. Second, the proposed Rights Fees caps are designed to encourage OTP Firms acting as LMMs to add lower-volume issues to their appointments, which would provide greater opportunities for OTP Firms to achieve volume incentives on the Exchange without adding to their Rights Fees. In turn, the proposed caps may reduce the overhead costs of OTP Firms that are most actively trading in the affected issues, which reduced costs would enhance the ability of LMMs to provide liquidity to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the Exchange believes that having a broader range of products available on the Exchange would benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the Exchange and offering more opportunities to trade.

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that proposed caps to the Rights Fees on the First and Second Tiers are not unfairly discriminatory because they apply solely to LMMs (non-LMMs are not subject to this Fee) and would not disadvantage Market Makers.

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,9 the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed caps on Rights Fees for the lowest-volume issues would not impose an unfair burden on competition because the cap are designed to encourage more OTP Firms acting as LMMs to add such issues to their allocation, which would increase liquidity and offer more trading opportunities to market participants.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 10 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 11 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 12 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-132 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-132. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2016-132, and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24700 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79061; File No. SR-ISE-2016-23] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend a Current Billing Practice With Respect to Billing Disputes October 6, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 22, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to a proposal to amend a current billing practice with respect to billing disputes.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to change the timeframe within which Members must dispute billing. Today, ISE Members must submit all disputes no later than ninety calendar days after receipt of an Exchange invoice. After ninety calendar days, all fees assessed by the Exchange are considered final. The Exchange is proposing to amend the policy from ninety to sixty days to submit a dispute. Today, the NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX”) and The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) all have a sixty day timeframe within which to dispute option invoices.3

    3See Phlx's Pricing Schedule. See also NOM and BX Rules at Chapter XV, Section 7.

    The Exchange provides Members with both daily and monthly fee reports and thus believes Members should be aware of any potential billing errors within sixty calendar days of receiving an invoice. Requiring that Members dispute an invoice within this time period will encourage them to promptly review their invoices so that any disputed charges can be addressed in a timely manner while the information and data underlying those charges (e.g. applicable fees and order information) is still easily and readily available. This practice will avoid issues that may arise when Members do not dispute an invoice in a timely manner, and will conserve Exchange resources that would have to be expended to resolve untimely billing disputes. The Exchange notes that this type of provision is common among many other exchanges, which require that Members dispute invoices within sixty days.

    Billing disputes must continue to be submitted to the Exchange in writing,4 and must be accompanied by supporting documentation. The Exchange believes that this requirement, which is also similar to requirements of other exchanges,5 will further streamline the billing dispute process.

    4 The Exchange invoice specifies contact information for billing inquiries.

    5See note 3 above.

    The Exchange believes that this practice will conserve Exchange resources which are expended when untimely billing disputes require staff to research applicable fees and order information beyond two months after the transaction occurred. Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative processes related to the untimely review of billing disputes which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes.

    The Exchange is also adding the word “calendar” before days to specifically state that the days are calendar days to avoid confusion. Today, ISE uses calendar days, so this is not a substantive change.

    The sixty days would first apply to invoices related to transactional billing in November 2016 and would apply thereafter.6 The Exchange proposes to apply the billing policy to all charges reflected in its Schedule of Fees.

    6 This proposal would not apply to invoices related to October 2016 billing.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, by providing a uniform practice for disputing fees.

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the requirement that all billing disputes must be submitted in writing, and with supporting documentation, within sixty calendar days from receipt of the invoice is reasonable in the public interest because the Exchange provides ample tools to properly and swiftly monitor and account for various charges incurred in a given month. Moreover, the proposed billing dispute language, which will lower the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to billing dispute language adopted by other exchanges.9 Also, the Exchange's administrative costs would be lowered as a result of this policy because staff resources would not be diverted to review untimely requests regarding billing.

    9See note 3 above.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The billing policy would apply uniformly to all ISE Members. The policy is similar to rules adopted by other options exchanges.10

    10Id.

    Further, this proposal would provide a cost savings to the Exchange in that it would alleviate administrative processes related to the untimely review of billing disputes which divert staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and business purposes.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.12

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-ISE-2016-23 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-23. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-23 and should be submitted on or before November 3, 2016.

    13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.13

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24698 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79062; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, To List and Trade Shares of the AdvisorShares KIM Korea Equity ETF October 6, 2016. I. Introduction

    On May 2, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the AdvisorShares KIM Korea Equity ETF under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. On May 13, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 The Commission published notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016.4 On May 23, 2016, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.5 On July 7, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,6 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.7 On August 18, 2016, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 8 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.9 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. On September 28, 2016, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2016-64/nysearca201664-1.pdf.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77847 (May 17, 2016), 81 FR 32364.

    5 Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 2 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2016-64/nysearca201664-2.pdf.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78240, 81 FR 45332 (July 13, 2016).

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78614, 81 FR 57981 (August 24, 2016).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.10

    10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24699 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79071; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-64] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 103 October 7, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby gi