Federal Register Vol. 81, No.203,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 203 (October 20, 2016)

Page Range72481-72679
FR Document

81_FR_203
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 72679 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in ColombiaPDF
81 FR 72591 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 72591 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 72565 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158-Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi; Authorization of Production Activity; Bauhaus Furniture Group, LLC; H.M. Richards Company, Inc.; Lane Home Furniture; Morgan Fabrics Corporation; (Upholstered Furniture); Tupelo, Mississippi, AreaPDF
81 FR 72565 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Preparations for a Public Hearing on Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the StatePDF
81 FR 72527 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VAPDF
81 FR 72526 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MDPDF
81 FR 72566 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158-Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi; Authorization of Production Activity; Southern Motion, Inc.; (Upholstered Furniture) Pontotoc and Baldwyn, MississippiPDF
81 FR 72569 - Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 72567 - Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 72568 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
81 FR 72575 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 72581 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCER-NPSAS Grants-Financial Aid Nudges: A National Experiment To Increase Retention of Financial Aid and College PersistencePDF
81 FR 72582 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCER-NPSAS Grants-Connecting Students 2017: Testing the Effectiveness of FAFSA Interventions on College OutcomesPDF
81 FR 72594 - Request for Comments on the Proposed Measures and 2020 Targets for the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention: Inpatient and Outpatient Measures for Reduction of Adverse Drug Events From Anticoagulants, Diabetes Agents, and Opioid AnalgesicsPDF
81 FR 72639 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (and Other Aliases)PDF
81 FR 72639 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (and Other Aliases)PDF
81 FR 72639 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of Indian Mujahedeen (and Other Aliases)PDF
81 FR 72545 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule To List the Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) as Threatened and the Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) as Endangered Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 72618 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 72592 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Public Comment Request; State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report and InstructionsPDF
81 FR 72639 - Review of the Designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization of Army of Islam (and Other Aliases)PDF
81 FR 72591 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Process Evaluation of the Long Term Care Ombudsman ProgramPDF
81 FR 72639 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law: Notice of Annual MeetingPDF
81 FR 72592 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Elderly Nutritional Services ProgramPDF
81 FR 72605 - The Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 72620 - Plan for Information Collection Activity: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 72577 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 72609 - Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Competitive Sale of Public Lands in Lincoln County, NVPDF
81 FR 72619 - Notice of Request for a Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 72574 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 72615 - Voice Translation Technologies for Criminal Justice Applications Market SurveyPDF
81 FR 72617 - Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB Approval; Weekly Claims and Extended Benefits Data and Weekly Initial and Continued Weeks ClaimedPDF
81 FR 72572 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery PlansPDF
81 FR 72674 - Loan Guaranty: Assistance to Eligible Individuals in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing; Cost-of-Construction IndexPDF
81 FR 72566 - Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72573 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 72571 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 72574 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 72670 - Advisory Committee on Automation in TransportationPDF
81 FR 72672 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Retail Foreign Exchange TransactionsPDF
81 FR 72566 - Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72658 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
81 FR 72673 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Reverse Mortgage Products: Guidance for Managing Compliance and Reputation RisksPDF
81 FR 72641 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 72661 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 72663 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure DisordersPDF
81 FR 72661 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable Cardioverter DefibrillatorsPDF
81 FR 72640 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 72606 - Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for PermitPDF
81 FR 72642 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 72664 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 72644 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 72652 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 72651 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 72561 - Excise Tax; Tractors, Trailers, Trucks, and Tires; Definition of Highway Vehicle; HearingPDF
81 FR 72607 - Model Indian Juvenile CodePDF
81 FR 72607 - HEARTH Act Approval of Chemehuevi Indian Tribe RegulationsPDF
81 FR 72622 - Northeast Ocean Plan for National Ocean Council CertificationPDF
81 FR 72612 - Information Collection Activities: Decommissioning Activities; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 72667 - Notice of Buy America Waiver of Domestic Content Requirement for Minivans and VansPDF
81 FR 72611 - Notice of Meeting, Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 72562 - Notice of October 26, 2016 President's Global Development Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 72527 - Safety Zone; Pago Pago Harbor, America SamoaPDF
81 FR 72590 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 72670 - Hazardous Materials: Damaged, Defective, Recalled Lithium Cells or Batteries or Portable Electronic DevicesPDF
81 FR 72584 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 72583 - Combined Notice Of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 72593 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Pre-Submission Program for Medical DevicesPDF
81 FR 72622 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 72622 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 72617 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Census of Fatal Occupational InjuriesPDF
81 FR 72624 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Bats BZX Rule 14.13, Company Listing Fees, and to the Bats BZX Fee Schedule; Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule ChangePDF
81 FR 72629 - First Investors Equity Funds, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 72630 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing and Trading of Shares of the Virtus Enhanced U.S. Equity ETF Under Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)PDF
81 FR 72636 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of FeesPDF
81 FR 72595 - Government-Owned Invention; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 72597 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72599 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 72600 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72595 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72599 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 72596 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 72595 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 72598 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 72562 - Request for Applications: The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation ProgramPDF
81 FR 72585 - Agency Information Collection ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 72526 - Organizational ChartersPDF
81 FR 72571 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Charter RecordkeepingPDF
81 FR 72600 - Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Requirements: Identification of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as an EVUS Country and Designation of Maximum Validity B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visas as Designated Visa CategoriesPDF
81 FR 72674 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 72481 - Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)PDF
81 FR 72522 - Visas: Visa Information Update Requirements Under the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)PDF
81 FR 72537 - Fluridone; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 72525 - Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at MeetingsPDF
81 FR 72524 - Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD PropertyPDF
81 FR 72539 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment RulePDF
81 FR 72523 - Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military MembersPDF
81 FR 72552 - Airworthiness Directives; NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver UnitsPDF
81 FR 72551 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records, System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 72519 - Direct Investment Surveys: BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment SurveysPDF
81 FR 72601 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records, System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 72493 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Certain Categories of General Service LampsPDF
81 FR 72505 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 72529 - Delaware; Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plan for Nonattainment New Source Review; Emissions Offset ProvisionsPDF
81 FR 72554 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 72557 - Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) LimitedPDF
81 FR 72515 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 72507 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 72511 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 203 Thursday, October 20, 2016 Contents Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Meetings: President's Global Development Council, 72562 2016-25366 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Decommissioning Activities, 72612-72615 2016-25371 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Illinois Advisory Committee, 72565 2016-25436 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Chester River, Chestertown, MD, 72526 2016-25434 Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA, 72527 2016-25435 Safety Zones: Pago Pago Harbor, America Samoa, 72527-72529 2016-25365 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Analysis Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Elderly Nutritional Services Program, 72592 2016-25414 Process Evaluation of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, 72591-72592 2016-25416 State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report and Instructions, 72592-72593 2016-25418 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions, 72672-72673 2016-25391 Reverse Mortgage Products—Guidance for Managing Compliance and Reputation Risks, 72673-72674 2016-25388 Defense Department Defense Department RULES Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members, 72523-72524 2016-25260 Organizational Charters, 72526 2016-25330 Presentation of Department of Defense-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at Meetings, 72525-72526 2016-25276 Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on Department of Defense Property, 72524-72525 2016-25275 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 72575-72581 2016-25411 2016-25428 Economic Analysis Bureau Economic Analysis Bureau RULES Direct Investment Surveys: Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment Surveys, 72519-72522 2016-25208 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72582-72583 2016-25426 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: A National Experiment to Increase Retention of Financial Aid and College Persistence; Grants—Financial Aid Nudges, 72581-72582 2016-25427 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Weekly Claims and Extended Benefits Data and Weekly Initial and Continued Weeks Claimed, 72617 2016-25400 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Certain Categories of General Service Lamps, 72493-72505 2016-25180
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Delaware; Disapproval of Plan for Nonattainment New Source Review; Emissions Offset Provisions, 72529-72537 2016-24657 Pesticide Tolerances: Fluridone, 72537-72539 2016-25291 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72585-72590 2016-25331 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 72507-72511, 72515-72519 2016-24078 2016-24191 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters, 72505-72507 2016-24860 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 72511-72515 2016-23078 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, 72557-72561 2016-24201 NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver Units, 72552-72554 2016-25255 The Boeing Co. Airplanes, 72554-72557 2016-24262 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72590 2016-25363 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 72591 2016-25570 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 72583-72585 2016-25360 2016-25361 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 72591 2016-25528 2016-25529 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 72640-72641, 72644-72661 2016-25377 2016-25378 2016-25379 2016-25383 2016-25389 Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, 72641-72642, 72661, 72663-72664 2016-25385 2016-25386 2016-25387 Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators, 72661-72663 2016-25384 Vision, 72642-72644, 72664-72667 2016-25380 2016-25381 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers: Domestic Content Requirement for Minivans and Vans, 72667-72670 2016-25370 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Permit Applications: Endangered Species; Marine Mammals, 72606-72607 2016-25382 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Pre-Submission Program for Medical Devices, 72593-72594 2016-25359 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Bauhaus Furniture Group, LLC, H.M. Richards Co., Inc., Lane Home Furniture, Morgan Fabrics Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 158, Vicksburg and Jackson, MS, 72565 2016-25437 Southern Motion, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 158, Vicksburg/Jackson, MS, 72566 2016-25432 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Funding Availability: Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program, 72562-72565 2016-25334 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Measures and 2020 Targets for the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention: Inpatient and Outpatient Measures for Reduction of Adverse Drug Events from Anticoagulants, Diabetes Agents, and Opioid Analgesics, 72594-72595 2016-25424
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

RULES Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System, 72481-72493 2016-25321 PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 72551-72552 2016-25209 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 72601-72605 2016-25206
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Performance Review Board, 72605-72606 2016-25413 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES HEARTH Act Approvals: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Regulations, 72607-72609 2016-25373 Model Indian Juvenile Code, 72607 2016-25374 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Materials Technical Advisory Committee, 72566-72567 2016-25390 Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee, 72566 2016-25397 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Excise Tax; Tractors, Trailers, Trucks, and Tires; Definition of Highway Vehicle, 72561 2016-25376 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from the Russian Federation, 72569-72571 2016-25431 Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from the People's Republic of China, 72568-72569 2016-25429 Glycine from the People's Republic of China, 72567-72568 2016-25430 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Voice Translation Technologies for Criminal Justice Applications, 72615-72617 2016-25401 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 72617-72618 2016-25356
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council, 72611 2016-25369 Realty Actions: Proposed Competitive Sale of Public Lands, Lincoln County, NV, 72609-72611 2016-25406 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72618-72619 2016-25419 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Invention; Availability for Licensing, 72595-72596 2016-25343 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 72595-72599 2016-25335 2016-25336 2016-25337 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 72599 2016-25338 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 72595, 72600 2016-25339 2016-25340 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 72599 2016-25341 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 72597 2016-25342 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) and Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani), 72545-72550 2016-25420 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72574-72575 2016-25402 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries—Charter Recordkeeping, 72571-72572 2016-25327 Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Plans, 72572-72573 2016-25399 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 72571, 72574 2016-25393 2016-25394 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 72573-72574 2016-25395 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72619-72620 2016-25403 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72620-72621 2016-25412 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Damaged, Defective, Recalled Lithium Cells or Batteries or Portable Electronic Devices, 72670 2016-25362 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 72622 2016-25357 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 72622 2016-25358 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Colombia; Continuation of National Emergency with Respect to Narcotics Traffickers (Notice of October 18, 2016), 72677-72679 2016-25599 Science Technology Science and Technology Policy Office NOTICES Submittal of Northeast Ocean Plan for National Ocean Council Certification, 72622-72624 2016-25372 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: First Investors Equity Funds, et al., 72629-72630 2016-25346 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 72624-72629 2016-25350 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 72636-72638 2016-25344 NYSE Arca, Inc., 72630-72636 2016-25345 State Department State Department RULES Visas: Visa Information Update Requirements under the Electronic Visa Update System, 72522-72523 2016-25308 NOTICES Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Army of Islam, and Other Aliases, 72639 2016-25417 Communist Party of the Phillipines/New People's Army, et al., 72639 2016-25422 Indian Mujahedeen, etc., 72639-72640 2016-25421 Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, etc., 72639 2016-25423 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Private International Law, 72639 2016-25415 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 72539-72544 2016-25273 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Automation in Transportation, 72670-72672 2016-25392
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 72674 2016-25324
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Electronic Visa Update System Requirements: Identification of the People's Republic of China as an Electronic Visa Update System Country, etc., 72600-72601 2016-25326 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Loan Guarantees: Assistance to Eligible Individuals in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing; Cost-of-Construction Index, 72674-72675 2016-25398 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 72677-72679 2016-25599 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.

81 203 Thursday, October 20, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 8 CFR Parts 212, 214, 215, and 273 [USCBP-2016-0046; CBP Dec. No. 16-17] RIN 1651-AB08 Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Department of Homeland Security's regulations to establish the Electronic Visa Update System (“EVUS”). This system will allow for the collection of biographic and other information from nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. Nonimmigrant aliens subject to these regulations must periodically enroll in EVUS and obtain a notification of compliance with EVUS prior to travel to the United States. Individuals subject to the EVUS regulations must comply with EVUS in order to maintain the validity of their visas falling within a designated category. The Department of State is publishing a parallel rule to amend its visa regulations to reflect the new EVUS requirements.

DATES:

Effective Date: This final rule is effective on October 20, 2016.

Compliance Dates: The compliance date is November 29, 2016 or as set forth in § 215.24(c).

Comments: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments via docket number USCBP-2016-0046.

Mail: Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Attention: Border Security Regulations Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected during regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Border Security Regulations Branch, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC. Arrangements to inspect submitted comments should be made in advance by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325-0118.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Shepherd, Office of Field Operations, [email protected] or (202) 344-2073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Public Participation II. Background A. Purpose B. Legal Authority C. Amendments to the DHS Regulations To Establish the Electronic Visa Update System 1. Enrollment in EVUS 2. Notification of Compliance 3. EVUS in the Context of Travel to the United States 4. Validity Period of Notification of Compliance 5. Schedule for EVUS Enrollment and Re-Enrollment a. Initial Enrollment b. EVUS Re-Enrollment Prior to Travel to the United States 6. Required EVUS Data Elements 7. Events Requiring EVUS Re-Enrollment 8. Noncompliance, Expiration of Notification of Compliance, and Change in EVUS Status Resulting in Rescission of Notification of Compliance D. Other Amendments to the DHS Regulations to Reference EVUS E. Compliance Dates and Early Enrollment Period for EVUS III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act B. Congressional Review Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) 1. Purpose of Rule 2. Population Affected by Rule 3. Costs of Rule 4. Benefits of Rule 5. Net Impact of Rule F. Executive Order 13132 G. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Privacy List of Subjects Amendments to the Regulations I. Public Participation

Interested persons may submit comments on this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this final rule. Based on the comments received, DHS may revise this rule in the future.

II. Background A. Purpose

Congress has conferred upon the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to establish reasonable conditions on the entry of nonimmigrant aliens into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), for example, may, by regulation, set conditions for an alien's admission as a nonimmigrant, see Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) 214(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), and, more generally, establish reasonable regulations governing aliens' entry or admission into and departure from the United States, see INA 215(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1).1 See also INA 103(a)(1), (a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (a)(3); 6 U.S.C. 202(4).

1 The President assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security (acting with the concurrence of the Secretary of State) the functions under INA 215(a) with respect to noncitizens. E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241 (Dec. 30, 2003).

Every alien applying for admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant must establish that he or she is admissible to the United States. See INA 235(b)(2)(A), 291, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A), 1361; 8 CFR 214.1(a)(3), 235.1(f), 235.3. Upon application for admission, the alien must present a valid passport and valid visa unless either or both document requirements have been waived. See INA 212(a)(7)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(B); 8 CFR 212.1; see also INA 217, 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 CFR 217. Nonimmigrant aliens who need a visa to travel to and apply for admission to the United States may be eligible for one of 20 primary nonimmigrant classifications, depending on their specific purposes and qualifications. See INA 101(a)(15), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) (defining nonimmigrant classifications); see also U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, “Directory of Visa Categories” (listing visa categories).2 The burden of establishing admissibility and other eligibility to enter the United States lies with the applicant for admission. See, e.g., INA 291, 8 U.S.C. 1361; 8 CFR 235.1(f).

2 This directory is available at http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/all-visa-categories.html.

The nonimmigrant visa application process generally requires the alien to fill out an application, pay a visa application fee, and appear for an interview before a consular officer at a U.S. embassy or consulate. Every visa applicant undergoes extensive security checks before a visa is issued. At the U.S. embassy or consulate, officials review the alien's application, collect the applicant's fingerprints, and check the applicant's name against the Department of State's (“DOS”) Consular Lookout and Support System (CLASS) as well as various other government watchlists. A consular officer reviews the name check results and determines whether additional security checks are required. The consular officer then generally interviews the visa applicant and reviews his or her application and supporting documents.

When all required processing is completed, and if the alien is found eligible, the consular officer issues a nonimmigrant visa to the alien. The validity period of a nonimmigrant visa varies by category and the country that issues the nonimmigrant alien's passport.3 When an alien's visa validity period expires, the alien will need to renew his or her visa in order to travel to the United States. The process is generally the same whether a person is applying for a visa for the first time or renewing an expired visa. This means that to renew a visa the alien must submit a new application, which requires updated information, pay the visa application fee, and undergo another interview by consular officials, unless the interview is waived.4 The information updates provided through the visa re-application process include basic biographical and eligibility elements that can change over time (e.g., address, name, employment, criminal history).

3 To determine the validity period of a specific visa category for a given country, a nonimmigrant alien will need to consult the reciprocity schedule for the country that issued his or her passport at www.travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/fees/reciprocity-by-country.html.

4 The visa interview can be waived in certain circumstances, including for renewals that meet specific requirements. See INA 222(h)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1202(h)(1)(B); 9 FAM 403.5-4(A), available at https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM040305.html.

Visa validity periods can vary considerably, and some visas are valid for extended periods of up to ten years, and often for multiple entries. Frequent travelers to the United States who hold visas with short validity periods have to reapply more frequently than those who hold visas with longer validity periods. While visas with a longer validity period provide an opportunity for individuals to travel to the United States with greater ease, they do not enable the U.S. Government to receive regularly updated biographic and other information from repeat visitors who travel to the United States multiple times over the span of the visa. As such, aliens traveling on these visas with longer validity periods are screened using traveler information that is not as recent as for aliens who must obtain visas more frequently.

Because changes to biographical and eligibility elements could impact whether an individual may be admissible to the United States, it would be beneficial to have a mechanism for obtaining this updated information in advance of the individual's travel to the United States when the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that it is warranted with respect to a given country and nonimmigrant visa category. Having a means for regularly collecting updated information, before the alien embarks on travel to the United States and without requiring aliens to apply for a visa on a more frequent basis, would be valuable in contributing to a robust traveler screening and verification process and would cut down on the number of visa holders who are found inadmissible at ports of entry.5

5 Consistent with other DHS regulations, the term “port of entry” includes preclearance or immigration preinspection, which are CBP facilities in a foreign location where immigration preinspection, among other things, occurs prior to travel to the United States. See INA 235A, 8 U.S.C. 1225a; 8 CFR 235.5.

Given these concerns and considerations, DHS has developed the Electronic Visa Update System (“EVUS”), which provides a mechanism through which information updates can be obtained from nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. EVUS will provide for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing DHS to identify subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry. EVUS will aid DHS in facilitating legitimate travel while also ensuring public safety and national security.

In this final rule, DHS is amending its regulations to establish EVUS. In a parallel rule, “Visa Information Update Requirements under the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)” (RIN 1400-AD93) (hereinafter “DOS's EVUS Rule”), also published in this Federal Register, DOS is amending its regulations to provide for the automatic provisional revocation of visas held by nonimmigrant aliens subject to the EVUS requirements for failure to comply with those requirements.

DHS and DOS anticipate that EVUS may eventually be expanded to include a number of countries and visa categories. However, as announced in a separate notice being published in this issue of the Federal Register, the program will initially be limited to nonimmigrant aliens who hold unrestricted, maximum validity B-1 (business visitor), B-2 (visitor for pleasure), or combination B-1/B-2 visas, which are generally valid for 10 years,6 contained in a passport issued by the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).7

6 This includes visas issued for more than nine years and all replacement visas issued to correct errors in the original instance.

7 B category visas are considered “visitor visas.” Visitor visas are nonimmigrant visas for individuals seeking admission to the United States temporarily for business (visa category B-1), tourism or pleasure, (visa category B-2), or a combination of both purposes (visa category B-1/B-2). Maximum validity for B category visas contained in a passport issued by the People's Republic of China, is generally ten years, but includes visas issued for more than nine years and all replacement visas issued to correct errors in the original visa.

B. Legal Authority

DHS and DOS are establishing EVUS primarily under the authorities granted in INA sections 103 (8 U.S.C. 1103), 214 (8 U.S.C. 1184), 215 (8 U.S.C. 1185), and 221 (8 U.S.C. 1201); and sections 402(4) and 428(b) of the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”), 6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236(b). Section 221(a)(1)(B) of the INA authorizes DOS to issue nonimmigrant visas to foreign nationals. Section 221(c) provides that “[a] nonimmigrant visa shall be valid for such periods as shall be by regulations prescribed,” and section 221(i) authorizes the Secretary of State to revoke visas at any time in his or her discretion. See also 22 CFR 41.122. Section 214(a)(1) of the INA authorizes DHS to establish by regulation conditions for a nonimmigrant alien's admission to the United States, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1); and section 215(a)(1) provides DHS with authority to set reasonable rules restricting aliens' entry into and departure from the United States.8 8 U.S.C. 1185(a)(1). Section 103(a) of the INA authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to administer and enforce the INA and other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, and to establish such regulations as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a). Sections 402(4) and 428(b) of the HSA generally confers upon the Secretary the authority to establish and administer rules governing the granting of visas. 6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236(b).

8See supra note 1.

These broad authorities allow DHS to set conditions for admission or entry into the United States and DOS to revoke visas subject to the fulfillment of these conditions. Together, these authorities allow DHS to establish an electronic visa information update system to collect periodic biographic and other updates and for DOS to provisionally revoke a nonimmigrant alien's visa for failure to meet DHS's conditions for admission or entry as outlined in the EVUS regulations set forth in this final rule and the companion DOS rulemaking.

Through the issuance of these regulations outlined below, DHS is conditioning the admission or entry of nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category on compliance with EVUS. Through the issuance of DOS's rule on EVUS, as specified in 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), failure to comply with this condition triggers the automatic provisional revocation of the regulated individual's visa, which will prevent travel to the United States on that visa. Once the visa holder successfully enrolls in EVUS, the provisional revocation will be automatically reversed and the visa will be valid for travel to the United States. See DOS's EVUS Rule.

C. Amendments to the DHS Regulations To Establish the Electronic Visa Update System

This rule amends 8 CFR by renaming part 215 “Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States; Electronic Visa Update System,” placing the existing §§ 215.1 through 215.9 into a subpart A entitled “Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States” and adding new sections in a subpart B, entitled “Electronic Visa Update System.” New subpart B describes the purpose of EVUS, who it applies to, and its requirements. It also contains definitions that apply throughout that subpart.

As provided in part 215, subpart B, EVUS is an online information update system that requires nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category to provide information updates through periodic EVUS enrollment. The Secretary will identify countries (“EVUS countries”) whose passport holders will be subject to the EVUS regulations and designate applicable visa categories. This regulation would potentially apply to both single and multiple use visas. Notice of identified countries and designated visa categories will be published in the Federal Register. A nonimmigrant alien who holds a passport issued by an EVUS country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category is referred to in part 215, subpart B, as a “covered alien.” Each covered alien must comply with EVUS in order to ensure the continued validity of his or her visa. A covered alien will not be allowed to board an air or sea carrier destined for the United States unless he or she complies with EVUS. Failure to enroll in EVUS according to the regulations will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the individual's visa pursuant to DOS's regulations in 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3). See DOS's EVUS Rule.

1. Enrollment in EVUS

To enroll in EVUS, the covered alien must go online to www.EVUS.gov and provide truthful, accurate, and complete responses to all of the required questions. At this time, the EVUS enrollment may be completed by the covered alien or by a third party, such as a friend, relative, or travel industry professional, at the direction of the covered alien. The third party may submit the required information on the alien's behalf, although the alien is responsible for the truthfulness and accuracy of all information submitted.

After the enrollment information is submitted, the submitter will receive an electronic status message on the EVUS enrollment Web site stating “enrolled,” “pending,” “unsuccessful,” or “The State Department has revoked your visa.” The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) anticipates that each EVUS enrollment attempt will be adjudicated within 72 hours of submission, although most results will be received shortly after submission. An “enrolled” message indicates that the submission was successful and that the covered alien has a valid notification of compliance. For more details, see the section below, “Notification of Compliance.” If a “pending” message is received, the alien will need to return to the Web site at a later time to verify successful enrollment.

In some circumstances, the submitter may receive an “unsuccessful” message. This may occur for reasons including, but not limited to, the alien's failure to provide adequate responses to the EVUS questions, the alien's attempt to use an invalid passport or visa, such as an expired document or one reported lost or stolen, or irreconcilable errors discovered relating to the information the alien provided as part of an attempted EVUS enrollment. An unsuccessful EVUS enrollment after November 29, 2016 means that the covered alien's visa will be automatically provisionally revoked. An unsuccessful enrollment does not cause the underlying visa to be permanently revoked. A covered alien may reattempt enrollment any number of times, subsequent to receiving an “unsuccessful” message.

If the submitter receives a message stating that “The State Department has revoked your visa,” the submitter will not be permitted to travel to the United States on that visa until a new visa application has been submitted to DOS, a new visa has been issued, and the submitter has successfully enrolled in EVUS based on his or her new visa.

2. Notification of Compliance

Upon successful enrollment in EVUS, CBP will issue a notification of compliance to the covered alien. In most cases, this notification of compliance will be issued immediately, appearing on the next page of the EVUS Web site after submission of the EVUS enrollment information. CBP will not send an email or letter to the alien notifying them of their enrollment status. It is the alien's responsibility to verify whether he or she has a valid notification of compliance. The alien can do this by returning to the EVUS Web site and following the instructions provided there.

The notification of compliance is a positive determination that the individual's visa is not automatically provisionally revoked and is considered valid for travel to the United States as of the time of the notification. See DOS's EVUS Rule; see also 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3).

As explained in the section below, “Duration of Notification of Compliance,” as a general rule, a notification of compliance is valid for a period of two years. For immigration purposes, a covered alien may travel to the United States repeatedly using the same notification of compliance, as long as the notification of compliance and the underlying visa remain valid.

3. EVUS in the Context of Travel to the United States

When a covered alien seeks to board a commercial aircraft or vessel carrier for travel to a U.S. air or sea port of entry, the carrier will verify that the traveler has a valid notification of compliance before allowing the alien to board. When a covered alien arrives at a U.S. land port of entry, the CBP officer at the port of entry will verify that the traveler has a valid notification of compliance before conducting further assessment on the admissibility of the traveler.

A notification of compliance only allows a covered alien to board a conveyance for travel to a U.S. air or sea port of entry, or to apply for admission at a land port of entry. It does not restrict, limit, or otherwise affect the authority of CBP officers to determine an alien's admissibility to the United States during inspection at a port of entry or the respective authorities of DHS and DOS to refuse or revoke a nonimmigrant visa.

4. Validity Period of Notification of Compliance

As a general rule, a notification of compliance will be valid for a period of two years. If a covered alien's passport or visa will expire in less than two years from the date the notification of compliance is issued, the notification will be valid only until the date of expiration of the passport or visa, whichever is sooner. Individuals who have successfully enrolled in EVUS may return to the EVUS Web site at any time to verify their EVUS status and notification of compliance expiration date.

The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may increase or decrease the notification of compliance validity period for any EVUS country. Any changes to the validity period will be done through rulemaking. The EVUS Web site will also be updated to reflect the specific duration of notification of compliance validity periods for each EVUS country.

If a covered alien does not re-enroll in EVUS before his or her notification of compliance expires, his or her visa will be automatically provisionally revoked and the alien may not travel to the United States on that visa unless or until the alien re-enrolls in EVUS and obtains a new notification of compliance. Furthermore, a notification of compliance is not valid unless the alien's passport and designated visa are also valid.

5. Schedule for EVUS Enrollment and Re-Enrollment

As explained below in more detail, EVUS requires each covered alien to initially enroll after receiving his or her designated visa and to re-enroll in the context of travel if the initial or an earlier notification of compliance is no longer valid.

a. Initial Enrollment

Following are the requirements for initial enrollment in EVUS. As explained below, as of November 29, 2016, no covered alien will be permitted to travel to the United States on a visa subject to EVUS, without a valid notification of compliance. Any covered alien who received his or her visa of a designated category prior to November 29, 2016, must initially enroll in EVUS by December 14, 2016, unless the alien intends to travel to the United States before that date. In such case, a covered alien intending to arrive at an air or sea port of entry must have a notification of compliance that is valid prior to boarding a carrier destined for travel to the United States, and an alien intending to arrive at a land port of entry must have a notification of compliance that is valid prior to application for admission.

In contrast, any covered alien who receives his or her visa of a designated category on or after November 29, 2016 must initially enroll in EVUS upon receipt of his or her visa. Enrollment upon receipt of the visa is necessary because, based on CBP's data on crossing history and visa issuance, most visitors to the United States travel within six months of visa issuance. To alleviate the reporting burden, EVUS will pre-populate the data elements that are duplicated on the visa application for recent visa issuances

Failure to initially enroll in EVUS as described above will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the covered alien's visa. The alien will not be authorized to travel to the United States on that visa unless or until the alien enrolls in EVUS and obtains a notification of compliance.

b. EVUS Re-Enrollment Prior to Travel to the United States

A covered alien must have a valid notification of compliance in order to travel to the United States on his or her visa of a designated category. To comply with this requirement, the individual must re-enroll in EVUS if his or her initial or most recent notification of compliance has expired, or will expire, prior to the following timeframes. A covered alien intending to arrive at an air or sea port of entry must have a notification of compliance that is valid prior to boarding a carrier destined for travel to the United States and that will remain valid through the date when the alien will arrive at the port of entry. A covered alien intending to arrive at a land port of entry must have a notification of compliance that is valid through the date of the alien's application for admission into the United States.

A covered alien may travel to the United States repeatedly using the same notification of compliance, as long as it remains valid through the timeframe described above and the underlying visa remains valid. If a covered alien needs a new notification of compliance in order to meet the relevant timeframe, DHS recommends that he or she re-enroll in EVUS at least 72 hours in advance of his or her intended departure to the United States.

6. Required EVUS Data Elements

The information required for EVUS enrollment is information that DHS, after consultation with DOS, has deemed necessary to evaluate whether a covered alien's travel to the United States poses a law enforcement or security risk. It includes biographical data such as name, birth date, and passport information, as well as travel information such as travel details and the alien's contact information in the United States. Covered aliens must also answer eligibility questions regarding, for example: Infection with communicable diseases of public health significance, existence of arrests or convictions for certain crimes, and past history of visa or admission denial.

The EVUS enrollment questions will be available in multiple languages, including English and the official language(s) of the covered alien's EVUS country. Although the covered alien must provide responses to most of the data elements in English, some of the information, such as the alien's name and address, can or must also be provided in the official language(s) of the alien's EVUS country.

The information submitted by the alien will be checked by DHS against all appropriate databases, including, but not limited to, lost and stolen passport databases and appropriate watchlists.

7. Events Requiring EVUS Re-Enrollment

Covered aliens must re-enroll in EVUS and obtain a new notification of compliance if any of the following occur:

(a) The alien is issued a new passport or new nonimmigrant visa of a designated category;

(b) The alien changes his or her name;

(c) The alien changes his or her gender;

(d) There is any change to the alien's country of citizenship or nationality, including becoming a dual national; or

(e) The circumstances underlying the alien's previous responses to any of the EVUS enrollment questions requiring a “yes” or “no” response (eligibility questions) have changed.

8. Noncompliance, Expiration of Notification of Compliance, and Change in EVUS Status Resulting in Rescission of Notification of Compliance

An individual subject to the EVUS requirements must take affirmative actions to ensure and maintain the validity of his or her visa, pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3). Failure to initially enroll in EVUS as described above will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the covered alien's visa. Furthermore, once a covered alien's notification of compliance has expired, his or her visa will be automatically provisionally revoked. In order to prevent the automatic provisional revocation of his or her visa, or to re-instate the validity of the visa after it has been provisionally revoked in these circumstances, the alien must successfully enroll or re-enroll in EVUS and obtain a valid notification of compliance.

In the event that a covered alien's EVUS enrollment is unsuccessful, his or her visa will also be automatically provisionally revoked. Under these circumstances, the alien may re-attempt enrollment or contact CBP for further guidance. Additionally, in the event that irreconcilable errors are discovered after the issuance of a notification of compliance, or other circumstances occur, such as a change in the validity period of the notification of compliance, CBP may rescind the notification of compliance.9 If a covered alien's notification of compliance is rescinded, his or her visa will be automatically provisionally revoked. In this circumstance, the alien may re-attempt enrollment or contact CBP for further guidance.

9 CBP will send an email to the address provided during enrollment to attempt to notify the covered alien about the rescission of his or her notification of compliance.

For more information on the automatic provisional revocation of visas in the context of EVUS, please see DOS's EVUS rule.

D. Other Amendments to the DHS Regulations To Reference EVUS

In establishing EVUS, several other sections of the DHS regulations must be amended to reference the new part 215, subpart B, of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). Section 212.1 (“Documentary Requirements for Nonimmigrants”) is being revised to specify that when presenting documents for admission, the nonimmigrant alien's visa must meet the requirements of part 215, subpart B, if applicable. Section 212.1 is also being revised to remove the phrase “valid for the period set forth in section 212(a)(26) of this Act” as a descriptor of the passport an alien must present upon application for admission. That section of the INA no longer exists, making the reference obsolete. Section 214.1(a)(3) (“Requirements for Admission, Extension, and Maintenance of Status”) is being revised to note that an alien's admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant is now conditioned on compliance with part 215, subpart B, if applicable.

Lastly, § 273.3, regarding screening procedures, is also being revised to reflect EVUS requirements. Section 273.3 lists the screening procedures that owners, operators, or agents of carriers which transport passengers to the United States must follow to be eligible to apply for a reduction, refund, or waiver of fines imposed under section 273 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1323, for bringing aliens to the United States without the required travel documents. Section 273.3(b)(1) is being revised to add a new paragraph that specifies that carrier personnel, when screening passengers prior to boarding, should ensure that covered aliens have complied with EVUS as appropriate. Additionally, a new § 273.3(b)(4) is being added to address the procedures that carriers should follow to ensure that a covered alien has a valid notification of compliance before allowing him or her to board. This provision specifies that carriers should transmit the visa number of any passenger who requires a visa. The carrier should transmit this information using the Advance Passenger Information System (“APIS”).10 CBP will then use the visa number to ascertain whether the alien requires a notification of compliance with EVUS and if so, whether the alien has a valid notification of compliance. CBP will relay this information back to the carrier, and the carrier should use this information in determining whether to board the passenger.

10 This provision does not create a new APIS requirement, it only provides that carriers use the APIS system to transmit the visa information.

E. Compliance Dates and Early Enrollment Period for EVUS

As provided in § 215.24(c), covered aliens must initially enroll in EVUS as early as November 29, 2016, depending on the date on which the alien received his or her visa of a designated category and on his or her specific plans to travel to the United States. As of November 29, 2016, no covered alien will be authorized to travel to the United States on his or her visa of a designated category unless or until the alien enrolls in EVUS and obtains a notification of compliance.

As of the effective date of this rule, CBP will allow covered aliens to voluntarily enroll in EVUS prior to the mandatory compliance dates. This will allow covered aliens to familiarize themselves with the online tool and to meet the update requirements associated with EVUS well in advance of the mandatory compliance dates. A notification of compliance received during the early enrollment period will generally be valid for two years from the date of issuance, subject to the same limitations as notifications of compliance received after the mandatory compliance dates as provided in § 215.24(b).

The compliance date for the new requirements set forth in § 273.3, regarding carriers' screening procedures, is November 29, 2016.

III. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act

This final rule is excluded from the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 as a foreign affairs function of the United States because it advances the President's foreign policy goals regarding the issuance of visas, involves a diplomatic arrangement with another country regarding reciprocal changes to temporary visitor for business and pleasure, student, and exchange visitor visas, and directly involves relationships between the United States and its alien visitors. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). This determination was reached after consultation with DOS, which is also asserting the foreign affairs function exception in their parallel rule. Accordingly, DHS is not required to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment before implementing the requirements under this final rule.

B. Congressional Review Act

Under the Congressional Review Act, a rule that is likely to result in an annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100,000,000 or more is considered a major rule. See 5 U.S.C. 804. Generally, the effective date of a major rule must be the later of these two dates: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, or 60 days after delivery of the report to Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). DHS has concluded in section III.E that this rule is likely to result in an annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100,000,000 or more. Therefore, it meets the criteria for a major rule. However, as provided in 5 U.S.C. 808, notwithstanding section 801, any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement or reasons therefor) that notice and public procedure thereon are impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. As discussed below, DHS finds for good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are impractical and contrary to the public interest.

This rule improves the security of issuing certain visas with longer validity periods to nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country. By requiring covered aliens to provide regular updated biographic and other information, DHS is better positioned to obtain updated information from these individuals and to screen them before they embark on travel to the United States. Implementation of this rule as soon as possible is necessary to protect the national security of the United States and to prevent potential wrongdoers from exploiting visas with longer validity periods when they are issued to nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by a country identified by the Secretary. Therefore, DHS finds for good cause that notice and public comment are impractical and contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808 may be the date the agency determines and DHS has determined that the rule will take effect immediately upon publication, but the compliance date is November 29, 2016, or as set forth in section 215.24(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996, requires an agency to prepare and make available to the public a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions) when the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for a rule. Since a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, CBP is not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), enacted as Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 204(a) of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” A “significant intergovernmental mandate” under the UMRA is any provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that, before establishing any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of regulatory proposals. This rule would not impose a significant cost or uniquely affect small governments. The rule does have an effect on the private sector of $100,000,000 or more. This impact is discussed in section III.E. entitled “Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866.”

E. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Rules involving the foreign affairs function of the United States are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866. As discussed above, EVUS advances the President's foreign policy goals regarding the issuance of visas and directly involves relationships between the United States and its alien visitors, and as such, DHS is of the opinion that this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. However, DHS has nevertheless reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. DHS has prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts of this final rule for public awareness. A summary of the analysis is presented below. The complete analysis can be found in the public docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.

1. Purpose of Rule

Visa validity periods can vary considerably, and some visas are valid for extended periods of up to ten years, and often for multiple entries. Although these longer-term visas allow individuals to travel repeatedly to the United States with greater ease and at lower cost, they do not enable the U.S. Government to receive regular information about the travelers that could impact whether they are admissible to the United States over the entire span of the visa. Because changes to biographical and eligibility elements could impact whether an individual may be admissible to the United States, it would be beneficial to have a mechanism for obtaining this updated information in advance of the individual's travel to the United States when the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that it is warranted with respect to a given country and nonimmigrant visa category. To maintain the needed levels of security when granting longer-term visas, this rule and a corresponding DOS rule will establish EVUS, an electronic mechanism for collecting biographical and other information from nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. Nonimmigrant aliens subject to these regulations (“covered aliens”) must periodically submit up-to-date biographical and other information through an EVUS enrollment request and receive an electronic notification of compliance indicating successful enrollment in advance of travel or admission to the United States. Failure to comply with EVUS will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the covered alien's visa, rendering the covered alien inadmissible to the United States on that visa and barring travel (by air and sea) on that visa until certain requirements are met. Air and sea carriers that offer travel to the United States will be responsible for verifying the EVUS compliance statuses of covered aliens, a condition of visa validity and admissibility, prior to boarding. CBP will continually screen covered aliens with EVUS notifications of compliance, thus providing more frequent enhanced traveler screening than short-term visas provide. This continual screening will ensure that aliens continue to meet U.S. security and admission requirements throughout the validity period of their EVUS notification of compliance and visa.

CBP and DOS anticipate that EVUS may eventually be expanded to include a number of countries and nonimmigrant visa categories. However, as announced in the notice being published in this issue of the Federal Register, the program will initially be limited to nonimmigrant aliens holding unrestricted, maximum validity B-1 (business visitor), B-2 (visitor for pleasure), or combination B-1/B-2 visas contained in a passport issued by the People's Republic of China. The following regulatory impact analysis summary and its corresponding full analysis present the costs and benefits of EVUS in two ways: (1) On a per-alien and per-carrier basis and (2) on an aggregate basis for the population of covered aliens initially required to enroll in EVUS—nonimmigrant aliens holding unrestricted, maximum validity B-1, B-2, or B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visas contained in a passport issued by the PRC and who seek travel to the United States. When analyzing these impacts of the rule, CBP does so against a baseline in which DOS issues one-year B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas. CBP analyzes the impact of EVUS on a one-year basis because the United States and the PRC agreed to longer-length visa issuances on the condition of EVUS's forthcoming implementation. To the extent that DHS/CBP and DOS expand EVUS to other countries and visa categories, the impacts of EVUS outlined in this analysis would be higher. CBP also anticipates that currently proposed U.S. legislation establishing an $8.00 EVUS fee will pass in FY 2017.11 12 Such fee legislation would require covered aliens to pay an $8.00 EVUS fee per enrollment request, while allowing CBP to cover its costs of providing and administering EVUS. CBP includes the EVUS fee revenue in this analysis as a proxy for CBP's expected costs of setting up and administering EVUS.

11See Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2017. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/budget.pdf. Accessed October 3, 2016.

12 A detailed study on the EVUS fee calculation, which serves as the basis of the fee proposed in legislation, is available in the public docket for the EVUS rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.

2. Population Affected by Rule

This EVUS rule will impact covered aliens, air and sea carriers, CBP, and the public.13 Due to a myriad of factors that affect travel, CBP used three different projection methods to estimate the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule—PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visa holders—over a 10-year period of analysis spanning from fiscal years (FYs) 2017 to 2026. Under CBP's primary estimation method, EVUS enrollment requests will measure 56.9 million during the period of analysis, with 56.9 million successful enrollments and about 2,100 unsuccessful enrollments (see Table 1).

13 For the purposes of this analysis, the public includes U.S. residents and visitors.

Table 1—Projected Numbers of EVUS Enrollment Requests [In millions] Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total Method 1 (Primary Estimate)—With Rule Total EVUS Requests 3.6 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.4 9.6 10.5 56.9 Successful 3.6 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.4 9.6 10.5 56.9 Unsuccessful 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0021 Method 2—With Rule Total EVUS Requests 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 8.5 9.2 51.6 Successful 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 8.5 9.2 51.6 Unsuccessful 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0019 Method 3—With Rule Total EVUS Requests 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.4 10.8 12.0 63.4 Successful 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.4 10.8 12.0 63.3 Unsuccessful 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004 0.0023 Notes: The estimates in this table are contingent upon CBP's expectations of the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule. Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.

On account of this rule's longer-term visas, PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visa holders will be able to renew their visas on a less frequent basis. In fact, based on coordination with DOS, CBP estimates that DOS will issue 8.5 million fewer B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas to nonimmigrant aliens holding passports issued by the PRC over the period of analysis with EVUS's implementation according to CBP's primary estimation method (see Table 2).

Table 2—Projected Numbers of PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visas Issuances With and Without Rule [In millions] Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total Method 1 (Primary Estimate) Without Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.7 5.6 6.7 8.0 9.5 11.3 58.5 With Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.6 5.1 5.7 8.5 9.3 50.0 Difference −0.2 −0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.3 1.0 2.0 8.5 Method 2 Without Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.8 6.8 7.9 9.2 50.4 With Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.9 7.6 8.2 45.3 Difference −0.3 −0.3 −0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.3 1.1 5.1 Method 3 Without Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.5 3.0 3.6 4.4 5.3 6.5 7.8 9.4 11.4 13.8 67.9 With Rule—Total PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visa Issuances 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.8 6.6 9.6 10.7 55.7 Difference −0.2 −0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.1 12.2 Note: Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.

Because this rule presents a new traveler eligibility check for U.S. travel, carriers that offer travel to the United States will need to modify their APIS systems to allow for EVUS compliance verifications. Based on its similar carrier requirements to the ESTA Air and Sea Final Rule, CBP believes that this rule will initially require 80 carriers to modify their APIS systems to confirm their passengers' compliance with EVUS.14 In addition to covered aliens and carriers, this rule will affect CBP and the public. EVUS's continual traveler screening and advance inadmissibility determinations will strengthen national security and facilitate legitimate travel, providing important benefits to CBP and the public.

14See 80 FR 32267 (June 8, 2015). This rule will apply to any carrier transporting PRC passport holders, which is likely to be the same as the carriers that transport VWP travelers. To the extent that the number of carriers affected by this rule is an overestimate, the costs of this rule would be lower.

3. Costs of Rule

Covered aliens, CBP, and air and sea carriers will bear all the direct costs of this rule. As stated earlier, this EVUS rule will require covered aliens to periodically submit up-to-date biographical and other information through an EVUS enrollment request and receive a notification of compliance indicating successful enrollment in advance of travel or admission to the United States. Each EVUS enrollment request will take a covered alien an estimated 25 minutes to complete, at an opportunity cost of $19.21 per request.15 CBP expects to sustain costs from providing and administering EVUS approximately equal to the $8.00 EVUS fee that CBP anticipates covered aliens will pay beginning in FY 2017. CBP also anticipates that each covered alien will incur a foreign transaction fee of $0.02 per enrollment request.16 Together, CBP and covered aliens will incur undiscounted opportunity costs and fee or government administration costs totaling $27.23 per EVUS enrollment request, which will translate to an overall undiscounted cost to the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule of $1.6 billion between FY 2017 and FY 2026 under CBP's primary estimation method.

15 CBP bases this calculation on the U.S. Department of Transportation's (“DOT”) hourly time value of $46.10 for all-purpose, intercity air travelers. CBP believes that this DOT wage rate provides the best available time value for covered aliens initially affected by this rule and those affected if EVUS requirements are expanded to include a number of countries and visa categories. CBP posits that those traveling to the United States for temporary leisure or business purposes likely have higher time values and disposable income closer to the DOT rate than reflected by the average wage rate of individuals in their country. CBP acknowledges that this rate may not be entirely representative of the initial population affected by this rule. To the extent that the DOT rate is an overestimate, the costs and benefits of this rule would be lower. CBP adjusted the DOT estimate reported in 2013 U.S. dollars to 2017 U.S. dollars by applying a 1.0 percent annual growth rate to the estimate, as recommended by DOT's value of travel time guidance. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Policy. The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2015 Update). “Table 4 (Revision 2—corrected): Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings for All-Purpose, Intercity Air and High-Speed Rail Travel” (Apr. 29, 2015), available at http://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Revised%20Departmental%20Guidance%20on%20Valuation%20of%20Travel%20Time%20in%20Economic%20Analysis.pdf.

16 This $0.02 foreign transaction fee is based on the fee charged by Unionpay, China's largest bank card provider.

CBP estimates that air and sea carriers will each spend an average of $1.35 million during this rule's first year of implementation to test and modify their APIS systems to allow for EVUS compliance checks, and $150,000 in subsequent years on system operation and maintenance related to EVUS verifications. During the 10-year period of analysis, these costs will total $2.7 million (undiscounted). Using the number of carriers initially affected by this rule and their estimated EVUS-related costs, the overall undiscounted cost of this rule to carriers will measure $216.0 million over the entire period of analysis. To the extent that carriers use their existing systems for EVUS compliance verifications, the cost of this rule to carriers will be lower.

Collectively, the undiscounted costs of this rule will total $1.8 billion under CBP's primary estimation method. In present value terms, the overall cost will equal $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion, while its annualized cost will measure $168.9 million to $173.1 million (using 7 and 3 percent discount rates, respectively; see Table 3). These costs vary according to the projection method and discount rate applied.

Table 3—Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Costs of Rule, FY 2017-FY 2026 [In millions; 2017 U.S. dollars] 3% Discount rate Present value
  • cost
  • Annualized
  • cost
  • 7% Discount rate Present value
  • cost
  • Annualized
  • cost
  • Method 1 (Primary Estimate)—With Rule $1,520.9 $173.1 $1,269.7 $168.9 Method 2—With Rule 1,401.7 159.5 1,176.1 156.5 Method 3—With Rule 1,665.0 189.5 1,383.0 184.0 Note: The estimates in this table are contingent upon CBP's expectations of the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule and the discount rates applied.
    4. Benefits of Rule

    This rule will offer benefits to covered aliens, the public, air and sea carriers, and CBP, with covered aliens enjoying the most monetized benefits from this rule. The lengthened visa validity periods negotiated based on implementation of this rule will allow PRC B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visa holders to renew their visas on a less frequent basis in the future, saving covered aliens $430.50 per visa renewal foregone and a total of $3.6 billion (undiscounted) over the period of analysis according to this rule's decrease in visa issuances under CBP's primary estimation method (see Table 2).

    Through its continual traveler screening and advance inadmissibility determinations, this rule will strengthen national security and facilitate legitimate travel, thereby providing important benefits to the public. Air and sea carriers and CBP will also enjoy benefits from EVUS's advance review of passengers to help avoid problems at ports of entry that could impose burdens on carriers. Each carrier will save an estimated $1,500 in avoided return trip costs per unsuccessful EVUS enrollment.17 Such savings will total $3.1 million (undiscounted) over the entire period of analysis based on the number of unsuccessful EVUS enrollments under CBP's primary estimation method (see Table 1). With an estimated 80 carriers initially affected by this rule, these benefits will average nearly $39,000 per carrier. For each inadmissible covered alien arrival avoided, CBP will save $170.94 in avoided processing and inspection time costs. Based on these processing and inspection time cost savings and the total number of potentially inadmissible covered alien arrivals avoided through the EVUS enrollment process, under CBP's primary estimation method (see Table 1—Unsuccessful EVUS Requests), CBP will save between $325,000 and $392,000 (undiscounted) with this rule from FY 2017 to FY 2026. Note that these are not budgetary savings, they are savings that CBP will dedicate to other agency mission areas, such as improving security and expediting the processing of other travelers.

    17 This cost includes the airfare and any lodging and meal expenses incurred while the alien awaits transportation out of the United States. See 80 FR 32267 (June 8, 2015).

    Altogether, the undiscounted monetized benefit of this rule will total $3.7 billion under CBP's primary estimation method. As Table 4 shows, the total benefit of this rule under this method will measure $2.3 billion to $3.0 billion in present value terms over the period of analysis and between $299.6 million and $336.3 million when annualized (using 7 and 3 percent discount rates, respectively). EVUS will also strengthen national security and facilitate legitimate travel. These benefits vary according to the projection method and discount rate applied.

    Table 4—Total Monetized Present Value and Annualized Benefits of Rule, FY 2017-FY 2026 [In millions; 2017 U.S. dollars] 3% Discount rate Present value
  • benefit
  • Annualized
  • benefit
  • 7% Discount rate Present value
  • benefit
  • Annualized
  • benefit
  • Method 1 (Primary Estimate)—With Rule $2,955.1 $336.3 $2,251.5 $299.6 Method 2—With Rule 1,749.3 199.1 1,305.8 173.8 Method 3—With Rule 4,254.3 484.2 3,260.4 433.8 Note: The estimates in this table are contingent upon CBP's expectations of the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule and the discount rates applied.
    5. Net Impact of Rule

    Table 5 summarizes the monetized and non-monetized costs and benefits of the EVUS rule, covered aliens, the public, air and sea carriers, and CBP. As shown, the total monetized present value net benefit of this rule over ten years is $981.8 million to $1.4 billion, while its annualized net benefit totals $130.6 million to $163.2 million according to CBP's primary estimation method (using 7 and 3 percent discount rates, respectively). In addition to these benefits, the rule will strengthen national security and facilitate legitimate travel through continual traveler screening and advance inadmissibility determinations. These impacts vary according to the projection method and discount rate applied.

    Table 5—Net Benefit of Rule, FY 2017-FY 2026 [Monetized values in millions; 2017 U.S. dollars] 3% Discount rate Present value Annualized 7% Discount rate Present value Annualized Method 1 (Primary Estimate)—With Rule: Total Cost: Monetized $1,520.9 $173.1 $1,269.7 $168.9. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Total Benefit: Monetized $2,955.1 $336.3 $2,251.5 $299.6. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation. Total Net Benefit: Monetized $1,434.2 $163.2 $981.8 $130.6. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation. Method 2—With Rule: Total Cost: Monetized $1,401.7 $159.5 $1,176.1 $156.5. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Total Benefit: Monetized $1,749.3 $199.1 $1,305.8 $173.8. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation. Total Net Benefit: Monetized $347.6 $39.6 $129.7 $17.3. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation. Method 3—With Rule: Total Cost: Monetized $1,665.0 $189.5 $1,383.0 $184.0. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Total Benefit: Monetized $4,254.3 $484.2 $3,260.4 $433.8. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation. Total Net Benefit: Monetized $2,589.3 $294.7 $1,877.4 $249.8. Non-Monetized, but Quantified Non-Monetized
  • and Non-Quantified
  • Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation Strengthened national security and legitimate travel facilitation.
    Notes: The estimates in this table are contingent upon CBP's expectations of the population of covered aliens initially affected by this rule and the discount rates applied. Estimates may not sum to total due to rounding.
    F. Executive Order 13132

    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, DHS has determined that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    G. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Executive Order 12988 requires agencies to conduct reviews on civil justice and litigation impact issues before proposing legislation or issuing proposed regulations. The order requires agencies to exert reasonable efforts to ensure that the regulation identifies clearly preemptive effects, effects on existing federal laws or regulations, identifies any retroactive effects of the regulation, and other matters. DHS has determined that this regulation meets the requirements of Executive Order 12988 because it does not involve retroactive effects, preemptive effects, or the other matters addressed in the Executive Order.

    H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information in this document was submitted to OMB for review in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507). Approval and assigned OMB control number are pending. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. These regulations provide for a new collection of information for biographic and other information from nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. Nonimmigrant aliens subject to this regulation will be required to periodically enroll in EVUS and obtain a valid notification of compliance prior to travel to the United States. DHS will use the information collected through EVUS to identify subjects of potential interest before they depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry. EVUS will aid DHS in facilitating legitimate travel while also ensuring national security.

    The proposed information collection requirements will result in the following estimated burden hours:

    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 3,595,904.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 3,595,904.

    Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes (0.417 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,499,492.

    I. Privacy

    DHS will ensure that all Privacy Act requirements and policies are adhered to in the implementation of this rule and has issued a Privacy Impact Assessment that fully outlines processes that will ensure compliance with Privacy Act protections. This Privacy Impact Assessment is posted on the DHS Web site at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhscbppia-033-electronic-visa-update-system-evus. DHS has also prepared a System of Records Notice (SORN) which was published in the Federal Register on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60371).

    List of Subjects 8 CFR Part 212

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange programs, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.

    8 CFR part 215

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Travel restrictions.

    8 CFR Part 273

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Aliens, Maritime carriers, Penalties.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we are amending 8 CFR parts 212, 214, 215, and 273 as set forth below.

    PART 212—DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE 1. The general authority citation for part 212 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458); 8 CFR part 2.

    § 212.1 [Amended]
    2. In § 212.1, in the introductory text, after the word “visa” add the words “that meets the requirements of part 215, subpart B, of this chapter, if applicable,” and remove the words “, valid for the period set forth in section 212(a)(26) of the Act,” after the word “passport”. PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 3. The authority citation for part 214 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.

    § 214.1 [Amended]
    4. In § 214.1, paragraph (a)(3)(i), third sentence, after the words “or of this chapter” add the words “, as well as compliance with part 215, subpart B, of this chapter, if applicable”. PART 215—CONTROLS OF ALIENS DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES; ELECTRONIC VISA UPDATE SYSTEM 5. The authority citation for part 215 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 202(4), 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1104, 1184, 1185 (pursuant to Executive Order 13323 (Dec. 30, 2003)), 1365a note, 1379, 1731-32; and 8 CFR part 2.

    6. Revise the heading for part 215 to read as set forth above.
    §§ 215.1 through 215.9 [Designated as Subpart A]
    7. Designate §§ 215.1 through 215.9 as subpart A and add a heading for subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Controls of Aliens Departing from the United States
    § 215.1 [Amended]
    8. In § 215.1, amend the introductory text by removing the word “part” and adding in its place the word “subpart”. 9. Add subpart B to read as follows: Subpart B—Electronic Visa Update System Sec. 215.21 Purpose. 215.22 Applicability. 215.23 Definitions. 215.24 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) requirements.
    § 215.21 Purpose.

    The purpose of this subpart is to establish an electronic visa update system for nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category.

    § 215.22 Applicability.

    This subpart is applicable to nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. The Secretary, in the Secretary's discretion and in consultation with the Secretary of State, may identify countries and designate nonimmigrant visa categories for purposes of this subpart. Notice of the identified countries and designated nonimmigrant visa categories will be published in the Federal Register.

    § 215.23 Definitions.

    The following definitions apply for purposes of this subpart.

    (a) Covered alien. A covered alien is a nonimmigrant alien who holds a passport issued by an EVUS country (as defined in paragraph (c) of this section) containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category.

    (b) Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS). The Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) is the electronic system used by a covered alien to provide required information to DHS after the receipt of his or her visa of a designated category.

    (c) EVUS country. An EVUS country is a country that has been identified for inclusion in EVUS, through publication of a notice in the Federal Register, by the Secretary after consultation with the Secretary of State.

    (d) Notification of compliance. A notification of compliance is a verification from CBP that a covered alien has successfully enrolled in EVUS. A notification of compliance is a positive determination that an alien's visa is:

    (1) Not automatically provisionally revoked pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3); and

    (2) Is considered valid for travel to the United States as of the time of notification.

    § 215.24 Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) requirements.

    (a) Enrollment required. Each covered alien must initially enroll in EVUS, in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, by providing the information set forth in paragraph (d) of this section electronically through EVUS. Each covered alien who intends to travel to the United States must have a valid notification of compliance as set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Upon each successful enrollment or re-enrollment, CBP will issue a notification of compliance.

    (b) Validity period of notification of compliance—(1) General validity period. A notification of compliance will generally be valid for a period of two years from the date the notification of compliance is issued, except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) or (3) of this section.

    (2) Exception. If the nonimmigrant alien's passport or nonimmigrant visa will expire in less than two years from the date the notification of compliance is issued, the notification will be valid until the date of expiration of the passport or nonimmigrant visa, whichever is sooner.

    (3) Change in validity period of notification of compliance. The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may increase or decrease the notification of compliance validity period otherwise authorized by paragraph (b)(1) of this section for an EVUS country. Any such increase or decrease would apply to subsequently issued notifications of compliance. Any changes to the validity period will be done through rulemaking. The EVUS Web site will be updated to reflect the specific duration of notification of compliance validity periods for each EVUS country.

    (4) Relation to nonimmigrant visa validity. A notification of compliance is not valid unless the alien's nonimmigrant visa also is valid.

    (c) Schedule for EVUS enrollment—(1) Initial EVUS enrollment—(i) Visas received prior to November 29, 2016. Each covered alien who received his or her nonimmigrant visa of a designated category prior to November 29, 2016 must initially enroll in EVUS by December 14, 2016, unless the covered alien intends to travel to the United States before that date, in which case the requirements for EVUS enrollment outlined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section apply.

    (ii) Visas received on or after November 29, 2016. Each covered alien who received his or her nonimmigrant visa of a designated category on or after November 29, 2016 must initially enroll in EVUS upon receipt of such visa.

    (2) EVUS re-enrollment requirements prior to travel to the United States—(i) Individuals arriving at air or sea ports of entry. Each covered alien who intends to travel by air or sea to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa of a designated category must have a notification of compliance that is valid, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, prior to boarding a carrier destined for travel to the United States through the date when the covered alien will arrive at a U.S. port of entry.

    (ii) Individuals arriving at land ports of entry. Each covered alien who intends to travel by land to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa of a designated category must have a notification of compliance that is valid, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, through the date of application for admission to the United States.

    (d) Required EVUS enrollment elements. DHS will collect such information from covered aliens as DHS deems necessary in its discretion, after consultation with the Department of State. The required information will be reflected in the EVUS enrollment questions.

    (e) EVUS re-enrollment required. Each covered alien must re-enroll in EVUS and obtain a new notification of compliance from CBP if any of the following occurs:

    (1) The alien is issued a new passport or new nonimmigrant visa of a designated category;

    (2) The alien changes his or her name;

    (3) The alien changes his or her gender;

    (4) There is any change to the alien's country of citizenship or nationality, including becoming a dual national; or

    (5) The circumstances underlying the alien's previous responses to any of the EVUS enrollment questions requiring a “yes” or “no” response (eligibility questions) have changed.

    (f) Limitation. A notification of compliance is not a determination that the covered alien is admissible to the United States. A determination of admissibility is made after an applicant for admission is inspected by a CBP officer at a U.S. port of entry.

    (g) Noncompliance, expiration of notification of compliance, and change in EVUS status resulting in rescission of notification of compliance—(1) Initial EVUS enrollment. Failure to initially enroll in EVUS in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section will result in the automatic provisional revocation of the covered alien's nonimmigrant visa pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), pending enrollment.

    (2) Expiration of notification of compliance. Upon expiration of a notification of compliance, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, the covered alien's nonimmigrant visa will be automatically provisionally revoked pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), pending re-enrollment. To prevent the automatic provisional revocation of his or her nonimmigrant visa due to the expiration of the notification of compliance, each covered alien must re-enroll in EVUS prior to such expiration.

    (3) Unsuccessful EVUS enrollment. If a covered alien's EVUS enrollment or re-enrollment is unsuccessful, his or her nonimmigrant visa will be automatically provisionally revoked pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), pending successful enrollment or re-enrollment.

    (4) Change in EVUS status after receipt of a notification of compliance. In the event that irreconcilable errors are discovered after the issuance of a notification of compliance, or other circumstances occur including but not limited to a change in the validity period of the notification of compliance as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, CBP may rescind the notification of compliance. If a covered alien's notification of compliance is rescinded, his or her nonimmigrant visa will be automatically provisionally revoked pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), pending successful enrollment. CBP will attempt to provide notification of a change in EVUS status to the covered alien through the provided email address.

    (h) Reversal of an automatically provisionally revoked visa and steps to address an unsuccessful EVUS enrollment or rescission of a notification of compliance—(1) Reversal of an automatically provisionally revoked visa. If a covered alien's nonimmigrant visa has been automatically provisionally revoked as described in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this section, the revocation of the alien's visa will be automatically reversed, following compliance with EVUS, if the visa remains valid and was not also revoked on other grounds. After a reversal of the revocation the visa will immediately resume the validity provided for on its face, pursuant to 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3), after the alien enrolls in EVUS and receives a notification of compliance.

    (2) Unsuccessful EVUS enrollment. If a covered alien's EVUS enrollment is unsuccessful per paragraph (g)(3) of this section, the covered alien may re-attempt enrollment or contact CBP.

    (3) Rescission of notification of compliance. If a covered alien's nonimmigrant visa has been automatically provisionally revoked as described in paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the covered alien may re-attempt enrollment or contact CBP.

    PART 273—CARRIER RESPONSIBILITIES AT FOREIGN PORTS OF EMBARKATION; REDUCING, REFUNDING, OR WAIVING FINES UNDER SECTION 273 OF THE ACT 10. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    8 U.S.C. 1103, 1323; 8 CFR part 2.

    § 273.3 [Amended]
    11. Amend § 273.3 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove the word “and”; b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add in its place “; and”; and c. Add paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(4).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 273.3 Screening procedures.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) Passengers described in part 215, subpart B, of this chapter have complied with EVUS requirements as appropriate.

    (4) Transmitting visa numbers. Carriers must transmit to U.S. Customs and Border Protection the visa number for any passenger who requires a visa. The visa number must be transmitted using the Advance Passenger Information System, consistent with the procedural requirements for transmission of electronic passenger manifests in 19 CFR parts 4 (vessel) and 122 (aircraft).

    Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25321 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0005] RIN 1904-AD64 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Certain Categories of General Service Lamps AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule adopts test procedures for certain categories of general service lamps (GSLs). Specifically, this rulemaking adopts new test procedures for determining the initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power of GSLs that are not integrated light-emitting diode (LED) lamps, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), or general service incandescent lamps (GSILs). DOE also adopts clarifying references to the existing lamp test procedures and sampling plans for determining the represented values of integrated LED lamps, general service fluorescent lamps, GSILs, and incandescent reflector lamps.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this rule is November 21, 2016. The final rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting April 19, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

    A link to the docket Web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0005. The docket Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards staff at (202) 586-6636 or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected]

    Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule incorporates by reference into 10 CFR part 430 specific sections of the following industry standards:

    (1) Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, (IES) LM-9-09 (“IES LM-9-09-DD”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps.

    (2) IES LM-20-13, IES Approved Method of Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps.

    (3) IES LM-45-15, IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps.

    (4) IES LM-79-08 (“IES LM-79-08-DD”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Solid-State Lighting Products.

    Copies of IES LM-9-09-DD, IES LM-20-13, IES LM-45-15, and IES LM-79-08-DD can be obtained from Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, NY 10005-4001, or by going to www.ies.org/store.

    (5) International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 62301 (“IEC 62301-DD”), Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).

    A copy of IEC 62301 may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to http://webstore.ansi.org.

    For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M.

    Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Synopsis of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. Scope of Applicability B. Adopted Method for Determining Initial Lumen Output, Input Power, Lamp Efficacy, and Power Factor C. Adopted Method for Determining Standby Mode Power D. Laboratory Accreditation E. Represented Values, Certification, and Rounding Requirements F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference N. Congressional Notification V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; “EPCA” or, “the Act”) 1 sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” This program includes general service lamps, the subject of this final rule.

    1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) and (2) making representations about the energy use or efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

    DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on March 17, 2016, proposing energy conservation standards for general service lamps (GSLs). 81 FR 14528 (March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR). In support of the standards rulemaking, DOE has undertaken several rulemakings to amend existing test procedures and to adopt new test procedures for lamps that are GSLs. On July 1, 2016, DOE published a final rule adopting test procedures for integrated lighting-emitting diode (LED) lamps. 81 FR 43404 (July 2016 LED TP final rule). On August 29, 2016, DOE published a final rule amending test procedures for medium base compact fluorescent lamps (MBCFLs) and adopting test procedures for new metrics for all compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) including hybrid CFLs and CFLs with bases other than medium screw base. 81 FR 59386 (August 2016 CFL TP final rule).

    The March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, which is the basis for this final rule, proposed test procedures for certain categories of GSLs not currently covered under these existing test procedures. 81 FR 14632 (March 17, 2016). DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) on July 20, 2016, that revised the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR proposal by referencing Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) LM-79-08 for the testing of non-integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 47071 (July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR). This final rule adopts test procedures for certain categories of GSLs not currently covered under existing test procedures. Manufacturers of the lamps subject to this final rule will be required to use these test procedures to assess performance relative to any potential energy conservation standards the lamps must comply with in the future and for any representations of energy efficiency.

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b), EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Pursuant to this authority, DOE adopts test procedures in this final rule for certain categories of GSLs in support of the GSL standards rulemaking.

    Finally, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off mode energy must be incorporated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product unless the current test procedures already account for and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product. Id. Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 and IEC Standard 62087, as applicable. DOE has determined that GSLs can operate in standby mode but not in off mode. Consistent with EPCA's requirement, DOE addresses measurement of standby mode power in appendix DD to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as detailed in section III.C of this final rule.

    II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE adopts test procedures for determining initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power for certain categories of GSLs for which DOE does not have an existing regulatory test procedure. DOE also notes that, beginning 180 days after the publication of this final rule, representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be based on testing in accordance with the test procedure adopted in this rulemaking.

    III. Discussion A. Scope of Applicability

    GSL is defined by EPCA to include general service incandescent lamps (GSILs), CFLs, general service LED or organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lamps, and any other lamp that DOE determines is used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)) In the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to implement the statutory definition of GSL and to include in the definition any lamp that has an ANSI 2 base, operates at any voltage, has an initial lumen output of 310 lumens or greater (or 232 lumens or greater for modified spectrum GSILs), is not a light fixture, is not an LED downlight retrofit kit, and is used in general lighting applications. 81 FR 14541. In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed test procedures for certain categories of general service lamps that do not have existing DOE regulatory procedures and clarified references to the existing DOE regulatory procedures for integrated LED lamps, CFLs, and GSILs. 81 FR 14632 (March 17, 2016) As there were no new comments received on the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR regarding the scope of applicability of this rulemaking, this final rule adopts test procedures for GSLs that are not GSILs, CFLs, or integrated LED lamps.

    2 A lamp base standardized by the American National Standards Institute.

    B. Adopted Method for Determining Initial Lumen Output, Input Power, Lamp Efficacy, and Power Factor

    As described in section III.A, both the statutory definition and proposed regulatory definition of GSL cover many types of lamps using a variety of lighting technologies. For several of the included lamp types, energy conservation standards and test procedures already exist. GSILs are required to comply with the energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 430.32(x), and test procedures for these lamps are specified in appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. In a separate test procedure rulemaking, DOE recently amended the test procedures for MBCFLs and established new test procedures for all other CFLs. 81 FR 59386. The updated and new test procedures appear at appendix W to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. In addition, DOE recently adopted test procedures for integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 43404. The test procedures for integrated LED lamps are located in appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

    DOE proposed in the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR that, if DOE test procedures already exist or were proposed in an ongoing rulemaking (such as for GSILs, CFLs, and integrated LED lamps), DOE would reference those specific provisions in the GSL test procedures. For all other GSLs, DOE proposed new test procedures, intending to reference the most recently published versions of relevant industry standards. 81 FR 14633-14634. DOE proposed modifications to the test procedures for non-integrated LED lamps in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR. 81 FR 47074-47075. The following discussion summarizes those changes and comments received on the modifications to the proposed test procedures for non-integrated LED lamps.

    In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed testing non-integrated LED lamps according to the industry test standard CIE S025. 81 FR 14634. In the analysis phase of that NOPR, DOE determined that IES LM-79-08 was not intended for non-integrated LED lamps given that IES LM-79-08 states in section 1.1 that the test method covers “LED-based SSL products with control electronics and heat sinks incorporated, that is, those devices that require only AC mains power or a DC voltage power supply to operate.” Non-integrated LED lamps require external electronics; that is, the lamps are intended to connect to ballasts/drivers rather than directly to the branch circuit through an ANSI base and corresponding ANSI standard lamp holder (socket).

    However, stakeholder feedback on the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR indicated that non-integrated LED lamps are commonly tested within industry according to IES LM-79-08. Further, based on a review of manufacturer specifications and input from independent testing laboratories, DOE determined that IES LM-79-08 is the most relevant industry standard, at the present time, for testing non-integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 47074. Although most manufacturers do not publish the test method used to determine performance characteristics of non-integrated LED lamps, DOE found that for those that did, IES LM-79-08 was the test method used to measure the performance of non-integrated LED lamps. See, for example, manufacturer specifications provided by Maxlite and Eiko available in the docket at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0005. In addition, DOE contacted independent test laboratories and found that the laboratories generally used IES LM-79-08 when testing non-integrated LED lamps because, even though it does not specifically include them, the laboratories view IES LM-79-08 as the most applicable industry standard for these lamp types. 81 FR 47074. In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, DOE also preliminarily concluded that once it is determined how to supply the power to the lamp or on which ballast/driver to operate the lamp for testing, there was little difference in testing an integrated versus a non-integrated LED lamp. Further, DOE noted that some of these products had been tested and the results reported in the LED Lighting Facts database and the qualified products list for the Lighting Design Lab. Both of these organizations specify IES LM-79-08 as a test method for all included products. Id.

    Thus, upon reviewing the available information, DOE tentatively determined in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR that for the testing of non-integrated LED lamps, IES LM-79-08 was the most relevant industry standard at the time. Further, DOE reviewed IES LM-79-08 and found it appropriate for testing non-integrated LED lamps for the purpose of determining compliance with energy efficiency standards that may be applicable in the future. However, because non-integrated LED lamps are not included in the scope of the industry standard, DOE prescribed additional instruction to ensure consistent and repeatable results. Specifically, DOE found that IES LM-79-08 provided no information on which external ballast/driver or power supply to use for testing. After reviewing the approaches of independent test laboratories, DOE proposed that non-integrated LED lamps be tested according to IES LM-79-08, using the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current as the power supply. Because these metrics are typically not reported on the product packaging or in manufacturer literature, DOE also proposed revising the requirements for certification reports to include these quantities for non-integrated LED lamps. While manufacturers usually list compatible ballasts/drivers for these products, DOE noted that it is unknown with which ballast/driver these lamps may operate when installed in the field. By requiring these lamps to be tested using the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current as the power supply, DOE's approach is consistent with the industry practice of using reference ballasts for non-integrated lamps, such as non-integrated CFLs and general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs). For those products, industry standards (and DOE's test procedures) specify electrical settings for reference ballasts and each specific lamp type is tested using those same settings. Because industry had not yet developed reference ballast/driver settings for non-integrated LED lamps, DOE proposed that a manufacturer report the settings that are used, which allows for a consistent and comparable assessment of the lamp's performance. Therefore, DOE proposed the requirement that non-integrated LED lamps be tested according to IES LM-79-08, using the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current as the power supply. Id.

    DOE received comments on the proposed modifications to the test procedures for non-integrated LED lamps. Philips Lighting (Philips) agreed with DOE's reference to IES LM-79-08 for the testing of non-integrated LED lamps but with suggested modifications. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 3) 3 Specifically, Philips argued that requiring non-integrated LED lamps to be operated at the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current may create issues with non-integrated LED lamps that operate directly on an existing (i.e., already installed) ballast or with a dedicated LED driver that utilizes a pulse width modulated (PWM) output voltage. Philips suggested the following alternative wording to address the issue: “For non-integrated LED lamps, operate the lamp at the manufacturer-declared input voltage waveform and current, or using a manufacturer-declared commercial ballast.” Philips noted that the alternative wording captures any frequency that needs to be included if operated on a ballast, addresses PWM operation, and allows for the use of a specific ballast during testing. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 4)

    3 A notation in this form provides a reference for information that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures for GSLs (Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0005), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that the statement preceding the reference was made by Philips, is from document number 12 in the docket, and appears at page 3 of that document.

    DOE notes that the test procedure must produce consistent and repeatable results as well as balance testing burden. Because a ballast and/or a provided input voltage and current can affect lamp performance, specific input settings need to be identified for testing. Otherwise, manufacturers would need to test every combination of lamp voltage and current with each ballast distributed in commerce. DOE notes that the alternative wording proposed by Philips allows the lamp to be operated on a manufacturer-declared input voltage and current or using a manufacturer-declared commercial ballast; however, only one of these options should be specified to improve the consistency and repeatability of results. DOE is therefore adopting that testing be conducted at the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current. These inputs can likely be supplied by existing lab equipment and do not require the purchase of additional ballasts for testing. DOE notes that certain ballasts may be difficult to acquire or possibly contain features that affect lamp performance. DOE therefore prefers to have manufacturers specify an input voltage and current to use for testing. In their alternative wording, Philips also suggested adding “waveform” when specifying the input voltage to account for drivers that provide a PWM output voltage. DOE notes that a PWM output voltage could affect the measured performance of the lamp. PWM operation modifies the time the input signal is on versus the time it is off at a given frequency, and thereby the resulting input waveform can vary the average total input voltage. Varying the input voltage could impact the temperature and subsequently the performance of LED lamps. Therefore, test settings should be specified at one voltage and waveform so that test results for one lamp are consistent and repeatable. Rather than the manufacturer selecting this voltage and waveform, DOE is specifying, as proposed in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, that manufacturers test the lamp at the voltage and waveform present at maximum input power. This provision for testing captures the most consumptive state and also allows for performance to be more fairly compared among available products. DOE understands a PWM output voltage to be a common output of dimming ballasts/drivers. By specifying the lamp be tested at the maximum input power, DOE not only captures the most consumptive state but also allows dimmable products to be more fairly compared to products that cannot dim by operating all lamps at maximum input power (i.e., full light output). In requiring that manufacturers specify input voltage and current and operate the lamp at full light output, DOE finds that no changes to the proposed wording are necessary for the testing of non-integrated LED lamps.

    The California Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) contended that because operating non-integrated LED lamps at the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current does not account for ballast losses which can be up to several watts, the test procedure does not accurately measure system luminous efficacy. CA IOUs noted that if only lamp wattage is measured and ballast losses are not accounted for, these lamps will appear more efficient than they are in practice. CA IOUs added that the test procedure should account for the energy consumption of each component necessary for the starting and stable operation of the lamp, which includes a ballast if paired with a non-integrated LED lamp. Thus, CA IOUs recommended DOE require that manufacturers use a commercially-available reference ballast for testing non-integrated LED lamps and report to DOE the ballast utilized in testing. CA IOUs concluded that a commercially-available ballast would better approximate actual installed conditions rather than using customized testing equipment designed to achieve low power losses. (CA IOUs, No. 11 at pp. 1-2)

    As stated by CA IOUs, when testing on a commercially available ballast/driver, the losses associated with the ballast/driver would be included in the measured performance of the lamp. Including the ballast/driver losses in the measured performance of the lamp would result in a lower efficacy value (i.e., system efficacy) than when measuring the performance of the lamp using manufacturer-declared input voltage and current as the power supply. In addition, allowing testing on commercially available ballasts/drivers could generate inconsistent test results across products as lamps would not be tested using the same settings, and the performance of the lamp would be dictated by the ballast/driver it was paired with during testing. Hence, consistent test results for the same lamp would not be possible. Therefore, DOE is adopting the requirement that manufacturers operate non-integrated LED lamps during testing using the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current, and is not allowing for testing on commercially available ballast/drivers. DOE notes that although the testing of integrated lamps includes ballast/driver losses, integrated lamps can operate on only one ballast (i.e., the ballast contained within the lamp unit that cannot be removed) and therefore the inclusion of that ballast reflects typical performance. Non-integrated lamps can be commonly operated on more than one ballast/driver and therefore DOE is specifying test settings to consistently characterize the performance of the lamp. DOE also notes that the approach being adopted today for non-integrated LED lamps is comparable to DOE's regulatory approach for other non-integrated lamps (e.g., GSFLs). While DOE acknowledges there may be losses associated with the commercially available ballasts paired with non-integrated lamps, DOE is declining to adopt the recommendation of the CA IOUs at this time. DOE does not believe consumers will be confused by this difference in approach for integrated lamps and non-integrated lamps because consumers do not typically compare these two categories of products because they serve different installations. The metric reflects the performance of the product tested rather than its performance on a unique, external component, which would significantly increase the burden due to the number of lamp and ballast/driver combinations. DOE will continue to work with stakeholders to monitor the ballast/driver losses and may consider an alternative approach in a future rulemaking.

    Regarding the requirement for manufacturers to report the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current used for testing non-integrated LED lamps, Philips agreed with the proposal but noted that these settings should not be made available to the public as they do not typically appear on datasheets. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 3) DOE notes that it found some publicly available datasheets with input voltage and current listed for non-integrated LED lamps indicating that this information is not likely to be considered proprietary. See, e.g., https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0005. Additionally, publishing manufacturer-declared input voltage and current allows for comparison of performance across products. Therefore, DOE adopts the requirement in this final rule for manufacturers to include the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current used for testing in the certification reports for non-integrated LED lamps.

    In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, DOE referred to appendix R for general service incandescent lamps, to appendix BB for integrated LED lamps, to IES LM-45-15 for other incandescent lamps that are not reflector lamps, and to IES LM-79-08 for OLED lamps. DOE reviewed all references to industry standards to ensure that only necessary sections were referenced. DOE removed all references to sections describing luminous intensity and/or color measurements as these are not necessary for the metrics covered by the test procedure. DOE also made references to IES LM-79-08 consistent with sections referenced in the July 2016 LED TP final rule; that is, DOE added a reference to section 1.3 (Nomenclature and Definitions) and removed the reference to section 6.0 (Operating Orientation). Additionally, DOE specified the appropriate operating orientation directly in appendix DD. 81 FR 47075.

    Philips commented in general agreement with DOE's references to industry standards; however, Philips recommended DOE reference IES LM-79-08 in its entirety rather than selected sections. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 3) When providing comprehensive test procedures for multiple test metrics, DOE often has to clarify, limit, or add further specification to industry standards that are referenced to ensure consistent, repeatable results. Therefore, instead of incorporating an industry standard in its entirety, DOE references the relevant sections of the industry standard and clearly states any directions that differ from those in the industry standard.

    Philips also commented on the language proposed in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR regarding operating orientation. In section 3.3 of appendix DD, DOE proposed an equal number of lamps in a sample be tested in the base-up and base-down orientation, except if the manufacturer restricts the position, in which case all units would be tested in the manufacturer-specified position. Philips argued that this is not a practical requirement for non-integrated LED lamps intended to replace linear lamps, which do not have a base-up or base-down orientation and are operated and tested horizontally in practice. Therefore, Philips suggested the operating orientation during testing should be as specified by the manufacturer. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 4) DOE notes that operating orientation is not typically specified on the packaging or specification sheets of LED lamps. DOE agrees, however that certain non-integrated LED lamps, such as double base non-integrated LED lamps designed to replace linear fluorescent lamps, cannot be operated in a base-up or base-down position since there are bases on both ends. Thus, DOE is modifying the operating orientation requirement in this final rule for testing double base lamps to state that manufacturers are to test all units in the horizontal orientation except that, if the manufacturer restricts the position, manufacturers are to test all of the units in the sample in the manufacturer-specified position. DOE is also specifying in this final rule that orientation is to be maintained as prescribed in the active mode test procedure when determining standby mode power.

    In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed a new paragraph to be added to 10 CFR 430.23 to establish test procedures for all GSLs. 81 FR 14640. As stated previously, if test procedures already existed for a lamp type that meets the definition of GSL, DOE referenced the existing test procedure. Thus, in the paragraph proposed to be added to 10 CFR 430.23, DOE included references to the existing paragraphs in § 430.23 for those GSLs that already have test procedures and the metrics required by those existing test procedures. DOE received a comment from Philips on the proposed amendments to § 430.23. Specifically, Philips objected to the inclusion of start time as a metric for both integrated and non-integrated CFLs. Philips noted that it should not be included for non-integrated CFLs, as start time is highly dependent on the type of ballast paired with the non-integrated CFL. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 4) As stated previously, DOE simply referenced existing DOE test procedures in § 430.23 when possible. DOE further notes that for CFLs, the GSL test procedure references the test procedures adopted and amended in the August 2016 CFL TP final rule, which established a start time test procedure only for integrated CFLs. 81 FR 59396.

    DOE did not receive any additional comments on its approach to referring to DOE test procedures if they already exist and referring to the most recent versions of relevant industry standards for lamp types that do not have existing DOE test procedures. Thus, DOE adopts this approach in the final rule. Table III.1 summarizes the test procedures that DOE is adopting for general service lamps.

    Table III.1—Test Procedures for General Service Lamps Lamp Type Referenced test procedure General service incandescent lamps Appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR 430. Compact fluorescent lamps Appendix W to subpart B of 10 CFR 430. Integrated LED lamps Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR 430. Other incandescent lamps that are not reflector lamps IES LM-45-15, sections 4-6, and section 7.1. Other incandescent lamps that are reflector lamps IES LM-20-13, sections 4-6, and section 8. Other fluorescent lamps IES LM-9-09, sections 4-6, and section 7.5. OLED lamps IES LM-79-08, sections 1.3 (except 1.3f), 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.1 and 9.2. Non-integrated LED lamps IES LM-79-08, sections 1.3 (except 1.3f), 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.1 and 9.2. C. Adopted Method for Determining Standby Mode Power

    As described in section I, EPCA directs DOE to amend its test procedures for all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed both active mode and standby mode test procedures for general service lamps. DOE did not propose a test procedure for off mode energy consumption because DOE initially determined that it would not be possible for GSLs included in the scope of the energy conservation standards rulemaking to meet the off-mode criteria. 81 FR 14634. DOE found that there was no condition in which a GSL connected to main power is not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. Id. DOE proposed to use the standby mode test procedures outlined in the IEC Standard 62301, which applies generally to household electrical appliances. Referencing IEC 62301 is consistent with the standby mode test procedures adopted for CFLs and integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 59401 and 81 FR 43415.

    DOE received several comments in response to the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR regarding the proposed method for determining standby mode power. Osram Sylvania, Inc. (OSI) and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) supported DOE's proposed test method for measuring standby mode power use, which they stated is consistent with other DOE test procedures and with industry practices. (OSI, No. 3 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3) However, CA IOUs suggested a change to the standby mode test procedure. CA IOUs recommended that DOE specify testing with the communication protocol expected to have the highest energy consumption and provide a prioritization of the potential communication protocols available. If multiple communication protocols (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, ZigBee, etc.) are available, CA IOUs recommended specifying that the communication protocol should be selected based on the following order: 1) Wi-Fi; 2) ZigBee; 3) ANT; 4) Bluetooth; 5) Other Radio Frequency (RF) Protocols; 6) Infrared (IR); 7) Other; 8) Wired. CA IOUs also recommended DOE require testing be conducted in the applicable communication mode that is representative of the operation mode that is typical of the end user (i.e., normal operating mode as shipped). (CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 2)

    DOE reviewed lamps that can operate in standby mode and found that average standby power did not vary consistently by communication protocol. DOE reviewed the test data published in the technical support document 4 of the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR and also test data submitted in a comment by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, Arizona Public Service, and National Grid (Utility Coalition) in support of the GSL ECS rulemaking.5 In both datasets, DOE found that the standby power of the communication protocols tested were generally available in a range of values and one communication protocol did not have consistently higher or lower power consumption than another. For example, data provided by CA IOUs showed the standby mode power of lamps operating using Wi-Fi varying from a minimum of 0.237 W to a maximum of 0.401 W (excluding the noted outlier of 2.42 W) and the standby mode power of lamps operating using ZigBee varying from a minimum of 0.185 W to a maximum of 0.439 W. With no clear trend, DOE is not specifying a prioritization order for testing at this time. DOE will continue to monitor the market and will revise the test procedure as needed as the market develops.

    4 The technical support document of the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR is available at https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051-0042.

    5 Comments submitted in support of the GSL ECS rulemaking are available at the rulemaking docket at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051

    CA IOUs also commented that for connected products that may continue to search for control signals after receiving the last signal, waiting at least 60 minutes after the last signal before performing a standby mode power measurement would allow such products to enter a lower power state. CA IOUs noted that this would ensure that the product mode under test is representative of the power drawn the majority of the time the product is in standby mode. (CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 2) In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed that standby mode power measurements be taken after the lamp had stabilized according to section 5 of IEC 62301. 81 FR 14640. The stabilization requirements ensure that the lamp has reached steady-state operation prior to taking measurements. Requiring a minimum period of at least 60 minutes before taking measurements is an unnecessary instruction because the stabilization requirements achieve the same goal of ensuring that the product is consuming a consistent amount of power. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adding a requirement to wait at least 60 minutes after receiving the last communication signal before measuring standby mode power consumption.

    As there were no other comments received on DOE's proposed method for determining standby mode power, DOE adopts the standby mode test procedure proposed in the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR in this final rule.

    D. Laboratory Accreditation

    In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, DOE proposed to require that testing of initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power (if applicable) for GSLs be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). 81 FR 47076. DOE noted that under existing test procedure regulations, testing for other regulated lighting products (such as general service fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps, and fluorescent lamp ballasts), in addition to general service lamps that must already comply with energy conservation standards (such as general service incandescent lamps and medium base compact fluorescent lamps), must be conducted in a similarly accredited facility. 10 CFR 430.25. DOE also proposed to align the proposed certification report language in § 429.57(b) with the proposed changes in § 430.25. Similarly, DOE proposed to update § 429.27(b) and § 429.35(b) to align with the proposed changes regarding accreditation bodies in § 430.25. Id.

    DOE received a comment from Philips on the proposed certification report language regarding ILAC accreditation in § 429.35(b)(2). Philips noted that ILAC does not assign identification numbers to test laboratories; instead, the identification numbers come from accreditation bodies. Philips suggested DOE modify the language to state that the certification report must include the “testing laboratory's identification number, or other approved identification, as assigned by the accreditation body . . .” (Philips, No. 12 at p. 4) DOE notes that the language requiring “the testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body” is not intended to imply that ILAC assigns the identification number to test laboratories, rather the language suggests that the ILAC-approved accreditation body would supply an identification number or another form of identification. Thus, DOE maintains that using “ILAC” as a designator to “accreditation body” in the regulatory text is necessary to ensure that the accreditation bodies are ILAC-approved.

    DOE notes that the certification report language revision in § 429.35(b) was previously adopted in the August 2016 CFL TP final rule and therefore is no longer included in this test procedure.

    E. Represented Values, Certification, and Rounding Requirements

    In the March 2016 GSL TP NOPR, DOE proposed to create a new section for GSLs, 10 CFR 429.57, to provide sampling, represented value, certification, and rounding requirements. 81 FR 14634. Existing sampling procedures in 10 CFR part 429 are referenced, where applicable. If a test procedure does not currently exist, sampling and represented value calculations reference the existing DOE test procedure with the most similar lamp technology. For example, sampling and represented value calculations for OLED lamps are to be as described in section 10 CFR 429.56, the section that addresses integrated LED lamps. DOE also proposed certification and rounding requirements to include the relevant metrics for general service lamps. Rounding requirements are consistent with those for GSILs, CFLs, and integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 59415-59416 and 81 FR 43425-43426.

    DOE did not make any modifications to this approach in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR and received no comments on these requirements; therefore, DOE adopts them in this final rule.

    F. Effective Date and Compliance Dates

    The test procedures adopted in this final rule for GSLs that are not integrated LED lamps, CFLs, or GSILs, are effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (referred to as the “effective date”). DOE notes that manufacturers may voluntarily begin to make representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of GSLs that are not integrated LED lamps, CFLs, and GSILs using the results of testing pursuant to this final rule, starting on the effective date of this final rule. Pursuant to EPCA, manufacturers of covered products are required to use the applicable test procedure as the basis for determining that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards and for making representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) For those energy efficiency or consumption metrics covered by the DOE test procedure (i.e., the test method and sampling plan), EPCA requires that, beginning 180 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register, representations must reflect testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) Therefore, on or after 180 days after publication of this final rule, any representations, including certifications of compliance (if required), made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of GSLs that are not integrated LED lamps, CFLs, and GSILs must reflect the results of testing pursuant to this final rule.

    DOE received comments regarding the dates discussed in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR. Philips commented that due to the volume of lamps covered under the scope of the rulemaking, DOE should require that manufacturers make representations based on this test procedure only for GSLs that have initiated testing after the effective date of the test procedure (i.e., only new products should be tested under the test procedure). Philips noted that DOE could add “test start date” to the certification reports to ensure manufacturers comply. Philips concluded that retesting lamps is unproductive, burdensome on industry, and diverts resources from testing new products that are more efficient. (Philips, No. 12 at p. 3) DOE notes that existing basic models need only be retested if their representative values would no longer be valid under the test procedures adopted in this rulemaking. Because DOE has referenced the most recent versions of relevant industry standards for the lamp types covered by this rulemaking, it is unlikely that all of a manufacturer's existing basic models will need to be re-tested. After the effective date of this final rule (i.e., 30 days after publication in the Federal Register), all new basic models must be tested in accordance with appendix DD. EPCA requires that on or after 180 days after publication of this final rule, the representations of existing basic models of GSLs that will no longer be valid must reflect testing in accordance with the adopted test procedures in appendix DD. In addition, DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3), manufacturers may petition the Secretary for an extension of the compliance date for up to 180 days. Manufacturers may be granted an extension if the Secretary determines that the requirements would impose an undue hardship on the petitioner. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3))

    IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA), unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth in the following sections.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Manufacturing of GSLs is classified under NAICS 335110, “Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

    In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, to estimate the number of companies that could be small businesses that sell GSLs, DOE conducted a market survey using publicly available information. DOE's research involved information provided by trade associations (e.g., the National Electrical Manufacturers' Association) and information from DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) Database, the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs Database, LED Lighting Facts Database, previous rulemakings, individual company Web sites, SBA's database, and market research tools (e.g., Hoover's reports). DOE screened out companies that did not meet the definition of a “small business” or are completely foreign owned and operated. DOE determined that nine companies are small businesses that maintain domestic production facilities for GSLs. 81 FR 47077. DOE did not receive comments on this determination, therefore it was maintained in the final rule.

    In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, DOE proposed test procedures for determining initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby power of GSLs. DOE noted that several of the lamp types included in the definition of general service lamp must already comply with energy conservation standards and therefore test procedures already existed for these lamps. If DOE test procedures already existed or were proposed in an ongoing rulemaking (such as for GSILs, CFLs, and integrated LED lamps), DOE proposed to reference them directly. For all other general service lamps, DOE proposed new test procedures in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR. For the new test procedures, DOE proposed to reference the most recent versions of relevant industry standards.

    DOE estimated the testing costs and burden associated with conducting testing according to the new test procedures proposed in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR for GSLs. DOE did not consider the costs and burdens associated with DOE test procedures that already exist or that have been proposed in other ongoing rulemakings because these have been or are being addressed separately. DOE also assessed elements (testing methodology, testing times, and sample size) in the CFL and integrated LED lamp test procedures that could affect costs associated with complying with this rule. Having received no comments on the topic, the cost estimates of this final rule are the same as those determined under the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR. The following is an analysis of both in-house and third party testing costs associated with this rulemaking.

    In the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR, DOE estimated that the labor costs associated with conducting in-house testing of initial lumen output, input power, and standby mode power were $41.68 per hour. DOE determined that calculating efficacy and power factor of a GSL would not result in any incremental testing burden beyond the cost of conducting the initial lumen output and input power testing. The cost of labor was then calculated by multiplying the estimated hours of labor by the hourly labor rate. For lamps not capable of operating in standby mode, DOE estimated that testing in-house in accordance with the appropriate proposed test procedure would require, at most, four hours per lamp by an electrical engineering technician. For lamps capable of operating in standby mode, DOE estimated that testing time would increase to five hours per lamp due to the additional standby mode power consumption test. DOE noted that these estimates are representative of the time it would take to test the most labor intensive technology, LED lamps. In total, DOE estimated that using the test method prescribed in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR to determine initial light output and input power would result in an estimated labor burden of $1,670 per basic model of certain GSLs and $2,080 per basic model of certain GSLs that can operate in standby mode. 81 FR 47078.

    Because accreditation bodies 6 impose a variety of fees during the accreditation process, including fixed administrative fees, variable assessment fees, and proficiency testing fees, DOE included the costs associated with maintaining a NVLAP-accredited facility or a facility accredited by an organization recognized by NVLAP in the July 2016 GSL TP SNOPR. In the first year, for manufacturers without NVLAP accreditation who choose to test in-house, DOE estimated manufacturers on average would experience a maximum total cost burden of about $2,210 per basic model tested or $2,630 per basic model with standby mode power consumption testing.7 Id.

    6 As discussed in section III.D, laboratories can be accredited by any accreditation body that is a signatory member to the ILAC MRA. DOE based its estimate of the costs associated with accreditation on the NVLAP accreditation body.

    7 NVLAP costs are fixed and were distributed based on an estimate of 28 basic models per manufacturer.

    Additionally, DOE requested pricing from independent testing laboratories for testing GSLs. DOE estimated the cost for testing at an independent laboratory to be up to $1,070 per basic model. This estimate included the cost of accreditation as quotes were obtained from accredited laboratories. Id.

    DOE notes that its adopted test procedures directly reference existing industry standards that have been approved for widespread use by lamp manufacturers and test laboratories. The quantities that are directly measured, namely initial lumen output and input power, are commonly reported by the manufacturer on product packaging and on product specification sheets. Thus, testing for these quantities is already being conducted. Additionally, these quantities are required to be reported to ENERGY STAR if manufacturers certify the lamps as meeting the program requirements. Standby mode power consumption is also a reported quantity for the ENERGY STAR program, though it may not be a commonly reported value for lamps that are not certified with ENERGY STAR. In reviewing the lamps for which DOE adopts test procedures in this final rule, DOE notes that very few products can operate in standby mode and therefore very few products would be required to make representations of standby mode energy consumption. Although DOE is adopting the requirement that all testing be conducted in accredited laboratories, DOE notes that many manufacturers of these products have already accredited their own in-house laboratories because they also make products such as GSILs and CFLs that are required to be tested in similarly accredited laboratories.

    In summary, DOE does not consider the test procedures adopted in this final rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities. The final cost per manufacturer primarily depends on the number of basic models the manufacturer sells. These are not annual costs because DOE does not require manufacturers to retest a basic model annually. The initial test results used to generate a certified rating for a basic model remain valid as long as the basic model has not been modified from the tested design in a way that makes it less efficient or more consumptive, which would require a change to the certified rating. If a manufacturer has modified a basic model in a way that makes it more efficient or less consumptive, new testing is required only if the manufacturer wishes to make representations of the new, more efficient rating.

    Based on the criteria outlined earlier and the reasons discussed in this preamble, DOE certifies that the test procedures adopted in this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    DOE established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for certain covered consumer products and commercial equipment. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. This collection-of-information requirement was approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400.

    DOE requested OMB approval of an extension of this information collection for three years, specifically including the collection of information proposed in the present rulemaking, and estimated that the annual number of burden hours under this extension is 30 hours per company. In response to DOE's request, OMB approved DOE's information collection requirements covered under OMB control number 1910-1400 through November 30, 2017. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 2015).

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor must 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.

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE adopts test procedures for certain categories of GSLs that will be used to support the ongoing GSL standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this final rule adopts existing industry test procedures for certain categories of general service lamps, so it will not affect the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it 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. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

    This regulatory action to adopt test procedures for certain categories of GSLs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.

    The test procedures for certain categories of GSLs adopted in this final rule incorporate test methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards:

    (1) IES LM-9-09, “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps,” 2009;

    (2) IES LM-20-13, “IES Approved Method for Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps,” 2013;

    (3) IES LM-45-15, “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps,” 2015;

    (4) IES LM-79-08, “Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products,” 2008; and

    (5) IEC Standard 62301 (Edition 2.0), “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power,” 2011.

    DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.

    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference specific sections of the test standard published by IES, titled “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps,” IES LM-9-09. IES LM-9-09 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies procedures to be observed in performing measurements of electrical and photometric characteristics of fluorescent lamps under standard conditions. The test procedures adopted in this final rule reference sections of IES LM-9-09 for performing electrical and photometric measurements of other fluorescent lamps. IES LM-9-09 is readily available on IES's Web site at www.ies.org/store/.

    DOE also incorporates by reference specific sections of the test standard published by IES, titled “IES Approved Method for Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps,” IES LM-20-13. IES LM-20-13 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies photometric test methods for reflector lamps. The test procedures adopted in this final rule reference sections of IES LM-20-13 for performing electrical and photometric measurements of other incandescent lamps that are reflector lamps. IES LM-20-13 is readily available on IES's Web site at www.ies.org/store.

    DOE also incorporates by reference specific sections of the test standard published by IES, titled “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps,” IES LM-45-15. IES LM-45-15 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies procedures to be observed in performing measurements of electrical and photometric characteristics of general service incandescent filament lamps under standard conditions. The test procedures adopted in this final rule reference sections of IES LM-45-15 for performing electrical and photometric measurements of other incandescent lamps that are not reflector lamps. IES LM-45-15 is readily available on IES's Web site at www.ies.org/store/.

    DOE also incorporates by reference specific sections of the test standard published by IES, titled “IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Solid-State Lighting Products,” IES LM-79-08. IES LM-79-08 is an industry accepted test standard that specifies electrical and photometric test methods for solid-state lighting products. The test procedures adopted in this final rule reference sections of IES LM-79-08 for performing electrical and photometric measurements of OLED lamps and non-integrated LED lamps. IES LM-79-08 is readily available on IES's Web site at www.ies.org/store.

    DOE incorporates by reference certain sections of the test standard published by IEC, titled “Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0),” IEC 62301. IEC 62301 is an industry accepted test standard that describes measurements of electrical power consumption in standby mode, off mode, and network mode. The test procedures adopted in this final rule reference sections of IEC 62301 for testing standby mode power consumption of GSLs. IEC 62301 is readily available on IEC's Web site at https://webstore.iec.ch/home.

    N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.

    List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, September 30, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 429—CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 429.27 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) to read as follows:
    § 429.27 General service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) General service fluorescent lamps: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, production dates of the units tested, the 12-month average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), lamp wattage (W), correlated color temperature in Kelvin (K), and the 12-month average Color Rendering Index (CRI).

    (ii) Incandescent reflector lamps: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, production dates of the units tested, the 12-month average lamp efficacy in lumens per watt (lm/W), and lamp wattage (W).

    (iii) General service incandescent lamps: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, production dates of the units tested, the 12-month average maximum rate wattage in watts (W), the 12-month average minimum rated lifetime (hours), and the 12-month average Color Rendering Index (CRI).

    3. Section 429.57 is added to read as follows:
    § 429.57 General service lamps.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must determine represented values, which includes certified ratings, for each basic model of general service lamp in accordance with following sampling provisions.

    (1) The requirements of § 429.11 are applicable to general service lamps, and

    (2) For general service incandescent lamps, use § 429.27(a);

    (3) For compact fluorescent lamps, use § 429.35(a);

    (4) For integrated LED lamps, use § 429.56(a);

    (5) For other incandescent lamps, use § 429.27(a);

    (6) For other fluorescent lamps, use § 429.35(a); and

    (7) For OLED lamps and non-integrated LED lamps, use § 429.56(a).

    (b) Certification reports. (1) The requirements of § 429.12 are applicable to general service lamps;

    (2) Values reported in certification reports are represented values;

    (3) For general service incandescent lamps, use § 429.27(b);

    (4) For compact fluorescent lamps, use § 429.35(b);

    (5) For integrated LED lamps, use § 429.56(b); and

    (6) For other incandescent lamps, for other fluorescent lamps, for OLED lamps and non-integrated LED lamps, pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a certification report must include the following public product-specific information: The testing laboratory's ILAC accreditation body's identification number or other approved identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body, initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, and power factor. For non-integrated LED lamps, the certification report must also include the input voltage and current used for testing.

    (c) Rounding requirements. (1) Round input power to the nearest tenth of a watt.

    (2) Round initial lumen output to three significant digits.

    (3) Round lamp efficacy to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt.

    (4) Round power factor to the nearest hundredths place.

    (5) Round standby mode power to the nearest tenth of a watt.

    PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 4. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C.6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    5. Section 430.3 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (o)(3) through (o)(16) as follows: Old paragraph New paragraph (o)(3) (o)(4) (o)(4) (o)(5) (o)(5) (o)(7) (o)(6) (o)(9) (o)(7) (o)(10) (o)(8) (o)(11) (o)(9) (o)(12) (o)(10) (o)(13) (o)(11) (o)(14) (o)(12) (o)(15) (o)(13) (o)(16) (o)(14) (o)(18) (o)(15) (o)(19) (o)(16) (o)(20) b. Adding new paragraphs (o)(3); (6); (8); and (17); c. Redesignating paragraphs (p)(6) and (7) as paragraphs (p)(7) and (8), respectively; and d. Adding a new paragraph (p)(6).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.

    (o) * * *

    (3) IES LM-9-09 (“IES LM-9-09-DD”), IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of Fluorescent Lamps, approved January 31, 2009; IBR approved for appendix DD to subpart B, as follows:

    (i) Section 4.0—Ambient and Physical Conditions;

    (ii) Section 5.0—Electrical Conditions;

    (iii) Section 6.0—Lamp Test Procedures; and

    (iv) Section 7.0—Photometric Test Procedures: Section 7.5—Integrating Sphere Measurement.

    (6) IES LM-20-13, IES Approved Method for Photometry of Reflector Type Lamps, approved February 4, 2013; IBR approved for appendix DD to subpart B, as follows:

    (i) Section 4.0—Ambient and Physical Conditions;

    (ii) Section 5.0—Electrical and Photometric Test Conditions;

    (iii) Section 6.0—Lamp Test Procedures; and

    (iv) Section 8.0—Total Flux Measurements by Integrating Sphere Method.

    (8) IES LM-45-15, IES Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurement of General Service Incandescent Filament Lamps, approved August 8, 2015; IBR approved for appendix DD to subpart B as follows:

    (i) Section 4.0—Ambient and Physical Conditions;

    (ii) Section 5.0—Electrical Conditions;

    (iii) Section 6.0—Lamp Test Procedures; and

    (iv) Section 7.0—Photometric Test Procedures: Section 7.1—Total Luminous Flux Measurements with an Integrating Sphere.

    (17) IES LM-79-08 (“IES LM-79-08-DD”), Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products, approved December 31, 2007; IBR approved for appendix DD to subpart B as follows:

    (i) Section 1.0 Introduction: Section 1.3—Nomenclature and Definitions (except section 1.3f);

    (ii) Section 2.0—Ambient Conditions;

    (iii) Section 3.0—Power Supply Characteristics;

    (iv) Section 5.0—Stabilization of SSL Product;

    (v) Section 7.0—Electrical Settings;

    (vi) Section 8.0—Electrical Instrumentation;

    (vii) Section 9.0—Test Methods for Total Luminous Flux measurement: Section 9.1 Integrating sphere with a spectroradiometer (Sphere-spectroradiometer system); and Section 9.2—Integrating sphere with a photometer head (Sphere-photometer system).

    (p) * * *

    (6) IEC 62301, (“IEC 62301-DD”), Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01); Section 5—Measurements, IBR approved for appendix DD to subpart B.

    6. Section 430.23 is amended by adding paragraph (gg) to read as follows:
    § 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.

    (gg) General Service Lamps. (1) For general service incandescent lamps, use paragraph (r) of this section.

    (2) For compact fluorescent lamps, use paragraph (y) of this section.

    (3) For integrated LED lamps, use paragraph (ee) of this section.

    (4) For other incandescent lamps, measure initial light output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power in accordance with appendix DD of this subpart.

    (5) For other fluorescent lamps, measure initial light output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power in accordance with appendix DD of this subpart.

    (6) For OLED and non-integrated LED lamps, measure initial light output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode power in accordance with appendix DD of this subpart.

    7. Section 430.25 is revised to read as follows:
    § 430.25 Laboratory Accreditation Program.

    The testing for general service fluorescent lamps, general service incandescent lamps (with the exception of lifetime testing), general service lamps (with the exception of applicable lifetime testing), incandescent reflector lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and fluorescent lamp ballasts, and integrated light-emitting diode lamps must be conducted by test laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). A manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing.

    8. Appendix DD to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows: Appendix DD to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency of General Service Lamps That Are Not General Service Incandescent Lamps, Compact Fluorescent Lamps, or Integrated LED Lamps. Note:

    On or after April 19, 2017, any representations, including certifications of compliance (if required), made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of general service lamps that are not general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, or integrated LED lamps must be made in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this appendix DD.

    1. Scope: This appendix DD specifies the test methods required to measure the initial lumen output, input power, lamp efficacy, power factor, and standby mode energy consumption of general service lamps that are not general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, or integrated LED lamps.

    2. Definitions:

    Measured initial input power means the input power to the lamp, measured after the lamp is stabilized and seasoned (if applicable), and expressed in watts (W).

    Measured initial lumen output means the lumen output of the lamp, measured after the lamp is stabilized and seasoned (if applicable), and expressed in lumens (lm).

    Power factor means the measured initial input power (watts) divided by the product of the input voltage (volts) and the input current (amps) measured at the same time as the initial input power.

    3. Active Mode Test Procedures

    3.1. Take measurements at full light output.

    3.2. Do not use a goniophotometer.

    3.3. For single base OLED and non-integrated LED lamps, position a lamp in either the base-up and base-down orientation throughout testing. Test an equal number of lamps in the sample in the base-up and base-down orientations, except that, if the manufacturer restricts the orientation, test all of the units in the sample in the manufacturer-specified orientation. For double base OLED and non-integrated LED lamps, test all units in the horizontal orientation except that, if the manufacturer restricts the orientation, test all of the units in the sample in the manufacturer-specified orientation.

    3.4. Operate the lamp at the rated voltage throughout testing. For lamps with multiple rated voltages including 120 volts, operate the lamp at 120 volts. If a lamp is not rated for 120 volts, operate the lamp at the highest rated input voltage. For non-integrated LED lamps, operate the lamp at the manufacturer-declared input voltage and current.

    3.5. Operate the lamp at the maximum input power. If multiple modes occur at the same maximum input power (such as variable CCT or CRI), the manufacturer may select any of these modes for testing; however, all measurements must be taken at the same selected mode. The manufacturer must indicate in the test report which mode was selected for testing and include detail such that another laboratory could operate the lamp in the same mode.

    3.6. To measure initial lumen output, input power, input voltage, and input current use the test procedures in the table in this section.

    Table 3.1—References to Industry Standard Test Procedures Lamp type Referenced test procedure General service incandescent lamps Appendix R to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Compact fluorescent lamps Appendix W to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Integrated LED lamps Appendix BB to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. Other incandescent lamps that are not reflector lamps IES LM-45-15, sections 4-6, and section 7.1.* Other incandescent lamps that are reflector lamps IES LM-20-13, sections 4-6, and section 8.* Other fluorescent lamps IES LM-9-09-DD, sections 4-6, and section 7.5.* OLED lamps IES LM-79-08-DD, sections 1.3 (except 1.3f), 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.1 and 9.2.* Non-integrated LED lamps IES LM-79-08-DD, sections 1.3 (except 1.3f), 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.1 and 9.2.* * Incorporated by reference, see § 430.3.

    3.7. Determine initial lamp efficacy by dividing the measured initial lumen output (lumens) by the measured initial input power (watts).

    3.8. Determine power factor by dividing the measured initial input power (watts) by the product of the measured input voltage (volts) and measured input current (amps).

    4. Standby Mode Test Procedure

    4.1. Measure standby mode power only for lamps that are capable of standby mode operation.

    4.2. Maintain lamp orientation as specified in section 3.3 of this appendix.

    4.3. Connect the lamp to the manufacturer-specified wireless control network (if applicable) and configure the lamp in standby mode by sending a signal to the lamp instructing it to have zero light output. Lamp must remain connected to the network throughout testing.

    4.4. Operate the lamp at the rated voltage throughout testing. For lamps with multiple rated voltages including 120 volts, operate the lamp at 120 volts. If a lamp is not rated for 120 volts, operate the lamp at the highest rated input voltage.

    4.5. Stabilize the lamp prior to measurement as specified in section 5 of IEC 62301-DD (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    4.6. Measure the standby mode power in watts as specified in section 5 of IEC 62301-DD (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3).

    [FR Doc. 2016-25180 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0578; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-048-AD; Amendment 39-18684; AD 2016-21-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with certain duplex trim actuators installed. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output levers for correct torque of the nuts. This AD was prompted by a design review that indicated the attachment screws can become loose under certain circumstances. These actions are intended to prevent the loss of an attachment screw, which could result in movement of the output lever in an axial direction, contact of a bolt connecting the control rod to an output lever with the actuator housing, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    On August 18, 2014, at 79 FR 48696, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a lateral duplex trim actuator, part number (P/N) 418-00878-050 or P/N 418-00878-051, or a longitudinal duplex trim actuator, P/N 418-00878-000 or P/N 418-00878-001, installed. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting the lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output levers for correct torque of the nuts. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a loose attachment screw, which could result in movement of the output lever in an axial direction, contact of a bolt connecting the control rod to an output lever with the actuator housing, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0182, dated August 12, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a lateral duplex trim actuator, P/N 418-00878-050 or P/N 418-00878-051, or with a longitudinal duplex trim actuator, P/N 418-00878-000 or P/N 418-00878-001. EASA advises that under unfavorable circumstances, a total loss of the trim actuator output lever attachment screw could lead to a restriction of the lateral and longitudinal control range. According to EASA, without the attachment screw, the output lever can move in the axial direction. This condition, if not detected, could cause the bolt that connects the control rod to the output lever to make contact with actuator housing, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

    To prevent this condition, EASA requires an initial torque check of the lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output lever attachment screws, the application of a torque marking, and repetitive inspections for correct torque thereafter. The EASA AD's requirements are considered an interim solution, pending a terminating modification.

    Since the issuance of EASA AD No. 2013-0182, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH has changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 48696, August 18, 2014).

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action because Airbus Helicopters is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 C-2-67A-020, Revision 0, dated June 18, 2013 (ASB), which advises of a design review that showed that a loss of the attachment screw of the trim actuator output lever could restrict the lateral and longitudinal control range. The ASB consequently calls for an initial torque check and application of torque markings of the self-locking nuts, and subsequent repetitive inspections to maintain the proper torque.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 100 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

    • Applying torque and torque marking to the lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output levers requires 1 work-hour for a labor cost of $85. No parts are needed, so the cost for the U.S. fleet totals $8,500.

    • Visually inspecting for correct torque requires 0.5 work-hour for a labor cost of about $43. No parts are needed, so the total cost for the U.S. fleet is $4,300 per inspection cycle.

    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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-21-03 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) Helicopters: Amendment 39-18684; Docket No. FAA-2014-0578; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-048-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters with a lateral duplex trim actuator, part number (P/N) 418-00878-050 or P/N 418-00878-051, or a longitudinal duplex trim actuator, P/N 418-00878-000 or P/N 418-00878-001, installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loss of a trim actuator output lever attachment screw. This condition could result in movement of the output lever in an axial direction, contact of a bolt connecting the control rod to an output lever with the actuator housing, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 25, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), apply a torque of 31.0 inch-pounds (3.5 Nm) to the self-locking nut (nut) on each lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output lever and apply a torque marking between the nut and the screw.

    (2) Thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS, visually inspect each nut on each lateral and longitudinal trim actuator output lever to determine whether the torque is at 31.0 inch-pounds (3.5 Nm). If the torque is not at 31.0 inch-pounds, apply a torque of 31.0 inch-pounds (3.5 Nm), remove the previous torque marking, and apply a new torque marking between the nut and the screw.

    (3) Do not install a lateral duplex trim actuator, part number (P/N) 418-00878-050 or P/N 418-00878-051, or a longitudinal duplex trim actuator, P/N 418-00878-000 or P/N 418-00878-001, on any helicopter unless each nut has been inspected for proper torque in accordance with the requirements of this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 C-2-67A-020, Revision 0, dated June 18, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0182, dated August 12, 2013. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2014-0578.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6700, Rotorcraft Flight Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 5, 2016. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24860 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5589; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-252-AD; Amendment 39-18678; AD 2016-20-12] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-20-07 for certain Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2012-20-07 required revising the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems, and revising the maintenance program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. This new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 25, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 21, 2012 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of December 14, 2009 (74 FR 62219, November 27, 2009).

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of August 28, 2007 (72 FR 40222, July 24, 2007).

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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-2016-5589.

    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-2016-5589; 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:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2012-20-07, Amendment 39-17213 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-20-07”). AD 2012-20-07 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22033). The NPRM was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to continue to require revising the ALS of the ICA to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems in accordance with the type design, and revising the maintenance program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0260, dated December 5, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. In response to these regulations, Airbus conducted a design review to develop Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes.

    The FAL were specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 FAL document ref. 95A.1931/05 at issue 04 for A318/A319/A320/A321 aeroplanes. This document was approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and is now referenced in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 to comply with EASA policy statement (EASA D2005/CPRO).

    Failure to comply with items as identified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0155R1, which is superseded [and which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-20-07], and requires implementation of the new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5 at Rev.01.

    The required action is revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel airworthiness limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5589.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    The Airline Pilots Association, International stated that it supports the intent of the NPRM.

    Request To Clarify and Revise Applicability

    American Airlines (AAL) asked if airplanes with an operating certificate issued after the applicability date of July 19, 2014, in paragraph (c) of the NPRM, are excluded from the proposed requirements. AAL stated that it has received several Model A321 airplanes after July 19, 2014, that have the fuel tank inerting system (FTIS) installed in production; AAL thinks the requirement to replace the air separation module (ASM) having P/N 2060017-102 every 27,000 flight hours and other tasks listed in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014 (“ALS part 5 R01”), should apply to these airplanes. AAL requested that we revise the applicability by removing the July 19, 2014, date in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD and revising the applicability to be in sync with ALS part 5 R01.

    We partially agree with AAL's requests. We agree that clarification is necessary. AAL stated that, for airplanes with the FTIS installed, operators must incorporate the ALS associated with the system in accordance with ALS part 5 R01. However, we would like to reiterate the information stated in the preamble of the NPRM under “Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design,” which states that operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after July 19, 2014, must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design. These airplanes are not subject to the requirements of this AD. Therefore, if an airplane's type design includes systems such as the FTIS, then the corresponding ALS specified as part of the approved type design should address those systems as appropriate, and must be incorporated into the maintenance/inspection programs. Therefore, we disagree with AAL's request to change the applicability of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Remove Task Requirement

    AAL requested that we remove “Task 470000-05-1” from paragraph (j)(2) of the proposed AD because this is a one-time task, which AAL has completed.

    We do not agree with AAL's request. Even if the current U.S. registered fleet already complies with the requirements of “Task 470000-05-1” in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, the requirement is still necessary to ensure that any affected airplane imported and placed on the U.S. register in the future complies as well. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise Service Information

    AAL requested that we revise paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD to include Airbus Service Bulletins A320-47-1025 and A320-47-1026, which apply to AAL's airplanes.

    We do not agree with AAL's request. AAL's suggested changes are for the retained requirements of AD 2012-20-07. Accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the retained requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is needed in this regard.

    Request To Revise Service Information

    AAL requested that we revise table 1 to paragraph (j)(4) of the proposed AD to include ASMs having P/N 2060017-103 to ensure that these parts are being tracked for removal every 27,000 flight hours. AAL stated that 25 airplanes in its fleet are equipped with ASMs having P/N 2060017-103.

    We do not agree with AAL's request. The suggested changes are for the retained requirements of AD 2012-20-07. Adding additional requirements to the retained requirements could put operators out of compliance. As previously stated, incorporating the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is needed in this regard.

    Request for Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) Approval

    Spirit Airlines requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that AMOC ANM-116-16-248 is approved as a means of compliance for the actions proposed in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. Spirit Airlines stated that this AMOC permits the use of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 02, dated December 18, 2015.

    We agree with Spirit Airlines that AMOC ANM-116-16-248 is approved as a method of compliance for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. However, no change is necessary to this AD because paragraph (n)(1)(ii) of this AD already specifies that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-20-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for 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

    Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014. The service information describes fuel system airworthiness limitations. 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 953 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2012-20-07 and retained in this AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-20-07 is $340 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per 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 $81,005, or $85 per product.

    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) 2012-20-07, Amendment 39-17213 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012), and adding the following new AD: 2016-20-12 Airbus: Amendment 39-18678; Docket No. FAA-2016-5589; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-252-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-20-07, Amendment 39-17213 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012) (“AD 2012-20-07”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before July 19, 2014.

    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by Airbus issuing more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Revision of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) To Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. For Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, and Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 3 months after August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06, Amendment 39-15135 (72 FR 40222, July 24, 2007) (“AD 2007-15-06”)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on March 14, 2006), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks;” or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008 (approved by the EASA on December 19, 2008), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008; the initial compliance times start from August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Guidance on identifying the applicable sections of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airplane Maintenance Manual for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005; or Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008, can be found in Airbus Operator Information Telex (OIT) SE 999.0076/06, dated June 20, 2006.

    (h) Retained Revision of the ALS To Incorporate Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. For Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, and Model A319, A320, and A321 airplanes: Within 12 months after August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005 (approved by EASA on March 14, 2006), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations;” or Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008 (approved by EASA on December 19, 2008), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”

    (i) Retained Requirement of AD 2012-20-07: No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs, With New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of AD 2012-20-07, with new exception. Except as provided by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.

    (j) Retained Revision of the Maintenance Program, With Specific Delegation Approval Language in Paragraph (j)(4) of This AD

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2012-20-07, with specific delegation approval language in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD. Within 6 months after November 21, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-20-07): Revise the maintenance program to incorporate the new or revised tasks, life limits, and CDCCLs specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010, except as required in paragraph (j)(4) of this AD. The initial compliance times and intervals are stated in this ALS document, except as required in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, or within 6 months after November 21, 2012, whichever occurs later. For certain tasks, the compliance times depend on the pre-modification and post-modification status of the airplane. Incorporating the requirements of this paragraph terminates the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD only.

    (1) For airplanes for which the first flight occurred before August 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-15-06), the first accomplishment of Tasks 281800-01-1, Functional Check of Tank Vapour Seal and Vent Drain System; and 281800-02-1, Detailed Inspection of Vapour Seal; must be performed no later than 11 months after November 21, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-20-07).

    (2) The first accomplishment of Tasks 470000-01-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Shutoff Valves (DFSOV), Dual Flapper Check Valves and Nitrogen Enriched Air (NEA) Line for Leaks; 470000-02-1, Operational Check of Both Dual Flapper Check Valves for Leaks; 470000-03-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow and NEA Line for Leaks; 470000-04-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow; and 470000-05-1, Remove Air Separation Module (ASM) and Return to Vendor for Workshop Check; must be calculated, in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) From the airplane first flight for airplanes on which Airbus modification 38062 or 38195 has been embodied in production.

    (ii) From the in-service installation of the fuel tank inerting system specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1001, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1002, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1003, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1004, Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.

    (3) Although Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010, does not refer to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006 and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007, the tasks apply as specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through (j)(3)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Tasks 470000-01-1, Operational Check of DFSOV, Dual Flapper Check Valves and NEA Line for Leaks; and 470000-02-1, Operational Check of Both Dual Flapper Check Valves for leaks; apply to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.

    (ii) Task 470000-03-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow and NEA Line for Leaks, applies to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1006, and that have not accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.

    (iii) Task 470000-04-1, Operational Check of Dual Flapper Check Valves for Reverse Flow, applies to airplanes in post-modification 38195 configuration and that have not accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007.

    (iv) Task 470000-05-1, Remove ASM and return to Vendor for Workshop Check, applies to airplanes that have previously accomplished the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007, and are in pre-modification 151529 configuration.

    (4) Replace each ASM identified in table 1 to paragraph (j)(4) of this AD in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). The compliance time for the replacement is before the accumulation of 27,000 total flight hours (component time)—i.e., the life limitation.

    Note 2 to paragraph (j)(4) of this AD:

    Guidance for accomplishment of the removal and replacement of the ASM can be found in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Task 47-10-43-920-001-A, Air Separation Module Replacement.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (j)(4) of This AD—ASM Replacement Affected airplane
  • configuration
  • ASM part No.
    Post-modification 38062 2060017-101 Post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1002 2060017-101 Post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1004 2060017-101 Post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1007 2060017-101 Post-modification 152033 2060017-102 Post-Airbus Service Bulletin A320-47-1011 2060017-102
    (k) Retained Requirement: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2012-20-07, with no changes. Except as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used other than those specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated February 28, 2006, as defined in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010, unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the fuel airworthiness limitations (e.g., life limits, tasks, and CDCCLs, and associated thresholds and intervals) described in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the times specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Incorporating the requirements of this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD.

    (m) New Requirement of This AD: No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or CDCCLs

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (l) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-20-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0260, dated December 5, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5589.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(7) and (p)(8) of this AD.

    (p) 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.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 25, 2016.

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5, Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 01, dated July 9, 2014. The title page of this document does not contain the revision date. The remaining pages of this document do not include the revision level.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 21, 2012 (77 FR 63716, October 17, 2012).

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 4, dated August 26, 2010.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 14, 2009 (74 FR 62219, November 27, 2009).

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 2, dated July 8, 2008.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (6) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 40222, July 24, 2007).

    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1931/05, Issue 1, dated December 19, 2005.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (7) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (8) 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.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24078 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-6538; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-031-AD; Amendment 39-18668; AD 2016-20-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener holes, and elongated fastener holes; and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web at the “Y”-chord, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and rapid decompression of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-6538.

    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-2015-6538; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2015 (80 FR 74731) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener holes, and elongated fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web at the “Y”-chord, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and rapid decompression of the fuselage.

    Comments

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

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the NPRM as paragraph (c)(1) in this final rule and added a new paragraph (c)(2) to state that STC ST01219SE does not affect the mitigating action or accomplishment of the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, “a change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.71.

    Request To Clarify the Proposed Requirements of the NPRM

    Mr. Cas Lausberg stated that the subject of the NPRM is addressed in AD 99-08-23, Amendment 39-11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999) (“AD 99-08-23”), which was superseded by AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013) (“AD 2012-18-13 R1”). The commenter questioned the need for the new NPRM.

    We agree to provide clarification. As stated in the “Discussion” section of the NPRM, this final rule is being issued as part of the overall joint effort by Boeing and the FAA to satisfy requirements of the FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010), which became effective on January 14, 2011. The inspections required by AD 99-08-23 and AD 2012-18-13 R1 do not address WFD concerns. However, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, addresses WFD with new inspection requirements, which incorporate a compliance time (threshold) corresponding to the WFD inspection start point (ISP) and shorter repetitive intervals where indicated. These requirements are included in this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Revise the Term “Global Fatigue Damage”

    Boeing requested that the term “global fatigue damage” be changed to “widespread fatigue damage” in the NPRM. Boeing stated that this is the first time it has seen the term “global” used to describe WFD. Boeing commented that it is better not to introduce a new term.

    We agree with the commenter. Although the “Discussion” section of the proposed rule is not carried over into the final rule, we agree that the term “global fatigue damage” should not be introduced as a new term. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Correct Reference to Group 1 LOV (Limit of Validity)

    Boeing requested that we change the wording in the “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information” paragraph of the NPRM, which referred to WFD-based inspections specified in certain tables of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015. The NPRM stated that the WFD-based inspections would affect only Group 2 airplanes because Group 1 airplanes will reach their LOV before the compliance times specified “in tables 9, 10, and 11” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    Boeing stated that the inspections listed in tables 9, 10, and 11 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, also include non-WFD inspections that are required prior to the ISP threshold of 76,000 cycles. Boeing stated that, therefore, it is not true to say that Group 1 airplanes will reach their limit of validity before the compliance times specified in tables 9, 10 and 11.

    We partially agree with the commenter. Although the “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information” paragraph of the proposed rule is not carried over into the final rule, we agree to provide clarification.

    Since AD 2012-18-13 R1 was issued, Boeing issued Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015. Affected airplanes are now divided into two groups: Group 1, line numbers 1 through 2565 inclusive; and Group 2, line numbers 2566 through 3132 inclusive. Boeing's evaluation determined that inspections to address WFD concerns are required for the aft pressure bulkhead web at the “Y” chord at an ISP of 76,000 total flight cycles. Since Group 1 airplanes will reach their LOV of 75,000 total flight cycles (34,000 total flight cycles for line numbers 1 through 291 inclusive), which is prior to this ISP, no WFD inspections are provided for those airplanes. For Group 2 airplanes, which have an LOV of 85,000 total flight cycles, new tables 9, 10, and 11 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, include inspections to address WFD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Request To Clarify the Applicability

    Boeing requested that we clarify the applicability of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes should be removed from the “Applicability” paragraph. Boeing stated that the Group 2 airplanes only include Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons stated above. We have revised the applicability in paragraph (c) of this AD to remove Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes and revised the SUMMARY section to specify certain Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

    Request To Clarify Airplanes Affected by Terminating Action Provisions

    Boeing requested that we change the wording for the terminating action in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the paragraph should specify that the terminating action applies only to Group 2 airplanes. Boeing stated that specifying Group 2 airplanes clearly states the intent of the terminating action.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons stated above. We have expanded the structure of paragraph (j) of this AD accordingly. In addition, we have clarified that the terminating action does not apply to stringer S-5L to S-7L and stringer S-5R to S-9R, as specified in AD 2012-18-13 R1 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    Request To Revise the Inspections for Group 2 Airplanes

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise the inspection requirements in the proposed AD for Group 2 airplanes. ANA requested that we either mandate the inspections in tables 10 and 11 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, for only Group 2 airplanes with 76,000 flight cycles and more, or create a new NPRM to supersede AD 2012-18-13 R1 to mandate all inspection requirements using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015. ANA stated that if a new proposed rule is created, it requests that credit be given for any previously approved AMOCs to AD 2012-18-13 R1, to reduce additional burden for operators and the FAA.

    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons stated by the commenter. The intent of this final rule is to address the WFD concerns in accordance with the FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010). We have revised paragraphs (g), (h), and (l) of this AD accordingly.

    Additional Changes to This AD

    In paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, we have clarified the compliance times by explicitly stating the compliance times instead of referring to the compliance tables in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    The actions in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD states to do detailed and eddy current inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web from the forward or aft side of the bulkhead for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, and elongated fastener hole. In this AD, we have clarified the actions by providing the operators the option of doing detailed and LFEC inspections from the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead, or doing a detailed and HFEC inspections from the forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead, for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, and elongated fastener hole.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015. The service information describes procedures for, among other actions, repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener holes, and elongated fastener holes; and related investigative and corrective actions. 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 122 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections of the web at the “Y”-chord Up to 60 work-hours × $85 per hour = Up to $5,100 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $5,100 per inspection cycle Up to $622,200 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-20-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18668; Docket No. FAA-2015-6538; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-031-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013) (“AD 2012-18-13 R1”).

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219s) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web at the “Y”-chord, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and rapid decompression of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections of the Aft Pressure Bulkhead Web at the “Y”-Chord Upper Bulkhead

    Within 76,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles since the most recent low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection accomplished in accordance with AD 2012-18-13 R1, or within 9,500 flight cycles since the most recent high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection accomplished in accordance with AD 2012-18-13 R1, whichever occurs latest: Do detailed and LFEC inspections from the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead web, or do detailed and HFEC inspections from the forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead web, for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, and elongated fastener hole, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. If any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, or elongated fastener hole is found, before further flight, repair the aft pressure bulkhead web using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable times specified in table 10 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    (h) Repetitive Inspections of the Aft Pressure Bulkhead Web at the “Y”-Chord Below S-15

    Within 76,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles since the most recent LFEC inspection accomplished in accordance with AD 2012-18-13 R1, or within 9,500 flight cycles since the most recent HFEC inspection accomplished in accordance with AD 2012-18-13 R1, whichever occurs latest: Do detailed and LFEC inspections from the aft side of the aft pressure bulkhead, or do detailed and HFEC inspections from the forward side of the aft pressure bulkhead, for any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, and elongated fastener hole, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all corrective actions before further flight. If any cracking, incorrectly drilled fastener hole, or elongated fastener hole is found, before further flight, repair the aft pressure bulkhead web using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at the applicable times specified in table 11 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    (i) Exception to the Service Information

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (j) Terminating Action for Other Rulemaking

    (1) For Group 2 airplanes specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015: Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2012-18-13 R1, except for stringer S-5L to S-7L and stringer S-5R to S-9R.

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015: Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (l) of AD 2012-18-13 R1.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if the actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 2011.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (m)(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, Los Angeles 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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Payman Soltani, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood CA 90712-4137; telephone: 562-627-5313; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

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

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 5, dated January 30, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

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

    (4) You may view this service information at 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 16, 2016. Thomas Groves, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-23078 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-096-AD; Amendment 39-18679; AD 2016-20-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that the compliance times for certain post-repair inspections and certain allowable damage limits (ADLs) must be reduced in order to address fatigue. This AD requires identifying any repairs and ADLs used to assess or control any structural damage on certain structural areas, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage on primary structure and structural repairs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.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-2016-0465.

    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-2016-0465; 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 street 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:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2016 (81 FR 8160) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the compliance times for certain post-repair inspections and certain ADLs must be reduced in order to address fatigue. The NPRM proposed to require identifying any repairs and ADLs used to assess or control any structural damage on certain structural areas, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage on primary structure and structural repairs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0101R1, dated June 12, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Result of a fleet survey accomplished in 2008 identified that the nature of flight missions of A330 and A340-200/300 fleets had significantly changed in comparison with assumed usage during the type certification. Consequently, it was decided to recalculate the Structural Repair Manual (SRM) fatigue values to ensure that the given threshold and intervals remain valid.

    The results of this recalculation identified reduced thresholds and intervals applicable for repairs and Allowable Damage Limits (ADL) affecting the following areas:

    —Door cut-out corners of door surrounding panels (forward cargo door, forward passenger (PAX) door, mid PAX door, emergency exit door/PAX door 3, aft cargo door, bulk cargo door, aft PAX door), on both Left Hand (LH) and Right Hand (RH) sides, —Stringer (STGR) 9 junction between Frame (FR) 10 and FR13 on both LH and RH sides, and —Fuselage skin doubler repairs on both LH and RH sides.

    Failing to apply the reduced thresholds and intervals, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued SRM revision dated April 2013 and temporary revision (TR) 53-001 for the STGR9 junction between FR10 and FR13 area (and subsequent revisions) to introduce reduced thresholds and intervals for the affected ADLs and repairs and issued a set of Service Bulletins (SB) to identify the ADLs used and repairs made, as well as to enable operators to update aeroplane repair records.

    Consequently EASA issued AD * * *, to require identification of any repairs and/or ADL used to assess or control any structural damage on certain structural areas and, depending on findings, accomplishment of corrective action(s) [including revising the maintenance or inspection program as applicable to incorporate revised thresholds and intervals and repair].

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, data review confirmed that A330 freighter versions are not affected by the unsafe condition.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to remove A330-223F and A330-243F from the Applicability.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0465.

    Comments

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

    Requests To Revise Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD To Include Physical Inspection as Alternative to Records Check

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) and American Airlines requested that we revise the proposed AD to include a physical inspection of affected areas of the airplane in case the maintenance records are unavailable or inconclusive as an alternative to the records check specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that their maintenance record search for applied SRM ADLs had inconclusive results. DAL also pointed out that other U.S. operators may not be able to comply with the proposed AD by performing a maintenance records check. American Airlines provided no further justification.

    We agree that an alternative inspection method in lieu of a maintenance records check could be appropriate. When the repair records and/or applied SRM ADL are unavailable or inconclusive, then an alternative method of inspection can be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to include an alternative method of inspection in the case of inconclusive or unavailable records.

    We have also revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to clarify the affected repairs for that paragraph.

    Additional Change Made in This AD

    We have converted Tables 1 and 2 of the proposed AD into text. These changes are for formatting purposes only and do not change the intent of those requirements.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Airbus service information. The service information describes procedures for updating the airplane repair records with revised thresholds and intervals. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models in different configurations.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3233, dated September 26, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3234, dated December 8, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3235, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4222, dated November 25, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4223, dated September 26, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4225, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015.

    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 95 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Records review 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $16,150

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-20-13 Airbus: Amendment 39-18679. Docket No. FAA-2016-0465; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-096-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 1 through 1,600 inclusive.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the compliance times for certain post-repair inspections and certain allowable damage limits (ADLs) must be reduced in order to address fatigue. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue damage on primary structure and structural repairs, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Records Review

    (1) At the applicable times in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(x) of this AD, review the airplane maintenance records to identify any structural repair manual (SRM) ADLs used to assess or control any structural damage or any structural repair accomplished as specified in an SRM, as applicable, that have been applied on the applicable areas as specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD. If the review of the airplane maintenance records is inconclusive or the records are unavailable, inspect the airplane to identify any SRM ADL used to assess or control any structural damage or any structural repair accomplished in accordance with a SRM, as applicable, using a method approved by Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (i) For Model A330-200 pre-mod 49144 airplanes, with left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) mid passenger (PAX) door surround panels, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) For Model A330-200 pre-mod 49144 airplanes, with forward cargo door, emergency exit door/PAX door 3, aft cargo door, bulk cargo door, and aft PAX door surround panels; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (iii) For Model A330-300 pre-mod 49144 airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 pre-mod 49144 airplanes, with mid PAX door surround panels, forward cargo door, emergency exit door/PAX door 3, aft cargo door, bulk cargo door, and aft PAX door surround panels; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4222, dated November 25, 2014; as applicable: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (iv) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313, all post-mod 40347 airplanes, with forward PAX door surround panels with an ADL with a temporary life limit; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3233, dated September 26, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4223, dated September 26, 2014; as applicable: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (v) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313, all post-mod 40347 airplanes, with forward PAX door surround panels with an ADL with a Permanent Acceptance; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3233, dated September 26, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4223, dated September 26, 2014; as applicable: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (vi) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes and Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes; stringer 9 junction between frame (FR) 10 and FR13; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3235, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4225, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015; as applicable: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (vii) For Model A340-200 and -300 Weight Variant (WV)00s airplanes; forward and rear fuselage; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (viii) For Model A340-200 and -300 WV00s airplanes; nose forward and center fuselage; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (ix) For Model A330-200 and -300 pre-mod 49144 airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300 WV20s airplanes; forward and rear fuselage, nose forward and center fuselage; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3234, dated December 8, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014; as applicable: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (x) For Model A330-200 and -300 post-mod 49144 airplanes and Model A340-200 and -300 post-mod 49144 airplanes; nose forward and center fuselage; as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3234, dated December 8, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014; as applicable: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Applicable areas (on both LH and RH sides) are identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) Door cut-out corners of door surrounding panels (forward cargo door, mid PAX door, emergency exit door/PAX door 3, aft cargo door, bulk cargo door, aft PAX door), as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4222, dated November 25, 2014; as applicable.

    (ii) Forward PAX door surround panels, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3233, dated September 26, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4223, dated September 26, 2014; as applicable.

    (iii) Fuselage skin doubler repairs, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3234, dated December 8, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014; as applicable.

    (iv) Stringer 9 junction between FR10 and FR13, as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3235, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4225, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015; as applicable.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any review or inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, it is determined that an SRM ADL was used on an area specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD to assess or control any structural damage, or any structural repair of an area specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD was accomplished as specified in the instructions of the applicable SRM revision dated before April 2013 or SRM temporary revision (TR) dated before November 28, 2014: Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (g)(1)(x) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, with the applicable revised thresholds and intervals for the identified structural repairs embodied on the airplane, and accomplish all updated inspections, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Where the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for specific assessment, revise the maintenance or inspection program and accomplish all updated inspections, as applicable, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (ii) Where the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD specifies “current SRM,” no SRM revision dated before April 2013 or SRM TR dated before November 28, 2014, is considered a “current SRM.”

    (2) For any repair that was previously allowed in any revision of the Airbus A330 or A340 SRM, as applicable, dated before April 2013; or in any SRM TR dated before November 28, 2014, to the applicable SRM, and is no longer allowed by the applicable SRM revision dated on or after April 2013: Make an assessment using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; and perform necessary corrective actions at the applicable times identified therein.

    (i) Limitation on Repair/Replacement

    As of the effective date of this AD, for any structural damage in the areas identified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(iv) of this AD that has exceeded the ADL, no repair or replacement may be done using an Airbus A330 or A340 SRM dated before April 2013, or any Airbus A330 or A340 SRM TR dated before November 28, 2014.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(2) of this AD: If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (k) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0101R1, dated June 12, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0465.

    (l) 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) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3232, dated November 4, 2014.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3233, dated September 26, 2014.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3234, dated December 8, 2014.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3235, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4222, dated November 25, 2014.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4223, dated September 26, 2014.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4224, dated December 15, 2014.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4225, Revision 01, dated January 14, 2015.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.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 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24191 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Economic Analysis 15 CFR Part 801 [Docket No. 160531475-6465-01] RIN 0691-0691-AA85 Direct Investment Surveys: BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, and Changes to Private Fund Reporting on Direct Investment Surveys AGENCY:

    Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The final rule amends regulations of the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. This rule also amends the reporting requirements for certain private funds on BEA's surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States, including the BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; the BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; and the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.

    The BE-13 survey collects information on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors, and information on expansions by existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies. The data collected through the survey are used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States and ensure complete coverage of BEA's other foreign direct investment statistics. BEA will make several changes to the survey that will simplify reporting and provide more complete information for use in BEA's direct investment statistics. BEA will also change the survey form design and accompanying instructions to improve the quality of the data collected and reduce respondent burden. This mandatory BE-13 survey is required from persons subject to the reporting requirements, whether or not they are contacted by BEA.

    DATES:

    This final rule will be effective November 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Abaroa, Chief, Direct Investment Division (BE-49), Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233; phone (301) 278-9591; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 1, 2016, BEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking that set forth revised reporting criteria for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (81 FR 43126-43130). One comment on the proposed rule was received.

    The comment was written by a group representing U.S. asset management firms whose combined assets under management exceed $30 trillion. The letter was generally supportive of the changes to the reporting requirements for private funds, but it did raise two points, one of which lead to a clarification in the reporting requirements for private funds which is outlined below.

    One point raised in the letter led to an adjustment to the language of the reporting requirements for private funds used in the proposed rule. As stated in the proposed rule, a foreign-owned U.S. private fund would be required to report on BEA's direct investment surveys if it owns at least 10 percent of an operating company. The letter pointed out that under this standard a private fund may be required to report on direct investment surveys even though in certain cases its foreign parent may own less than 10 percent of an operating company. For example, if a foreign parent owns 10 percent voting interest in a U.S. private fund, and that private fund owns 10 percent of an operating company, under the proposed rule the U.S. private fund would be required to report even though the foreign parent's indirect ownership interest in the operating company is just 1 percent. It was not BEA's intention to include investments of less than 10 percent foreign ownership in the direct investment statistics. In this final rule, BEA has clarified language regarding the private fund reporting requirements to indicate that if the foreign parent of a U.S. private fund does not own through the private fund 10 percent or more of an operating company, the private fund is not required to file.

    The letter also indicated that the burden estimate provided on the BE-13 form is understated. BEA's burden estimate is an average across the various BE-13 survey forms and across survey respondents with different levels of complexity and different activities or transactions that may be reported on the survey. BEA has noted the input from the private fund industry on burden estimates.

    This final rule amends 15 CFR part 801.7 to set forth the reporting requirements for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.

    BEA conducts the BE-13 survey under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).

    The BE-13 survey collects data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish a new facility where business is conducted. The data collected on the survey are used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States, assess the impact on the U.S. economy, and based on this assessment, make informed policy decisions regarding foreign direct investment in the United States. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch.

    BEA will make the survey available via eFile, BEA's electronic filing system. Notifications will be mailed to respondents as BEA becomes aware of a potentially reportable investment or when annual cost updates are needed. A response is required whether or not the respondent is contacted by BEA. The forms are due no later than 45 days after the acquisition is completed, the new U.S. business enterprise is established, the expansion is begun, the cost update is requested, or a notification letter is received from BEA by a U.S. business enterprise that does not meet the filing requirements for the survey.

    Description of Changes

    BEA amends the reporting requirements for certain private funds that file BEA's surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States: the BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States; and the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. The BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, will also be affected by this change but will be addressed in a proposed rule in 2017.

    BEA, in cooperation with the U.S. Treasury Department, will instruct reporters of investments in private funds that meet the definition of direct investment (that is, ownership by one person of 10 percent or more of the voting interest of a business enterprise) but display characteristics of portfolio investment (specifically, investors who do not intend to control or influence the management of an operating company) to report through the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system, where other related portfolio investments are already being reported, and not to report on BEA's direct investment surveys. Direct investment in operating companies, including investment by and through private funds, will continue to be reported to BEA. This change aligns the U.S. direct investment and portfolio investment data more closely with the intent of the investment with respect to management control. In addition, it reduces burden for respondents, many of whom now report both to the TIC reporting system and to BEA's direct investment reporting system. Under the revised regulations, U.S. affiliates that are private funds but whose foreign parents do not own through the private fund 10 percent or more of the voting interest of another business enterprise that is not a private fund or holding company, will no longer be required to report on BEA surveys of foreign direct investment in the United States.

    The changes also amend the regulations and the survey forms for the BE-13 survey. These amendments include changes in reporting requirements and questionnaire design and instructions as well as data items collected. The following changes are specific to the BE-13.

    BEA will combine Forms BE-13A, Report for Acquisition of a U.S. Business Enterprise That Remains a Separate Entity, and BE-13C, Report for Acquisition of a U.S. Business Enterprise That is Merged With an Existing U.S. Affiliate, into one form and discontinue the use of Form BE-13C. These acquisitions should be filed on Form BE-13A along with acquired U.S. business enterprises that will operate as a separate legal entity after the acquisition. The revised Form BE-13A will be a report for a U.S. business enterprise when a foreign entity acquires a voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in that U.S. business enterprise (including segments, operating units, or real estate) and (1) the total cost of the acquisition is greater than $3 million; and (2) by this acquisition, the foreign entity now owns at least 10 percent of the voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in the acquired U.S. business enterprise.

    BEA will add an instruction to eliminate the requirement to file two forms—Form BE-13B (establishment) and Form BE-13A (acquisition)—when a new U.S. business enterprise is established to facilitate a single U.S. acquisition that takes place within 30 days. The U.S. business enterprise will be asked to consolidate the new U.S. business enterprise with the acquired U.S. business enterprise and submit a single Form BE-13A. A question will be added to Form BE-13A to capture the names of both the established and acquired entities in this scenario.

    BEA will clarify the reporting requirements for Form BE-13E, Cost Update for Projects Originally Reported on Forms BE-13B or BE-13D, by removing the reference to the established or expanded business enterprise still being under construction. At least one Form BE-13E must be filed for each reported BE-13B or BE-13D form to obtain actual costs since the cost data provided on these forms may not be final when filed.

    BEA will not change the reporting requirements for Form BE-13D, Report for the Expansion of an Existing U.S. Affiliate, or Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption.

    BEA will modify the questions on existing U.S. affiliates in the ownership chain between the acquired or established U.S. business enterprise and the foreign parent to narrow the focus to the specific affiliates needed for analysis and to improve the sample frames of the other BEA surveys.

    BEA will restructure and rephrase the cost questions to more accurately capture any funding from the affiliated foreign group to facilitate the new foreign direct investment and to determine whether the funding was in the form of a loan or capital contribution.

    BEA will add an instruction on Forms BE-13B and BE-13D to direct U.S. businesses to report total expected costs by year based on their fiscal year end.

    BEA will add an instruction on Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption to direct U.S. businesses that are reporting expansions to skip the questions asking for U.S. affiliates' total assets, total liabilities, and net income (loss). These questions are not asked on Form BE-13D, Report for the Expansion of an Existing U.S. Affiliate, where expected costs are greater than $3 million, so they are not required for expansions with expected costs of $3 million or less.

    BEA will eliminate “lease” and “construction” from the list of expected costs on Forms BE-13B and BE-13D. BEA will continue to collect data on land; property, plant, and equipment (PP&E); intellectual property rights; fees, taxes, permits, and licenses; and other costs.

    BEA will add a question to Form BE-13D to collect the name of the expanding U.S. affiliate and to Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption to collect the name of the acquired, established, or expanding U.S. business enterprise.

    BEA will add a question to Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption to collect the state where the new investment is located in cases when this form is being filed to report a new investment that met all the requirements for filing on Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, or BE-13D except the $3 million reporting threshold.

    Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

    Executive Order 13132

    This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection-of-information in this final rule was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB approved the information collection under OMB control number 0608-0035.

    Notwithstanding any other provisions 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 displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The BE-13 survey is expected to result in the filing of reports from approximately 2,550 U.S. affiliates each year. The respondent burden for this collection of information will vary from one company to another, but is estimated to average 1.1 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus the total respondent burden for this survey is estimated at 2,860 hours, compared to 2,160 hours for the previous BE-13 survey estimate. The increase in burden hours is due to the increase in the number of respondents expected to file. The previous estimate of the number of respondents was made before the survey was launched; the revised estimate is based on two years of data collection.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in the final rule should be sent to both BEA via email at [email protected], and to OMB, O.I.R.A., Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0035, Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via email at [email protected]

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified at the proposed rule stage to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding the certification or the economic impact of the rule more generally aside from the comment regarding the burden estimate. No final regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 801

    Economic statistics, Foreign investment in the United States, International transactions, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 6, 2016. Brent Moulton, Acting Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR part 801 as follows:

    PART 801—SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN SERVICES BETWEEN U.S. AND FOREIGN PERSONS AND SURVEYS OF DIRECT INVESTMENT 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 801 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 15 U.S.C. 4908; 22 U.S.C. 3101-3108; E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981 Comp. p. 173); and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985 Comp. p. 348).

    2. Revise § 801.7 to read as follows:
    § 801.7 Rules and regulations for the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.

    The BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is conducted to collect data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish new facilities where business is conducted. Foreign direct investment is defined as the ownership or control by one foreign person (foreign parent) of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch. All legal authorities, provisions, definitions, and requirements contained in §§ 801.1 through 801.2 and §§ 801.4 through 801.6 are applicable to this survey. Specific additional rules and regulations for the BE-13 survey are given in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. More detailed instructions are given on the report forms and instructions.

    (a) Response required. A response is required from persons subject to the reporting requirements of the BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, contained herein, whether or not they are contacted by BEA. Also, persons, or their agents, that are contacted by BEA about reporting in this survey, either by sending them a report form or by written inquiry, must respond in writing pursuant to this section. This may be accomplished by filing the properly completed BE-13 report (BE-13A, BE-13B, BE-13D, BE-13E, or BE-13 Claim for Exemption).

    (b) Who must report. A BE-13 report is required of any U.S. business enterprise, except certain private funds, see exception in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, in which:

    (1) A foreign direct investment in the United States relationship is created;

    (2) An existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent establishes a new U.S. business enterprise, expands its U.S. operations, or acquires a U.S. business enterprise, or;

    (3) BEA requests a cost update (Form BE-13E) for a U.S. business enterprise that previously filed Form BE-13B or BE-13D.

    (4) Certain private funds are exempt from reporting on the BE-13 survey. If a U.S. business enterprise is a private fund and its foreign parent does not own through the private fund 10 percent or more of the voting interest of a business enterprise that is not also a private fund or a holding company, the private fund is not required to file any BE-13 report except to indicate exemption from the survey if contacted by BEA.

    (c) Forms to be filed. Depending on the type of investment transaction, U.S. affiliates shall report their information on one of five forms—BE-13A, BE-13B, BE-13D, BE-13E, or BE-13 Claim for Exemption.

    (1) Form BE-13A—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when a foreign entity acquires a voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in that U.S. business enterprise including segments, operating units, or real estate; and

    (i) The total cost of the acquisition is greater than $3 million; and

    (ii) By this acquisition, the foreign entity now owns at least 10 percent of the voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in the acquired U.S. business enterprise.

    (2) Form BE-13B—Report for a U.S. business enterprise when it is established by a foreign entity or by an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent; and

    (i) The expected total cost to establish the new U.S. business enterprise is greater than $3 million; and

    (ii) The foreign entity owns at least 10 percent of the voting interest (directly, or indirectly through an existing U.S. affiliate) in the new U.S. business enterprise.

    (3) Form BE-13D—Report for an existing U.S. affiliate of a foreign parent when it expands its operations to include a new facility where business is conducted and the expected total cost of the expansion is greater than $3 million.

    (4) Form BE-13E—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that previously filed Form BE-13B or BE-13D. Form BE-13E collects updated cost information and will be collected annually until the establishment or expansion of the U.S. business enterprise is complete.

    (5) Form BE-13 Claim for Exemption—Report for a U.S. business enterprise that:

    (i) Was contacted by BEA but does not meet the requirements for filing Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, or BE-13D; or

    (ii) Whether or not contacted by BEA, met all requirements for filing Forms BE-13A, BE-13B, or BE-13D except the $3 million reporting threshold.

    (d) Due date. The BE-13 forms are due no later than 45 calendar days after the acquisition is completed, the new U.S. business enterprise is established, the expansion is begun, the cost update is requested, or a notification letter is received from BEA by a U.S. business enterprise that does not meet the filing requirements for the survey.

    [FR Doc. 2016-25208 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 41 [Public Notice: 9530] RIN 1400-AD93 Visas: Visa Information Update Requirements Under the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Final rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State is coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security on instituting a requirement for nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category to provide required information to DHS after the receipt of his or her visa of a designated category.

    DATES:

    This Final rule is effective on November 29, 2016. The Department of State will accept comments until December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1400-AD93, by one of the following methods:

    Electronic comments: Submit through the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov and search for docket number DOS-2016-0066.

    Mail: Address all written submissions to Chief, CA/VO/L/R, U.S. Department of State, 600 19th St. NW., 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin J. Earnest, Legislation and Regulations Division, Legal Affairs, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, 600 19th St. NW., Washington, DC 20006, (202) 485-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of State (State) regulation on the revocation of nonimmigrant visas is at 22 CFR 41.122. State is amending 22 CFR 41.122 in support of a joint program with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that requires nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category to periodically provide required information to DHS after the receipt of his or her visa of a designated category.

    The revised 22 CFR 41.122(b)(3) and the contemporaneous DHS rule amending 8 CFR part 215, subpart B (RIN 1651-AB08), are creating the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS). As provided in 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, EVUS is an online information update system. Under EVUS, nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category are required to enroll in EVUS by providing information to DHS after the receipt of their visa of a designated category, and periodically thereafter. Successful enrollment in EVUS is evidenced by the receipt of a notification of compliance. Identified countries and designated visa categories are those countries and visa categories that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has determined will be subject to EVUS enrollment requirements. Identified countries and designated visa categories will be announced in a notice published in the Federal Register. Failure to comply with EVUS after November 29, 2016, will result in an automatic provisional revocation of the visa and will preclude travel to the United States on that visa. The visa will be automatically reinstated upon compliance with the EVUS requirements outlined in 8 CFR 215.24, as established by receipt of a notification of compliance. While, as discussed in the DHS rulemaking, individuals may enroll in EVUS prior to November 29, such enrollment is not required for travel to the United State prior to that date.

    This rulemaking provides State the mechanism for visas to be automatically provisionally revoked, and the revocation to automatically be reversed and visas reinstated upon subsequent compliance with EVUS (22 CFR 41.122(b)(3)). The rule also makes other modifications to the visa revocation regulations consistent with the EVUS enrollment requirements.

    As discussed in the contemporaneous DHS EVUS rule, DHS is exercising its authority under INA 214(a)(1) and 215(a)(1) (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1) and 1185(a)(1)) to require that nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category comply with the requirements in 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, and successfully enroll in EVUS by providing certain information to DHS after the receipt of their visas of a designated category as a condition of admission to the United States. Recognizing that holders of such visas who have not complied with the requirements in 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, will not be admitted to the United States under 8 CFR. 214.1(a)(3)(i), State is amending 22 CFR 41.122 to provide for automatic provisional revocation of the visas. Once the visa holder makes the required submission of biographic and other information and successfully enrolls in EVUS, the revocation of the visa will automatically be reversed, and the visa will be valid for travel to the United States.

    To implement EVUS, State is amending 22 CFR 41.122 and DHS is contemporaneously amending 8 CFR part 212, 214, 215, and 273.

    Description of Regulation Changes

    In 22 CFR 41.122, paragraph (b) is now subdivided. New paragraph (b)(1) describes the force and effect of a provisional revocation generally. The paragraph also describes how a provisional revocation can be reversed and how the revocation authority contained in INA 221(i) (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is not limited by this paragraph. Paragraph (b)(2) contains the current language of paragraph (b) with the addition of a new header. New paragraph (b)(3) describes the new process of automatic provisional revocation of U.S. visas of designated categories held by nonimmigrant aliens in a passport issued by an identified country who fail to comply with EVUS after the receipt of his or her visa as required by 8 CFR 215.24.

    Paragraph (c) is modified to make a notification exception to visa holders where visas have been automatically provisionally revoked under new paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    Paragraph (d) is modified to make an exception to the requirement of physically cancelling visas for visas that are automatically provisionally revoked by paragraph (b)(3).

    Paragraph (e) remains unchanged.

    Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

    This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), is not subject to the notice-and-comment rule making procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.

    This final rule is also exempt from notice and comment requirements under the “good cause” exception set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This rule is critical because it improves the security of granting longer-length visas while also facilitating legitimate travel. Implementation of this rule as soon as possible is necessary to protect the national security of the United States and to prevent the harm that could be caused by the exploitation of longer-length visas.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    Under Section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804), a rule that is likely to result in an annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100,000,000 or more, along with other criteria, is considered a major rule. State concludes that this rule does not meets the criteria for a major rule.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business

    Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before promulgating any general notice of proposed rulemaking, or any final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was published, that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. No such burden is being imposed by this rulemaking.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and certifies that the benefits of this rulemaking outweigh the costs. State does not consider this rule to be an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. In addition, State has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

    Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.

    Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.

    List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 41

    Aliens, Foreign officials, Immigration, Passports and visas, Students.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 41 is amended as follows:

    PART 41—VISAS: DOCUMENTATION OF NONIMMIGRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    8 U.S.C. 1104; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-458, as amended by section 546 of Pub. L. 109-295).

    2. In § 41.122: a. Revise paragraph (b); b. Add a sentence at the end of paragraph (c); and c. Revise paragraph (d).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 41.122 Revocation of visas.

    (b) Provisional revocation—(1) General. A provisional revocation is subject to reversal through internal procedures established by the Department of State. Upon reversal of the revocation, the visa immediately resumes the validity provided for on its face. Provisional revocation shall have the same force and effect as any other visa revocation under INA 221(i), unless and until the revocation has been reversed. Neither the provisional revocation of a visa nor the reversal of a provisional revocation limits, in any way, the revocation authority provided for under INA 221(i), with respect to the particular visa or any other visa.

    (2) Pending visa eligibility determination. A consular officer, the Secretary, or any Department official to whom the Secretary has delegated this authority may provisionally revoke a nonimmigrant visa while considering information related to whether a visa holder is eligible for the visa.

    (3) Automatic provisional revocation based on failure to comply with all EVUS requirements. Visas held by individuals subject to the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) who have not complied with the conditions described in 8 CFR 215.24 or whose notification of compliance has expired or been rescinded are automatically provisionally revoked and are no longer valid for travel to the United States, without further notice to the visa holder. The automatic provisional revocation pursuant to this paragraph (b)(3) shall be automatically reversed upon compliance with EVUS requirements set out at 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, as confirmed by receipt of a notification of compliance. A visa revoked on grounds other than failure to comply with EVUS shall remain revoked, notwithstanding compliance with EVUS.

    (c) * * * This paragraph (c) does not apply to provisional revocations under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    (d) Procedure for physically canceling visas. Except for provisional revocations pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a nonimmigrant visa that is revoked shall be canceled by writing or stamping the word “REVOKED” plainly across the face of the visa, if the visa is available to the consular officer. The failure or inability to physically cancel the visa does not affect the validity of the revocation.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25308 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0096] RIN 0790-AJ52 Management and Mobilization of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the management and mobilization of regular and reserve retired military members. This rule does not create the DoD's authority to recall retired members, but it directs how DoD can deploy those members once recalled into active service. Accordingly, the codified rule deals with agency management/personnel, and has been determined to not require rulemaking. Alternatively, this rule is covered by the notice-and-comment exception for military affairs, because the rule governs the uniquely military decision of how best to employ and deploy assets. Therefore, this CFR part can be removed.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Toppings at 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Once signed, a copy of DoD's internal guidance contained in DoD Instruction 1352.01 will be made available on the DoD Directives Web site at https://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/135201p.pdf.

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance Web site.

    The removal of this rule will be reported in future status updates of DoD's retrospective review plan in accordance with the requirements in Executive Order 13563. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 64

    Military personnel.

    PART 64—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 64 is removed. Dated: October 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25260 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 235 [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0098] RIN 0790-AJ15 Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning sale or rental of sexually explicit material on Department of Defense (DoD) property. The codified rule does not impose any duty or obligation on the public that is not already imposed by statute. The rule paraphrases and does not substantially deviate from 10 U.S.C. 2495b, which establishes the prohibition on selling or renting sexually explicit material on DoD property. Also, the codified rule delegates internal authorities and establishes procedures for administering the statute, neither of which have public impact. Consequently, Federal Register rulemaking is not necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Toppings at 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Defense published a proposed rule in the Federal Register titled “Prohibition of the Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit Material on DoD Property” on December 22, 2015 (80 FR 79526-79528) for a 60-day public comment period. The Department of Defense received five public comments.

    After publishing the proposed rule, DoD began a review of all rules currently being processed to determine if publication in the Federal Register is required. After reconsidering publication of the proposed rule against Administrative Procedure Act criteria and exceptions, DoD decided not to publish a final rule and to remove the previously-codified rule from the CFR. Although DoD has decided to remove the previously-codified rule, we are addressing the public comments received on the proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2015.

    Comment 1: I believe this proposed rule is not only an excellent example of agency waste, but a direct infringement of Constitutional Rights that employment by the DoD in any manner cannot supersede. It would appear there are some great ambiguities associated with the definitions that structure this rule. The definition of Lascivious, “lewd and intended or designed to elicit a sexual response,” which also controlling in the definition of sexual elicit material is too ambiguous. If an employee or citizen acting as a representative of the DoD has a foot fetish, will all magazines depicting bare feet be banned? Then the word lewd within the definition, what qualifies as lewd? Is it more or less lewd if in a novel the author describes an intimate evening between a hetero couple or homosexual couple?

    Comment 2: So not only can a man or woman be sent into harm's way without questioning the reasons for being sent, but they can't even purchase from the exchange or PX material that is deemed “. . . Lascivious. Lewd and intended or designed to elicit a sexual response.”? And who deems material to be considered prohibited for sale or rent on DoD property? A board of censors. Yes this is censorship, plain and simple. This is an end around the First Amendment of the Constitution. Why? Will this regulation improve our readiness or war fighting capability? No. Will this regulation reduce our readiness or war fighting capability? No. Is there solid, objective science showing that availability of this sort of deemed material leads to other behavior or effects that reduces our readiness or war fighting capability to a greater extent than other products or services offered for sale on DoD property such as alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, sugar-laden pop and greasy carbs-loaded prepared food? Hence making the reason for this regulation by reference to other directives spurious. Will this regulation reduce revenue generated by the retail sales operations of the various branches of our military services? Yes. If so, has this cost been included in the calculation of the cost of compliance with this regulation? No. Is the cost of the time of the members of the board and of the various submissions of material for review and judgement of the board been included in calculating the cost of this regulation? No. What objective criteria is used to determine if material should be submitted for review or upon which a determination be made to offer for sale or not? Not specified. For instance, under the authority of regulation, the purchase of the right to play a song by the DoD said to contain lyrics deemed lascivious, lewd and intended or designed to elicit a sexual response could be prohibited. This would make virtually the entire book of Cole Porter and Frank Sinatra songs subject to possible prohibition under a reasonable understanding of the words lascivious, lewd and the process of eliciting a sexual response. To whom can an appeal be made regarding the decision or judgement of material under this regulation? Re-submission to the same board after 5 years? That's not an appeal, that's a sentence longer than what is typically given to criminals who cause effects of far greater cost in terms of readiness and manpower to our military forces. I am quite certain we can certainly find better things to decide when offering products and services for sale on DoD property? How about lower prices and better quality products?

    Comment 3: I am having trouble understanding reasoning and purpose for this rule. This rule would cost “$5,500 annually for the life of the rule to manage the Board.” It seems as if nearly 6 grand annually could be saved and spent on something else that would have greater effects. I do not believe that it is the government's place to say what a person may or may not do within the comfort and privacy of their own home. And by doing so becomes dangerously close to interfering with fundamental liberties that we, as Americans, enjoy. I believe the deterring effects of this rule would do little good. Because those in the military are specifically trained to deal with instances of sexual harassment, military members are already equipped with the information they need to deal with these unique situations. This rule, which would ban the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under DoD jurisdiction, in my opinion, could have the opposite intended affect. Just think back to when you were a kid, and your parents told you that you were not allowed to eat ice cream after 9 p.m. What is the one single thing you wanted to do after 9 p.m.? I do not know about you, but I would want to eat ice cream. If you do not draw attention to something in the first place, then it is more likely to go unnoticed. Therefore, I see little persuasive reasoning for the passage of this rule. Not only does it waste money, but also it is also a waste of time and valuable resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

    Comment 4: This proposed rule seems to be a waste of money, no matter how small the amount in controversy is. With a growing budget deficit, and no end in sight, all possible means should be taken to tighten the purse strings and prevent excess spending. Furthermore, I am troubled by any proposal which cannot state for certainty that the cost will not go up in the future. Second, there does not seem to be any identified criteria for determining what can and can't be sold. It seems to be what is considered prohibited will turn on whoever is making the decision at that time. This will lead to inconsistent enforcement and a regulation that changes over time.

    Comment 5: This rule is just plain silly. Aside from wasting money I don't see any value this rule would have. Just because military members have access to sexually explicit material does not mean they will turn into sexual predators. I believe the opposite is true. Military members have extensive training on sexual harassment, and have an effective method to report sexual misconduct. As stated above, this rule would be a waste of money.

    Response: DoD thanks each commenter for their comments. However, no changes will be made to DoD's policy because it has been mandated by Congress through 10 U.S.C. 2495b. Based upon the information in the SUMMARY and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this rule, we are removing the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. Nevertheless, DoD's initial guidance contained in DoD Instruction 4105.70, which may be updated from time to time, remains in effect and is available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/410570p.pdf.

    DoD has determined that publication for public comment of this CFR part removal is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest, since removal from the CFR will remove DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the DoD issuance Web site.

    The removal of this rule will be reported in future status updates of DoD's retrospective review in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 235

    Business and industry, Concessions, Government contracts, Military personnel.

    PART 235—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 235 is removed. Dated: October 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25275 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 249 [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0097] RIN 0790-AI75 Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and Technical Papers at Meetings AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the presentation of DoD-related scientific and technical papers at meetings. The codified rule is outdated and no longer accurate or applicable as written. The codified rule contains internal guidance relating to how and when DoD scientific and technical papers in the possession or under the control of DoD can be presented at meetings. The rule does not impose obligations on members of the public. Therefore, 32 CFR part 249 can be removed from the CFR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Toppings at 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DoD internal guidance concerning the presentation of DoD-related scientific and technical papers at meetings will continue to be published in DoD Instruction 5230.27. Once the revision of DoD Instruction 5230.27 is signed, a copy will be made available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/523027p.pdf.

    It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance Web site.

    The removal of this rule will be reported in future status updates of DoD's retrospective review plan in accordance with the requirements in Executive Order 13563. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 249

    Armed forces, Classified information, Science and technology.

    PART 249—[REMOVED] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 249 is removed. Dated: October 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25276 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Parts 344, 352a, 383a, 395, 396, 397, 398, and 399 [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0102] RIN 0790-AJ53 Organizational Charters AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule removes Department of Defense (DoD) Subchapter R concerning organizational charters. The rules in this subchapter address DoD organizational processes for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD(RA)), Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), and Defense Legal Services Agency (DLSA). It has been determined that there is no need to codify the rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) because these documents will not create a mandate applicable to persons outside of the DoD.

    DATES:

    Effective October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Toppings at 571-372-0485.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A copy of the current DoD Directives may be obtained from the DoD Directives Division Web site at the following Web addresses: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/512501p.pdf, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/511805p.pdf, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510555p.pdf, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/514504p.pdf.

    Moreover, it has been determined that publication of these CFR part removals for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance Web site.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Parts 344, 352a, 383a, 395, 396, 397, 398, and 399

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    Subchapter R—[Removed] Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, Title 32, subtitle A, chapter I, is amended by removing subchapter R, consisting of parts 344, 352a, 383a, and 395 through 399. Dated: October 14, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25330 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0783] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation; Modification.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has modified a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the S213 (MD 213) Bridge across the Chester River, mile 26.8, at Chestertown, MD. This modified deviation is necessary to perform bridge maintenance. This modified deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This modified deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 30, 2016 through 6 a.m. on November 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0783] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this modified temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael R. Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MD” in the Federal Register (81 FR 58846). Under that temporary deviation, the bridge would remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. on September 6, 2016 to 6 a.m. on October 30, 2016. The bridge would open for vessels on signal during the scheduled closure periods, if at least 24 hours notice were given.

    The Maryland State Highway Administration, who owns and operates the S213 (MD 213) Bridge, has requested a modified temporary deviation from the currently published deviation to extend the time needed to complete the bridge painting project.

    Under this modified temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on October 30, 2016 through 6 a.m. on November 20, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 12 feet above mean high water.

    The Chester River is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    For the duration of the bridge maintenance, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge due to placement of barges and equipment in the main navigation span. The bridge will open for vessels on signal during the scheduled closure period, if at least 24 hours notice is given. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25434 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0946] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Berkley (U.S. 460/S.R. 337) Bridge across the Elizabeth River, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate testing of the emergency drive motors. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    The deviation is effective from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0946] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6587, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Berkley (U.S. 460/S.R. 337) Bridge across the Elizabeth River, mile 0.4, at Norfolk, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1007(b), to facilitate testing of the emergency drive motors on both spans of the bridge.

    Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 4 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 30, 2016. The drawbridge has two spans, each with double-leaf bascule draws, and both spans have a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 48 feet above mean high water.

    The Berkley Bridge is used by recreational vessels, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge spans will not be able to open in case of an emergency and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25435 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0749] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Pago Pago Harbor, America Samoa AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone during the 2016 Fautasi Ocean Challenge canoe race in Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa, on November 11 and 25, 2016. This action is necessary to safeguard the participants and spectators, including all crews, vessels, and persons on the water in Pago Pago Harbor during the event. This regulation will functionally close the port to vessel traffic during the race, but will not require the evacuation of any vessels from the harbor. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the harbor would be prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or not part of the race patrol, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu or a designated representative. Vessels who are already moored or anchored in the harbor seeking permission to remain there shall request permission from COTP unless deemed a spectator vessel that is moored to a waterfront facility within the safety zone.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. on November 11, 2016 to 4:00 p.m. on November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0749 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Nicolas Jarboe, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu; telephone (808) 541-4359, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On June 1, 2016, the Coast Guard received formal notification from the American Samoa Government that the 2016 Fautasi Ocean Challenge is scheduled to occur in Pago Pago Harbor on November 11 and 25, 2016. This annual event has strengthened local tradition for over a century. The event will consist of a series of races entirely within Pago Pago Harbor between longboats with paddling crews of 32-48 persons each. It is anticipated that a large number of spectator pleasure crafts will be drawn to the event. Spectator vessels and commercial vessel traffic will pose a significant safety hazard to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event.

    In response, on August 29, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa (81FR59163). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended September 28, 2016, we received one comment.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard did not receive notification of this event in sufficient time to conduct a review and publish the final rule 30 days before the event is scheduled. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the 30 day post-publication period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners, and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Honolulu (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with anticipated large number of spectator pleasure crafts and commercial traffic on November 11 and 25, 2016 will pose a significant safety hazard to the longboats, longboat crew members, and other persons and vessels involved with the event. The purpose of this rule is to minimize vessel traffic in Pago Pago Harbor before, during, and after the scheduled event to safeguard persons and vessels during the longboat races.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published on August 29, 2016. To address the concern specified during the commenting period, the U.S. Coast Guard will conduct an outreach to the local community regarding the temporary safety zone. Additionally, the maritime community will be notified of the temporary safety zone through publication of both marine safety information broadcast and local notice to mariners, and a broadcast notice to mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16. Port meetings held by the Harbor Master prior to the event will inform and educate the maritime community and industry about the temporary safety zone and any concerns regarding possible affects to the local economy and travel. No other terminals or locations will be available within the temporary safety zone during the duration of the event.

    This rule establishes a safety zone on November 11 and November 25, 2016. The safety zone will close Pago Pago Harbor to all vessels not authorized by the COTP for entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the port for the duration of the event. The COTP will authorize registered participants, support vessels, and enforcement vessels to enter and remain in the zone. No other vessels will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an “All Clear” after races conclude and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations. This rule will not require any vessel already moored to evacuate the port, provided that they are moored in such a way that they do not interfere with the progress of the event.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    As discussed above, the Coast Guard will conduct an outreach to the local community regarding the temporary safety zone. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners with information pertaining to the safety zone via VHF-FM marine channel 16. Additionally, the maritime community will be notified of the temporary safety zone through publication of a marine safety information broadcast and local notice to mariners. Port meetings held by the Harbor Master prior to the event will inform and educate the maritime community and industry about the temporary safety zone. These measures are being employed to help the maritime community better plan and prepare for the event.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities and may not be authorized to do so. This rule would not create significant economic impact on a substantial number of these entities. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission from the Coast Guard to enter the safety zone. Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T14-0749 to read as follows:
    § 165.T14-0749 Safety Zone; Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Breakers Point (eastern edge of Pago Pago Harbor entrance) thence southeast to 14°18′47″ S, 170°38′54.5″ W thence southwest to 14°19′03″ S, 170°39′14″ W, thence northwest to Tulutulu Point and then following the coastline encompassing Pago Pago Harbor. This regulated area extends from the surface of the water to the ocean floor.

    (b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 11, 2016 and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 25, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or support/enforcement vessels are considered spectators. The “support/enforcement vessels” consist of any territory, local law enforcement, and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port Honolulu to patrol the safety zone.

    (2) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter or impede the transit of participants or support/enforcement vessels in the safety zone during the enforcement dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through a support/enforcement vessel.

    (3) Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the safety zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the safety zone and remain moored through the duration of the event.

    (d) Informational Broadcasts. The safety zones shall be effective between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (SST) on November 11 and 25, 2016. If circumstances render enforcement of the safety zone unnecessary for the entirety of these periods, the Captain of the Port or his designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners that the safety zone is no longer being enforced. The harbor will remain closed until the Coast Guard issues an “All Clear” for the harbor after the race has concluded and the harbor is deemed safe for normal operations.

    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule may be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

    Dated: October 12, 2016. M.C. Long, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25365 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0816; FRL-9953-90-Region 3] Delaware; Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plan for Nonattainment New Source Review; Emissions Offset Provisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for the State of Delaware on October 15, 2013. EPA is disapproving this action because the submittal does not satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the federal implementing regulations, which establish the criteria under which the owner or operator of a new or modified major stationary source must obtain the required emission offsets from the same source or other sources in the same nonattainment area with limited exceptions under Delaware's nonattainment new source review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program. In addition, EPA is finalizing disapproval of the SIP revision because Delaware exercises authorities that are reserved for EPA under section 107 of the CAA. EPA is disapproving this revision to DNREC's SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0816. 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., confidential business information (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 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:

    Amy Johansen, (215) 814-2156, or by email at joh[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30015), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. At the request of a commenter, EPA published a notice reopening the comment period for the NPR on July 15, 2015 (80 FR 41449), which allowed the public to comment on the May 26, 2015 NPR until August 14, 2015. In the NPR, EPA proposed disapproval of DNREC's SIP revision because the submittal does not satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) or the federal implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and in 40 CFR part 51, appendix S,1 which establish the criteria under which the owner or operator of a new or modified major stationary source must obtain the required emission offsets “from the same source or other sources in the same nonattainment area” with limited exceptions, for Delaware's nonattainment NSR preconstruction permitting program. In addition, EPA proposed disapproval of the SIP revision because Delaware exercises authorities that are reserved for EPA under section 107 of the CAA. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Delaware on October 15, 2013.

    1 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) requires that “[p]rocedures relating to the permissible location of offsetting emissions shall be followed which are at least as stringent as those set out in 40 CFR part 51 appendix S section IV.D.”

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of changes to 7 DE Admin. Code 1125 (herein referred to as 7 DNREC 1125 or Regulation 1125), Requirements for Preconstruction Review, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, Emission Offset Provisions. First, Delaware's revised regulation enables sources in Delaware seeking NSR permits to obtain emission offsets from sources located in other areas, including areas outside of the State of Delaware, irrespective of the areas' nonattainment status as compared to Delaware's nonattainment status for the same national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Second, the revised regulation also permits sources seeking NSR permits in Delaware to obtain emissions offsets from areas without a determination that the other areas “contribute to a violation” of the NAAQS in Delaware where a source seeking a NSR permit would be located, as required in CAA section 173 and its implementing regulations. The language in section 2.5.6 in 7 DNREC 1125 provides that sources can obtain emission offsets “in the nonattainment area which the source is located which shall specifically include any area in the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.”

    Finally, the revised regulation language allows “the Department” to determine the areas in which owners or operators can acquire emission offsets, regardless of the attainment status of those areas. Specifically, Delaware proposed language for the SIP that “the Department may consider any area in the following states as having the same nonattainment classification as the area of Delaware where the offsets are used: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.”

    Other specific requirements of 7 DNREC 1125, Requirements for Preconstruction Review, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, Emission Offset Provisions and the rationale for EPA's disapproval are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. See 80 FR 30015 (May 26, 2015). EPA received three sets of comments on the NPR. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided in Section III of this document.

    III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    During the reopened public comment period for the May 26, 2015 proposed rule, EPA received three sets of comments, which are summarized and addressed here. The comments were submitted by DNREC (herein referred to as Delaware), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (herein referred to as New Jersey), and the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce (DSCC).

    Comment 1: Generally, Delaware and New Jersey noted that unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone continue to impact their states years after the passage of the CAA and after they have implemented several rounds of voluntary and required emissions reduction strategies. The States allege ground-level ozone and precursor emissions are pervasive and readily transported. Delaware and New Jersey stated that they cannot attain the 75 parts per billion (ppb) ozone NAAQS due to emissions from other states' pollution and not their own, as they have done all they can to control large and small sources throughout their States.

    Response 1: EPA appreciates Delaware's and New Jersey's interest in addressing interstate transport of ozone pollution and other air quality concerns through implementation of the CAA requirements. While it is not relevant to the approvability of Delaware's revisions to 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, EPA recognizes both Delaware and New Jersey have implemented various regulations to address the ozone NAAQS in their respective States. Delaware's and New Jersey's commitment, as well as other states' commitments, has had a beneficial impact on the air quality in areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS including the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City Area, the PA-NJ-MD-DE Area (Philadelphia Area) and the Seaford, DE Area, for example. Currently, the Philadelphia Area is meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb with preliminary 2013-2015 air quality monitoring (AQM) data showing a design value of 75 ppb.2 Additionally, on May 4, 2016, EPA made a final determination that the Seaford, DE marginal nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015, with a design value of 74 ppb, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1103. See 81 FR 26701.

    2 The 2008 ozone NAAQS is an 8-hour ozone standard that was set at 75 ppb. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).

    Comment 2: Delaware discussed efforts they have made to “prod EPA” into addressing interstate transport through a petition under CAA section 126 and a joint state petition asking EPA to enlarge the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under CAA section 176A. Delaware stated that EPA has failed to respond to those petitions despite statutory deadlines.

    Response 2: EPA acknowledges that Delaware previously submitted a CAA section 126 petition seeking emissions reductions from large electric generating units in a number of upwind states in order to reduce the contributions from their emissions to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone problems in Delaware. Additionally, EPA acknowledges that a number of states, including Delaware, submitted a petition under CAA section 176A requesting that the EPA add additional states to the OTR that was established under section 184 of the CAA. EPA is reviewing the petitions separately and is not acting on those petitions in this action. Delaware's comments are not germane to EPA's disapproval of the Delaware October 15, 2013 SIP revision and as such no further response is provided.

    Comment 3: Generally, Delaware and New Jersey noted their extensive efforts to regulate sources in their respective states in order to attain the NAAQS. As a result, commenters expressed concerns about economic burdens imposed on their citizens, business, and industry locating in both Delaware and New Jersey. More specifically, Delaware asserted that it is more expensive for industry to locate in its State versus nearby locations which EPA has classified as “attainment/unclassifiable” despite evidence showing that those areas cause and contribute to Delaware's nonattainment status. The DSCC also noted it will become more expensive for new industry to locate within or to expand within Delaware compared to locating or expanding business in other areas that are attainment/unclassifiable especially as Delaware is small and its sources are well controlled.

    Response 3: EPA appreciates the commenters' continued efforts to regulate sources in their States to meet NAAQS, as well as their concerns with respect to economic burdens on citizens, business, and industry; however, this comment is not germane to EPA's current action disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision. EPA evaluated Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal in accordance with requirements for NSR permitting programs in CAA sections 172 and 173 and in 40 CFR 51.165 and found the SIP revision submittal did not meet those requirements as discussed in the NPR. EPA notes that the NAAQS for each criteria air pollutant are established to provide protection for the nation's public health and the environment. Additionally, EPA's NSR program was specifically designed to allow for responsible economic growth while at the same time allowing states to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. As the comments are not germane to the reasons for EPA's disapproval of this SIP, no further response is provided.

    Comment 4: Delaware discussed design values at some Delaware air quality monitors and stated that based in part upon EPA data, a large group of upwind states create the pollution that is causing Delaware's nonattainment and that those states should reduce their emissions in order for Delaware to attain and maintain the NAAQS.

    Response 4: As noted in a previous response to comment, Delaware currently has areas attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which would indicate that emissions reductions have occurred and have had a beneficial impact on Delaware's air quality.3 Nonetheless, EPA readily acknowledges the role interstate transport of precursors to ozone pollution plays in the efforts of downwind areas to attain and maintain the NAAQS. To that end, EPA has taken a number of steps to ensure implementation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), or the “good neighbor” provision, which addresses interstate pollution, including the NOX (oxides of nitrogen) SIP Call, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Most recently, EPA promulgated an update to CSAPR specifically to address interstate pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS with tightened NOX budgets designed to achieve emission reductions in upwind states before the moderate area attainment date of July 2018. See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, Final Rule, (signed September 7, 2016, publication pending); 4 Proposed Rule, 80 FR 46271 (August 8, 2015); and Notice of Data Availability (NODA), 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015). As noted above, however, comments regarding the interstate transport obligations of other states are not germane to EPA's current action disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision.

    3 Currently, the Philadelphia Area (which includes portions of Delaware) is meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb with preliminary 2013-2015 AQM data showing a design value of 75 ppb. Additionally, on May 4, 2016, EPA made a final determination that the Seaford, DE Marginal nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2105 with a design value of 74 ppb. 81 FR 26701.

    4 Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/CSAPRU/Cross-State%20Air%20Pollution%20Rule%20Update%20for%20the%202008%20Ozone%20NAAQS%202060%20AS05%20FRM.pdf.

    Comment 5: Delaware noted that EPA went against the State's designation recommendations and adopted smaller 2008 ozone nonattainment areas that include parts of Delaware but not certain upwind states, which triggered various provisions of the CAA in part D of title I, including the applicability of nonattainment NSR permitting, in each of the three counties in Delaware.

    Response 5: As noted in our May 26, 2015 NPR, pursuant to section 107 of the CAA, New Castle and Sussex Counties, Delaware were designated by EPA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as “marginal” nonattainment under 40 CFR part 81, while Kent County was designated as “unclassifiable/attainment.” See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). New Castle County is a portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Upon designation, a nonattainment area for ozone is required to meet the plan submission requirements under section 182 of the CAA (in subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA) for its nonattainment area classification (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme) as well as the general SIP planning requirements in sections 172 and 173 of subpart 1 of part D of title I. The State of Delaware is also part of the OTR, as established in CAA section 184(a). Therefore, at a minimum, the entire State of Delaware is required to meet the plan submission requirements for a moderate nonattainment area classification as specified in CAA sections 182(b) and 184(b), regardless of the attainment classification for areas in the State. Moderate area classification plan requirements include the emissions offset provisions within section 173 of the CAA and within its implementing regulations. Delaware's comment regarding the size of the nonattainment area is irrelevant to whether Delaware's regulations for NSR emissions offsets meet CAA requirements. The time for Delaware to challenge EPA's ozone designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS has passed. As explained in the NPR, Delaware's revisions to 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 on their face do not meet CAA requirements, and, thus, no further response is provided.

    Comment 6: Delaware asserted that EPA did not consider its October 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal because EPA did not refer to any of it in the proposed disapproval. Delaware also stated its arguments in the comments were largely repeating information presented in the October 15, 2013 SIP submittal. Delaware stated NSR was its only tool to achieve further reductions of ozone within the state as Delaware has no ability to regulate sources in other states.

    Response 6: EPA does not agree with Delaware's characterization that EPA did not consider or evaluate the October 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal before publishing a NPR proposing disapproval of revisions to 7 DNREC 1125, Requirements for Preconstruction Review, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6, Emission Offset Provisions. While EPA did not cite to specific language or provisions within the October 15, 2013 SIP submission in the May 26, 2015 NPR, nothing in the CAA nor its implementing regulations requires EPA to cite to the SIP submittal when acting to approve or disapprove pursuant to section 110 of the CAA. See 80 FR 30015. EPA reviewed and evaluated all information submitted by Delaware to EPA in the October 15, 2013 SIP submittal and compared that information and the regulations to the requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations. As discussed in the NPR, EPA found that 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 do not meet the clear requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) nor the federal implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and part 51, appendix S, section IV.D for offsets to come from areas with the same or higher attainment classifications and from areas that contribute to nonattainment in the area in which a source is locating.5 Additionally, as noted in the NPR, EPA proposed to disapprove the Delaware SIP revision because Delaware's regulations attempt to exercise authorities that are reserved solely for EPA in CAA section 107 by treating certain upwind areas as ozone nonattainment areas regardless of EPA's classification of those areas for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. EPA is required to fully consider a SIP revision submittal upon making a decision to approve or disapprove a SIP submittal revision. Here, EPA considered Delaware's submission but found the regulations clearly inconsistent with CAA requirements in part D of title I of the CAA for offset provisions. Regarding Delaware's comment about needing NSR to reach attainment, the CAA provides many tools to assist states with attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. EPA appreciates Delaware's in-state implementation efforts, and EPA will continue to work with other states to address interstate transport of emissions through SIPs and other federal programs.

    5 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) requires that “[p]rocedures relating to the permissible location of offsetting emissions shall be followed which are at least as stringent as those set out in 40 CFR part 51 appendix S section IV.D.”

    Comment 7: Delaware asserted that EPA erroneously concluded that Delaware's revised regulation does not comply with the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) and the implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and part 51, appendix S. Delaware stated that CAA section 116 allows states to adopt rules that are not exactly the same as the federal regulations, as long as they are not less stringent. Delaware argues its regulations in 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 are more stringent than EPA's requirements in CAA 172 and 173 and in the implementing regulations based on emission reductions, environmental outcomes, and environmentally beneficial economic growth. Delaware further asserted the actual application of its regulations for offsets results in greater reductions of criteria pollution than would be the case if EPA's rules were applied.

    In agreement with Delaware's stringency assertions, New Jersey stated that EPA has no published guidance on procedures for demonstrating that state-specific provisions are at least as stringent as federal provisions. New Jersey asserts that a demonstration that the implementation of state provisions results in air quality benefit over a federal provision that is designed to ensure new source emissions are controlled, that more offsetting emissions reductions will be obtained, and that there will be more progress towards achievement of the NAAQS is a reasonable basis to conclude that the state provision is at least as stringent as the federal provisions.

    Response 7: EPA disagrees that Delaware has established regulations in 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 that are more stringent than the federal requirements for offsets in CAA section 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 based on the alleged greater emission reductions potential offered by Delaware's revisions. While EPA may not have specific guidance on procedures for demonstrating that state-specific provisions are at least as stringent as federal provisions, neither Delaware nor New Jersey provided a compelling argument as to why the changes in Delaware's emission offset provisions are more beneficial to air quality and more stringent. In summary, Delaware provided an example from applying the current federally required (SIP) offset requirements of a theoretical source which could locate in Delaware, where lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) applies, which would need to acquire emission offsets from local emitters at a high cost because offsets are scarce. Delaware posits that such a source might thus choose to locate instead in an attainment area in another state, which would presumptively not otherwise require LAER (and presumptively not require similar emission reductions as Delaware does) to avoid buying offsets and would then potentially contribute its emissions to Delaware's nonattainment. Under that scenario, Delaware foresees higher emission of ozone precursors to impact the State. Delaware claimed that under its revised regulation (7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6)) such a source could still locate in Delaware, apply LAER resulting in lower emissions, and could obtain emission offsets from West Virginia at a much lower cost because emission offsets are more affordable per ton in some upwind states and Delaware asserts that EPA's 1997 ozone NAAQS modeling demonstrates that West Virginia emissions contribute to Delaware's nonattainment. Delaware relies on this example to support its argument that its revised regulation for offsets could produce greater reduction in ozone precursors and correspondingly be more stringent than federal requirements (because such a hypothetical source would apply LAER as well as buying offsets if locating in Delaware with this revised regulation versus locating outside Delaware and neither installing LAER nor purchasing offsets if federal rules for offsets were applied). While EPA acknowledges that Delaware's hypothetical example could plausibly result in the emissions reductions Delaware claims, Delaware has not provided any evidence, argument, or facts to support the contention that its revised regulation 7 DNREC 1125, as presently written, would consistently result in greater reductions impacting Delaware. It is equally plausible such sources could locate in Delaware and purchase offsets within Delaware providing greater reductions reducing ozone within Delaware as Delaware sources do impact the State most directly. See 80 FR 46271 (EPA's NODA). Delaware has not provided any evidence that its expanded offset program would always yield greater ozone reduction within the State versus reductions achieved from applying the federal offset requirements. While emissions reductions from offsets obtained from upwind sources pursuant to Delaware's revised regulation 7 DNREC 1125 may be equivalent in raw tons to offsets obtained within Delaware, Delaware provided no evidence that emission reductions from an upwind state would provide greater ozone reducing benefits within Delaware especially if offsets are obtained from upwind states a great distance from Delaware such as Wisconsin (a state included within the revised regulation).

    EPA is required by CAA section 110(k) and (l) to evaluate proposed SIP revisions for compliance with the CAA and its implementing regulations. While states may adopt regulations that differ from federal requirements as long as they are as stringent per CAA section 116, Delaware made no such demonstration that its regulations are as stringent as EPA's requirements nor provide any greater ozone reducing benefit. In addition, Delaware's regulations at 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 do not meet and are not equivalent to federal requirements for offsets. As discussed in detail in the NPR, Delaware's submittal does not on its face comport with the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) and the implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and part 51, appendix S. Delaware's regulations allow the acquisition of offsets from areas that may not be of the same or higher nonattainment status and may not be from areas found to contribute to a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Delaware.

    Comment 8: Delaware stated its regulations allow the State to determine that offsets can be acquired in areas that EPA has previously determined significantly contribute to Delaware's nonattainment in modeling for CSAPR for the 1997 ozone standard, thus allowing economically-beneficial growth and additional reductions to out-of-state impacts on Delaware's air quality. Delaware asserted EPA's regulations for offsets deter environmentally beneficial economic growth in Delaware and result in more emissions impacts on Delaware.

    Response 8: As stated previously in response to a prior comment, EPA's NSR program was designed to allow for responsible economic growth while at the same time allowing states to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. As stated in the NPR, Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision seeks to expand the geographical area in which owners and operators of new or modified major stationary sources may obtain emissions offsets, regardless of the area's attainment classification for the ozone NAAQS and without specific requirements that the area “contribute to violation” of the ozone NAAQS in the area in which a new or modified source is locating or located. The contribution data calculated to support the promulgation of CSAPR evaluated whether emissions from an entire state, and from all source categories, would contribute to projected nonattainment in downwind states, but the air quality modeling did not separately evaluate contribution from nonattainment areas in upwind states to downwind air quality problems. Thus, regardless of the levels of contribution calculated from other states to air quality in Delaware, the State's regulations do not satisfy the minimum statutory criteria for demonstrating that emissions offsets (1) are obtained from another nonattainment area of equal or higher classification than the area in which the source is located, and (2) that emissions from such other nonattainment area contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment area where the new or modified source is locating or located. Moreover, contrary to Delaware's assertions, its regulations allow acquisition of offsets from more states than just states that Delaware contends contribute to ozone nonattainment in Delaware for the 1997 or 2008 ozone NAAQS based on modeling conducted to support CSAPR. Even if some of the states Delaware identified as contributing to its nonattainment for prior ozone NAAQS, Delaware's regulations allow acquisition of offsets from those states without requiring that the areas in which offsets may be attained in those states to have the same or higher attainment classification. In addition, the CSAPR modeling Delaware cites in its comments was conducted in 2011 and does not consider subsequent changes in emissions or contributions from sources in upwind states. As the modeling is not based on current emissions or contribution levels from other states, it cannot be used to meet the requirement for showing contribution to nonattainment in Delaware at the time a source would be seeking offsets for a NSR permit required under 7 DNREC 1125. EPA is disapproving this SIP revision for two reasons: (1) Delaware's emissions offset provision language does not comport with the specific requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) or the federal implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and appendix S; and, (2) Delaware lacks legal authority to designate an area as nonattainment under CAA section 107(c) and (d). As stated previously, the economic impacts are not relevant to whether Delaware's regulations meet CAA requirements, and, thus, EPA provides no further response to that issue.

    Comment 9: Delaware asserted that EPA incorrectly concluded that Delaware's SIP revision submittal did not include any information supporting Delaware's determination that emissions in the area specified in the regulation “contribute to a violation” for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. CAA section 173(c)(1) requires that all emissions offsets must come from an area which contributes to a violation of the NAAQS where the source seeking a permit is located. Delaware pointed to EPA modeling that supported the CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS of 80 ppb and in its evaluation asserted that there are minimal differences between the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS modeling. Delaware claimed it evaluated EPA's 1997 modeling based on a threshold of 0.75 ppb, which is 1 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The State notes that the level of the ozone NAAQS standards have no bearing on the actual location of emissions and the movement of the air, concluding that the 1997 modeling is pertinent and reliable.

    Response 9: EPA disagrees with Delaware's hybrid use of EPA's CSAPR modeling conducted to evaluate interstate transport for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to support its revised rule language in 7 DNREC 1125 sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6. As discussed earlier, the CSAPR modeling for evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 1997 standard does not consider present-day, current emission levels or contributions from sources throughout the country. Moreover, the CSAPR modeling was also not completed for a source-specific situation where, among other things, a source needs to show that the particular emission offsets it is obtaining contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment area where the major new or modified source is currently seeking to locate. Thus, Delaware cannot rely on this older modeling which used emissions data prior to 2011 to support a “contribution” argument for a source seeking to use offsets for a NSR permit in the future. Finally, even if the CSAPR modeling data was a relevant metric by which to evaluate contribution for purposes of obtaining offsets, as noted above, the Delaware regulations do not constrain sources to only acquiring offsets from those states identified as impacting Delaware in the modeling analysis or otherwise comply with the statutory requirement that such offsets be obtained from an area with the same or higher attainment classification.

    Accordingly, Delaware's reliance on EPA's CSAPR modeling is insufficient to support approval of its offset regulations, as the State does not take into account the complexities that a full modeling analysis requires to make the demonstration required by the statute; does not consider present day emissions and contributions from states where a potential new source may seek offsets; and, does not meet the CAA requirements for an owner or operator of a source requiring emission offsets as discussed in the NPR and previous response to comments.

    Comment 10: Delaware believes EPA erroneously concluded that Delaware is trying to exercise authorities reserved for EPA under CAA section 107(c) and (d) by treating certain areas as ozone nonattainment areas regardless of EPA's classification of those states for attainment of the ozone NAAQS and is therefore disapproving the SIP revision because it's not in accordance with provisions of the CAA. Delaware asserted that EPA misinterpreted its actions because CAA section 107(c) and (d) are provisions in which EPA designates an area as nonattainment (in doing so imposing substantive nonattainment requirements on that area) and Delaware's revisions to its offset regulation do not impose any such planning requirements on any other state. According to Delaware, its regulations only identify “other areas as areas where Delaware sources can obtain emissions offsets, and which is the area that Delaware demonstrated is more stringent than the minimum area defined in the underlying federal requirements.”

    Response 10: As noted in the NPR, EPA disagrees with Delaware's attempt to treat entire states as an area of equal or higher nonattainment classification for the ozone NAAQS, regardless of their designation by EPA under CAA section 107, in an effort to allow sources to obtain emission offsets from those states. Delaware's SIP revision submittal of 7 DNREC 1125 sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 does not meet the requirements in CAA section 173(c), 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) and appendix S, section IV.D.1, because the identified sections allow emissions offsets to be used from areas not designated by EPA pursuant to CAA section 107 as an area of equal or higher nonattainment classification for any ozone NAAQS and do not address contribution requirements in the CAA and its implementing regulations. In an attempt to broaden where sources can obtain emissions offsets, Delaware essentially created a large multi-state area in which sources locating in Delaware can automatically obtain emission offsets, without fully evaluating the impacts on air quality. This action circumvents the basic requirements of CAA section 173(c), 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) and appendix S, section IV.D.1. The use of emissions offsets under a state's NSR permit program should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis whereby the major new or modified source ensures that offsets obtained from one source, in a nonattainment area of equal or higher nonattainment classification, are actually contributing to a violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment area where the major new or modified source is locating. Delaware's attempts to treat more states as nonattainment areas equal to Delaware's attainment classifications regardless of how EPA has designated these other states is not in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and the federal implementing regulations, as EPA stated previously. Delaware cannot avoid this improper exercise of designation authority under CAA 107 merely by saying its regulation treating areas as nonattainment does not impose SIP planning obligations on these other states. Thus, EPA disagrees with Delaware's argument it did not usurp authority under CAA 107 because Delaware's regulation attempts to exercise authorities that are reserved solely for EPA in CAA section 107 by treating certain upwind areas as ozone “nonattainment areas” to meet the requirement of “equal or higher nonattainment classification” for emission offset purposes regardless of EPA's classification of those areas for attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

    Comment 11: Delaware asserted that the state areas specified in its revised regulation (7 DNREC 1125) are the primary cause of its ozone problem and there is no substantive difference between the areas indicated by Delaware and the areas EPA has designated as marginal nonattainment for ozone as those areas still contribute to Delaware's ozone issues. As an example, Delaware stated that EPA designated Queen Anne's County, Maryland, as “attainment/unclassifiable” rather than “moderate nonattainment” even though reductions in ozone precursors in that area would assist Delaware with attaining the NAAQS, because the area is directly upwind of Sussex County, Delaware. Delaware also stated that the only purpose of emission offsets is to reduce pollution that impacts the nonattainment area and that there is no practical reason not to accept reductions in these areas that directly impact and cause Delaware's nonattainment problem with ozone.

    Response 11: EPA appreciates Delaware's interest in regulating sources in other states in order to meet the ozone NAAQS, so long as it is done in accordance with the CAA; however, this comment is not relevant to EPA's current action disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision. CAA section 173(c) specifies offset requirements for owners and operators of new or modified major stationary sources. Specifically, section 173(c)(1) requires that: “the owner or operator of a new or modified major source may comply with any offset requirement in effect under this part for increased emissions of any air pollutant only by obtaining emission reductions of such air pollutant from the same source or other sources in the same nonattainment area, except that the State may allow the owner or operator of a source to obtain such emission reductions in another nonattainment area if (A) the other area has an equal or higher nonattainment classification than the area in which the source is located and (B) emissions from such other area contribute to a violation of the national ambient air quality standard in the nonattainment area in which the source is located (emphasis added).”

    The CAA clearly establishes two separate criteria to permit a source to obtain offsets in “another nonattainment area.” Delaware's example of Queen Anne's County, Maryland, is inconsistent with the CAA as the County is not even “another nonattainment area”, much less a nonattainment area that “has an equal or higher nonattainment classification than the area in which the source is located.” Delaware and other states can allow owners and operators to obtain emissions offsets from any other nonattainment area, so long as the applicable CAA requirements are met. Delaware cannot authorize owners and operators of a source in the State to obtain emission offsets from any area where Delaware decides it would attain some emissions reduction benefit as it is in direct conflict with the clear requirements in the CAA.

    Comment 12: Delaware questioned EPA's legal rationale that a disapproval of Delaware's SIP submission would not trigger a federal implementation plan (FIP) obligation. Delaware amended its Regulation 1125, effective September 11, 2013, by replacing Regulation 1125 section 2.5.5 and adding a sentence to section 2.5.6 to effectuate the modification to the offset provision. As the prior regulation which EPA had approved for the SIP is no longer in place, Delaware stated it did not understand EPA's legal rational to not issue a FIP.

    Response 12: As previously noted in the NPR, under CAA section 179(a)(2), final disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k) of a submission that addresses a requirement of a part D plan (CAA sections 171-193), starts a sanction clock. Under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), EPA also has an obligation to promulgate a FIP where EPA finds the SIP does not meet CAA criteria under CAA section 110(k)(1). Delaware's SIP revision addresses a part D Plan requirement for a NSR permitting program, but Delaware presently has a fully-approved NSR permit program in the approved Delaware SIP. See 77 FR 60053 (October 2, 2012). Even though Delaware's underlying State regulation is now different, the approved Delaware SIP contained in 40 CFR 52.420 still contains the previously-approved NSR program and will continue to do so until EPA approves a SIP revision either replacing the program or removing it without replacement (neither of which has occurred). Thus, at this time, there is no deficiency in Delaware's SIP with regards to NSR permitting, and Delaware's approved SIP continues to meet CAA NSR criteria. Therefore, as a result of this final action to disapprove Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision, no sanctions under CAA section 179 will be triggered, and EPA has no obligation to promulgate a FIP under CAA section 110(c). As stated in the NPR, EPA expects Delaware to implement the EPA-approved NSR permitting program contained in the SIP, including the offsets requirements in the previously-approved version of Regulation 1125, and to revise its State provisions at section 2.0 of Regulation 1125 accordingly to address CAA 173(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.165, and part 51, appendix S, section IV.D for offsets.6

    6 EPA approved Regulation 1125 for the Delaware SIP on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60053) including the emission offset requirements that address requirements in CAA 173(c)(1), 40 CFR 51.165, and part 51, appendix S, section IV.D. The State effective date of this version of Regulation 1125 was February 11, 2012, and it is this version of Regulation 1125 that EPA expects Delaware to implement.

    Comment 13: Multiple comments were made in support of Delaware's proposed SIP revision, urging EPA to approve Delaware's SIP revision submittal, noting that it would encourage upwind states to reduce their emissions and help states attain and maintain the federal 75 ppb ozone NAAQS.

    Response 13: EPA appreciates the commenter's support for Delaware and the interest in improving air quality by reducing emissions from upwind states; however, all states are required to have regulations in place that meet the specific requirements of the CAA and federal implementing regulations, as noted in our responses to comments and in the NPR. EPA is disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal because it does not meet the requirements of the CAA and federal implementing regulations. Those requirements will not be restated here. See 80 FR 30015. While EPA appreciates Delaware's interest in securing upwind emission reductions, such concerns are not relevant to our review of Delaware's regulations regarding acquisition of offsets.

    Comment 14: New Jersey asserted that expanding the geographical area for offsets is good for air quality as it encourages reductions in upwind emissions. New Jersey further noted that federal requirements for offsets encourage a transported pollution burden on downwind states to get worse and that new or modified major sources in New Jersey and Delaware are required to install controls that represent LAER technology and seek offsets from limited areas while sources in upwind states would not be held accountable for their pollution transported to downwind states. New Jersey asserted that EPA should allow sources to obtain offsets from upwind states that trigger nonattainment and the offset requirements in downwind states based on if the upwind state significantly contributes to the downwind nonattainment, giving New Jersey and Delaware a broader geographic area from which to obtain emissions offsets, while removing emissions offsets from being used by sources located in upwind states, making more offsets available for economic growth in New Jersey and Delaware.

    Response 14: EPA appreciates New Jersey's comments and its interest in securing upwind reductions in ozone precursors as well as reductions in ozone precursors within New Jersey and Delaware. EPA has explained in the NPR and in prior responses to comment why Delaware's regulations for offsets do not meet federal NSR requirements in the CAA and its implementing regulations. While upwind reductions and additional availability of offsets within Delaware are important concerns, they are not relevant criteria for whether Delaware's regulations address CAA NSR requirements. Thus, EPA provides no further response to these comments.

    Comment 15: New Jersey commented that current air monitoring data shows that New Jersey and Delaware are in nonattainment and/or have maintenance issues with the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS and New Jersey also has one site in the northern New Jersey multi-state nonattainment area that cannot attain the 84 ppb ozone NAAQS; therefore, New Jersey states it is imperative that downwind states be able to reduce the amount of offsets available in upwind states.

    Response 15: EPA appreciates New Jersey's concern with attaining and maintaining old and new ozone NAAQS and has recently promulgated the CSAPR Update Rule specifically to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS with tightened ozone-season NOX budgets designed to achieve emission reductions in upwind states. In response to New Jersey's concern with attaining and maintaining the ozone standards since publication of the NPR on May 26, 2015, we note that the Philadelphia Area is meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb with preliminary 2013-2015 AQM data showing a design value of 75 ppb. Additionally, on May 4, 2016, EPA made a final determination that the Seaford, DE marginal nonattainment area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015 with a design value of 74 ppb. See 81 FR 26701. EPA is working with the states to address transport of ozone pollution so downwind states can attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS.

    Comment 16: DSCC referenced EPA's recently promulgated CSAPR, effective January 1, 2015, noting that Delaware is not considered an upwind contributor to downwind states, and, thus, is not even subject to CSAPR.

    Response 16: EPA thanks DSCC for its comment with respect to CSAPR applicability. While DSCC's characterization of CSAPR applicability in Delaware may be accurate, this comment is not relevant to EPA's disapproval of Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal revising 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6. It is noted that while emission sources in Delaware are not subject to the requirements of CSAPR, the State of Delaware is expected to experience improved air quality as a result of its full implementation.

    Comment 17: DSCC commented that, in 2008, EPA designated portions of Delaware as marginal nonattainment for ground-level ozone, which triggers nonattainment provisions of the CAA. DSCC claims Delaware is left with a requirement to attain, but no ability to regulate the out-of-state sources that cause its nonattainment problems.

    Response 17: EPA agrees with DSCC's comment that in 2008 EPA designated portions of Delaware as marginal nonattainment for ozone, specifically as noted in the NPR disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP submittal revising 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 and again in these responses to comment. While EPA appreciates DSCC's concerns, such concerns are not relevant to our disapproval of Delaware's regulations regarding acquisition of offsets. Transport of ozone precursors from one state to another is being addressed by states and EPA under other provisions of the CAA.

    IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 SIP revision consisting of revisions to DNREC's regulations related to nonattainment NSR preconstruction permit program requirements for emission offsets in the State of Delaware. Specifically, Delaware's revised Regulation 1125 which Delaware submitted as a SIP revision sought to expand the geographical area in which owners and operators of new or modified major stationary sources may obtain emissions offsets, regardless of the area's attainment classification for the ozone NAAQS and without specific requirements that the area “contribute to violation” of the ozone NAAQS in the area in which a new or modified source is locating or located. EPA is disapproving this SIP revision for two reasons: (1) Delaware's proposed emissions offset provision language does not comport with the specific requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173(c)(1) or the federal implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.165 and appendix S; and, (2) Delaware lacks legal authority to designate an area as nonattainment under CAA section 107(c) and (d).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP EPA is disapproving would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 19, 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 pertaining to disapproval of the Air Quality Management portion of Delaware's Administrative Code, which revises the regulations related to nonattainment NSR preconstruction permit program requirements for emission offsets 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart I—Delaware 2. In § 52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended under the heading “1125 Requirements for Preconstruction Review” by revising the entry for “Section 2.0” to read as follows:
    § 52.420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Regulations and Statutes in the Delaware SIP State regulation
  • (7 DNREC 1100)
  • Title/subject State
  • effective date
  • EPA approval date Additional explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1125 Requirements for Preconstruction Review *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 2.0 Emission Offset Provisions (EOP) including sections 1.0 through 3.16.4 2/11/12 10/2/12, 77 FR 60053 Added Section 2.2.5, 2.4.3.3 and 2.5.7. Sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 9/11/2013 10/20/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Disapproval. See 40 CFR 52.433(a). *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. Add § 52.433 to read as follows:
    § 52.433 Nonattainment new source review.

    (a) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving Delaware's October 15, 2013 submittal of revisions to 7 DNREC 1125, sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 because it does not meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements which establish the criteria under which the owner or operator of a new or modified major stationary source must obtain the required emission offsets for the nonattainment new source review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program and because Delaware exercises authorities that are reserved for EPA under section 107 of the CAA. Delaware's Federally-approved nonattainment NSR preconstruction program in 7 DNREC 1125, sections 1.0 through 3.16.4, effective in Delaware on February 11, 2012, was fully-approved by EPA on October 2, 2012 and continues to apply.

    (b) [Reserved]

    [FR Doc. 2016-24657 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325; FRL-9951-81] Fluridone; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of fluridone in or on cotton gin byproducts. SePRO Corporation requested the tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective October 20, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 19, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

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

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

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before December 19, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-45), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP# 6F8451) by SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide fluridone in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.1 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared SePRO, the registrant, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325 at http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for fluridone in or on cotton gin byproducts, consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2).

    In the Federal Register of February 17, 2016 (81 FR 7982) (FRL-9941-69), EPA established a tolerance for residues of fluridone in or on cotton, undelinted seed. EPA is relying upon the risk assessments that supported the findings made in the February 17, 2016 Federal Register document in support of this action. The toxicity profile of fluridone has not changed, and the previous risk assessments that supported the establishment of that tolerance remain valid.

    For the February 17, 2016 action, the petitioner did not propose a tolerance for residues of fluridone on cotton gin byproducts, however, the Agency determined that a cotton gin byproduct tolerance was needed to cover the cotton raw agricultural commodities (RAC). The commodity “cotton gin byproducts” was included in the risk assessments that supported the February 17, 2016 Final Rule, but because they were not proposed by the registrant, they could not be established at that time. The registrant has subsequently proposed the cotton gin byproducts tolerance and therefore, the tolerance can now be established.

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

    Therefore, EPA relies upon the findings made in the February 17, 2016, Federal Register document in support of this rule. EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to fluridone residues.

    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer to the February 17, 2016, Federal Register document and its supporting documents, available at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0913.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method (originally submitted as method AM-AA-CA-RO52-AA-755) is available in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Volume II for residues of fluridone in plant commodities.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    There is no Codex MRL for fluridone residues in or on cotton.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of fluridone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-(3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-4(1H)-pyridinone, in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.1 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Daniel J. Rosenblatt, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

    2. In § 180.420, in paragraph (a)(2) add an entry “Cotton, gin byproducts” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 180.420 Fluridone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (2) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Cotton, gin byproducts 0.1 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-25291 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1022 [Docket No. EP 716 (Sub-No. 1)] Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is issuing an interim final rule to adjust the Board's civil monetary penalties for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. As mandated by that act, the Board is issuing a “catch-up adjustment” for its penalties and will thereafter make annual inflation adjustments according to a specified formula.

    DATES:

    This interim final rule is effective on October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Davis: (202) 245-0378. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the President signed the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act), passed as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599. The 2015 Act further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (1990 Act), Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as previously amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, in order to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect.1

    1 A “civil monetary penalty” is defined by the 1990 Act as: “any penalty, fine, or other sanction that—(A)(i) is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law; or (ii) has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and (B) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (C) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts.” See also 49 CFR 1022.2(b).

    The 1996 Act required each federal agency to adopt regulations at least once every four years that adjust for inflation the maximum amount of civil monetary penalties under the statutes administered by the agency. In accordance with the 1996 Act, the Board increased its existing civil monetary penalties, which had not been adjusted for inflation since they were prescribed in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, by 10%, through a final rule issued in the main docket of this proceeding on October 22, 2012.

    The 2015 Act requires agencies to adjust their civil monetary penalties for inflation through an initial “catch-up adjustment.” 2 The 2015 Act requires that this adjustment be issued through an interim final rulemaking and sets forth a specific methodology to calculate the adjustment. To arrive at the adjusted penalty, the agency must multiply the penalty amount when it was established or last adjusted by Congress, excluding adjustments under the 1990 Act, by a multiplier that is based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year the penalty amount was established or last adjusted by Congress, and the October 2015 CPI-U.3 As mandated by statute, penalty level adjustments should be rounded to the nearest dollar, and the initial increase of penalties shall not exceed 150%.

    2 Under the 2015 Act, the initial penalty adjustments were to take effect no later than August 1, 2016. The rules issued here will take effect immediately upon publication.

    3 The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies on implementing the catch-up adjustments and provided multipliers to adjust the penalty level based on the year the penalty was established or last adjusted pursuant to law. See Memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget, M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Feb. 24, 2016).

    Following the catch-up adjustment, the 2015 Act then directs agencies to adjust their civil penalties for inflation annually, beginning on January 15, 2017, and no later than January 15 of every year thereafter. Annual inflation adjustments will be based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment and the prior year's October CPI-U. As with the catch-up adjustment, penalty level adjustments should be rounded to the nearest dollar.

    II. Discussion

    The statutory definition of civil monetary penalty covers the civil penalty provisions under the Rail Carrier (Part A), Motor and Water Carriers (Part B), and Pipeline Carrier (Part C) provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by ICCTA. The Board's civil (and criminal) penalty authority related to rail transportation appears at 49 U.S.C. 11901-11908.

    The Board's penalty authority related to motor carriers, water carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders appears at 49 U.S.C. 14901-14915. The Board's penalty authority related to pipeline carriers appears at 49 U.S.C. 16101-16106.4

    4 The Board also has criminal penalty authority, enforceable in a federal criminal court. Congress has not, however, authorized federal agencies to adjust statutorily-prescribed criminal penalty provisions for inflation, and this rule does not address those provisions.

    As set forth in this interim final rule, the Board is amending 49 CFR pt. 1022 so that its regulations and civil monetary penalties conform to the requirements of the 2015 Act. The adjusted penalties set forth in the rule will apply only to violations which occur after the effective date of this regulation.

    III. Interim Final Rule

    The interim final rule is set forth at the end of this decision. This interim final rule is issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), does not require that process “when the agency for good cause finds” that public notice and comment are “unnecessary.” Here, Congress has mandated that the agency make the catch-up inflation adjustment through an interim final rule. The Board has no discretion to set alternative levels of adjusted civil monetary penalties, because the amount of the inflation adjustment must be calculated in accordance with the statutory formula. The Board simply determines the amount of inflation adjustments by performing technical, ministerial computations. Because the Board has no discretion to do anything except promulgate the rule and perform ministerial computations to apply it, public comment would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Board has determined that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without soliciting public comment and to make this regulation effective immediately upon publication.

    The following chart shows the relevant statutory provision and penalty description, the baseline penalty, the values used in the calculations, the relevant cap imposed by the 2015 Act for the catch-up adjustment,5 and the rounded catch-up adjustment.

    5 All of the applicable penalty adjustments fell below the 150% cap on the catch-up adjustments.

    U.S. Code citation Civil monetary penalty description Baseline penalty Multiplier (year) Multiplier result 2015 Act cap Adjusted penalty amount Rail Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 11901(a) Unless otherwise specified, maximum penalty for each knowing violation under this part, and for each day $5,000 1.50245 (1996) $7,512 $13,750 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each violation under section 11124(a)(2) or (b) $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each day violation continues $25 1.50245 (1996) $38 $69 $38 49 U.S.C. 11901(c) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation under sections 10901-10906 $5,000 1.50245 (1996) $7,512 $13,750 $7,512 49 U.S.C. § 11901(d) For each violation under sections 11123 or 11124(a)(1) $100-$500 1.50245 (1996) $150-$751 $275-$1,375 $150-$751 49 U.S.C. 11901(d) For each day violation continues $50 1.50245 (1996) $75 $138 $75 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(1) For each violation under sections 11141-11145 $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(2) For each violation under section 11144(b)(1) $100 1.50245 (1996) $150 $275 $150 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(3-4) For each violation of reporting requirements, for each day $100 1.50245 (1996) $150 $275 $150 Motor and Water Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) Minimum penalty for each violation and for each day $1,000 1.02819 (2012) $1,028 n/a $1,028 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation under sections 13901 or 13902(c) $10,000 1.02819 (2012) $10,282 n/a $10,282 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation related to transportation of passengers $25,000 1.02819 (2012) $25,705 n/a $25,705 49 U.S.C. 14901(b) For each violation of the hazardous waste rules under section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act $20,000-$40,000 1.02819 (2012) $20,564-$41,128 n/a $20,564-$41,128 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(1) Minimum penalty for each violation of household good regulations, and for each day $1,000 1.50245 (1996) $1,502 $2,750 $1,502 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(2) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods if broker provides estimate without carrier agreement $10,000 1.50245 (1996) $15,025 $27,500 $15,025 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(3) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods without being registered $25,000 1.50245 (1996) $37,561 $68,750 $37,561 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each violation of a transportation rule $2,000 1.50245 (1996) $3,005 $5,500 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each additional violation $5,000 1.50245 (1996) $7,512 $13,750 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 14903(a) Maximum penalty for undercharge or overcharge of tariff rate, for each violation $100,000 1.50245 (1996) $150,245 $275,000 $150,245 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For first violation, rebates at less than the rate in effect $200 1.50245 (1996) $300 $550 $300 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For all subsequent violations $250 1.50245 (1996) $376 $688 $376 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for first violation for undercharges by freight forwarders $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations $2,000 1.50245 (1996) $3,005 $5,500 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for other first violations under § 13702 $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations $2,000 1.50245 (1996) $3,005 $5,500 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14905(a) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation of section 14103(a), and knowingly authorizing, consenting to, or permitting a violation of section 14103(a) & (b) $10,000 1.50245 (1996) $15,025 $27,500 $15,025 49 U.S.C. 14906 Minimum penalty for first attempt to evade regulation $2,000 1.02819 (2012) $2,056 n/a $2,056 49 U.S.C. § 14906 Minimum amount for each subsequent attempt to evade regulation $5,000 1.02819 (2012) $5,141 n/a $5,141 49 U.S.C. 14907 Maximum penalty for recordkeeping/reporting violations $5,000 1.50245 (1996) $7,512 $13,750 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 14908(a)(2) Maximum penalty for violation of section 14908(a)(1) $2,000 1.50245 (1996) $3,005 $5,500 $3,005 49 U.S.C. § 14910 When another civil penalty is not specified under this part, for each violation, for each day $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 14915(a)(1) & (2) Minimum penalty for holding a household goods shipment hostage, for each day $10,000 1.19397 (2005) $11,940 $27,500 $11,940 Pipeline Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. § 16101(a) Maximum penalty for violation of this part, for each day $5,000 1.50245 (1996) $7,512 $13,750 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(1) & (4) For each recordkeeping violation under section 15722, each day $500 1.50245 (1996) $751 $1,375 $751 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(2) & (4) For each inspection violation liable under section 15722, each day $100 1.50245 (1996) $150 $275 $150 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(3) & (4) For each reporting violation under section 15723, each day $100 1.50245 (1996) $150 $275 $150 49 U.S.C. 16103(a) Maximum penalty for improper disclosure of information $1,000 1.50245 (1996) $1,502 $2,750 $1,502 IV. Regulatory Flexibility Statement

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1022

    Administrative practice and procedures, Brokers, Civil penalties, Freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Pipeline carriers, Rail carriers, Water carriers.

    It is ordered:

    1. The Board amends its rules as set forth in this decision. Notice of the interim final rule will be published in the Federal Register.

    2. This decision is effective on its date of service.

    Decided: October 12, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

    Kenyatta Clay, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1022 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

    PART 1022—CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENT 1. The authority citation for part 1022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 551-557; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 49 U.S.C. 11901, 14901, 14903, 14904, 14905, 14906, 14907, 14908, 14910, 14915, 16101, 16103.

    2. Revise § 1022.1 to read as follows:
    § 1022.1 Scope and purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to establish a method to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Board, in conformity with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 599. These penalties shall be subject to review and adjustment annually using the method specified in this part.

    3. Amend § 1022.2 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (d). b. Add paragraph (e).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 1022.2 Definitions.

    (d) Cost-of-Living Adjustment means the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October preceding the adjustment exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the month of October one year before the month of October preceding date of the adjustment.

    (e) Initial Cost-of-Living Adjustment means, for each civil monetary penalty, the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for the month of October 2015 exceeds the Consumer Price Index of the month of October of the calendar year during which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was established or adjusted under a provision of law.

    4. Amend § 1022.3 by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
    § 1022.3 Civil monetary penalty inflation adjustment.

    The Board shall, immediately, and at least every year thereafter—

    5. Revise § 1022.4 to read as follows:
    § 1022.4 Cost-of living adjustments of civil monetary penalties.

    (a) The inflation adjustment under § 1022.3 will initially be determined by increasing each maximum civil monetary penalty by the initial cost-of-living adjustment. Not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, the inflation adjustment will subsequently be determined by increasing the maximum civil monetary penalty for each civil monetary penalty by the cost-of-living adjustment. Any increase determined under this section shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

    (b) The initial cost-of-living inflation adjustment required by the statute results in the following adjustments to the civil monetary penalties within the jurisdiction of the Board:

    U.S. Code citation Civil monetary penalty description Baseline penalty amount Adjusted penalty amount (2016) Rail Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 11901(a) Unless otherwise specified, maximum penalty for each knowing violation under this part, and for each day $5,000 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each violation under section 11124(a)(2) or (b) $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 11901(b) For each day violation continues $25 $38 49 U.S.C. 11901(c) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation under section 10901-10906 $5,000 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 11901(d) For each violation under section 11123 or 11124(a)(1) $100-$500 $150-$751 49 U.S.C. 11901(d) For each day violation continues $50 $75 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(1) For each violation under section s 11141-11145 $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(2) For each violation under section 11144(b)(1) $100 $150 49 U.S.C. 11901(e)(3-4) For each violation of reporting requirements, for each day $100 $150 Motor and Water Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) Minimum penalty for each violation and for each day $1,000 $1,028 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation under sections 13901 or 13902(c) $10,000 $10,282 49 U.S.C. 14901(a) For each violation related to transportation of passengers $25,000 $25,705 49 U.S.C. 14901(b) For each violation of the hazardous waste rules under section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act $20,000-$40,000 $20,564-$41,128 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(1) Minimum penalty for each violation of household good regulations, and for each day $1,000 $1,502 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(2) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods if broker provides estimate without carrier agreement $10,000 $15,025 49 U.S.C. 14901(d)(3) Minimum penalty for each instance of transportation of household goods without being registered $25,000 $37,561 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each violation of a transportation rule $2,000 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14901(e) Minimum penalty for each additional violation $5,000 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 14903(a) Maximum penalty for undercharge or overcharge of tariff rate, for each violation $100,000 $150,245 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For first violation, rebates at less than the rate in effect $200 $300 49 U.S.C. 14904(a) For all subsequent violations $250 $376 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for first violation for undercharges by freight forwarders $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(1) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations $2,000 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for other first violations under section 13702 $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 14904(b)(2) Maximum penalty for subsequent violations $2,000 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14905(a) Maximum penalty for each knowing violation of section 14103(a), and knowingly authorizing, consenting to, or permitting a violation of section 14103(a) & (b) $10,000 $15,025 49 U.S.C. 14906 Minimum penalty for first attempt to evade regulation $2,000 $2,056 49 U.S.C. 14906 Minimum amount for each subsequent attempt to evade regulation $5,000 $5,141 49 U.S.C. 14907 Maximum penalty for recordkeeping/reporting violations $5,000 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 14908(a)(2) Maximum penalty for violation of section 14908(a)(1) $2,000 $3,005 49 U.S.C. 14910 When another civil penalty is not specified under this part, for each violation, for each day $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 14915(a)(1) & (2) Minimum penalty for holding a household goods shipment hostage, for each day $10,000 $11,940 Pipeline Carrier Civil Penalties 49 U.S.C. 16101(a) Maximum penalty for violation of this part, for each day $5,000 $7,512 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(1) & (4) For each recordkeeping violation under section 15722, each day $500 $751 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(2) & (4) For each inspection violation liable under section 15722, each day $100 $150 49 U.S.C. 16101(b)(3) & (4) For each reporting violation under section 15723, each day $100 $150 49 U.S.C. 16103(a) Maximum penalty for improper disclosure of information $1,000 $1,502
    [FR Doc. 2016-25273 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 [Docket No. 150527481-6928-02] RIN 0648-XD971 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule To List the Island Grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) as Threatened and the Gulf Grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) as Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, issue a final rule to list two foreign grouper species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We considered comments submitted on the proposed listing rule and have determined that the gulf grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) and the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) warrant listing as endangered and threatened species, respectively. We will not designate critical habitat for either of these species because the geographical areas occupied by these species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, and we have not identified any unoccupied areas within U.S. jurisdiction that are currently essential to the conservation of either of these species.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Chief, Endangered Species Division, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (F/PR3), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (OPR), (301) 427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 15, 2013, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list 81 marine species or subpopulations as threatened or endangered under the ESA. This petition included species from many different taxonomic groups, and we prepared our 90-day findings in batches by taxonomic group. We found that the petitioned actions may be warranted for 24 of the species and 3 of the subpopulations and announced the initiation of status reviews for each of the 24 species and 3 subpopulations (78 FR 63941, October 25, 2013; 78 FR 66675, November 6, 2013; 78 FR 69376, November 19, 2013; 79 FR 9880, February 21, 2014; and 79 FR 10104, February 24, 2014). On September 23, 2015, we published a proposed rule to list the gulf grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) as an endangered species and the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) as a threatened species (80 FR 57314). We requested public comment on the information in the draft status review and proposed rule, and the comment period was open through November 23, 2015. This final rule provides a discussion of the information we received during the public comment period and our final determinations on the petition to list the gulf grouper and island grouper under the ESA. The status of the findings and relevant Federal Register notices for the other 22 species and 3 subpopulations can be found on our Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/petition81.htm.

    Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act

    We are responsible for determining whether species are threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines a “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.”

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We interpret an endangered species to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A threatened species, on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any one or a combination of the following five threat factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We are also required to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the species' status and after taking into account efforts being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.

    In making a listing determination, we first determine whether a petitioned species meets the ESA definition of a “species.” Next, using the best available information gathered during the status review for the species, we complete a status and extinction risk assessment. In assessing extinction risk for these two grouper species, we considered the demographic viability factors developed by McElhany et al. (2000). The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews, including for Pacific salmonids, Pacific hake, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Puget Sound rockfishes, Pacific herring, scalloped hammerhead sharks, and black abalone (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four viable population descriptors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. These viable population descriptors reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk (NMFS 2015).

    We then assess efforts being made to protect the species to determine if these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires the Secretary, when making a listing determination for a species, to take into consideration those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation to protect the species.

    Summary of Comments

    In response to our request for comments on the proposed rule, we received comments from eight parties. All commenters presented general information on threats or provided data that were already cited, discussed, and considered in the draft status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015) or the proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015). Summaries of the substantive public comments received, and our responses, are provided below, with references to our prior documents where relevant.

    Comment 1: One commenter noted that WildEarth Guardians had submitted the petition to list these two grouper species and wondered at what level we involved WildEarth Guardians or other organizations in the process of making the assessment.

    Response: WildEarth Guardians did not have any role in evaluating the status of the two grouper species under the ESA beyond providing us with the information in its petition.

    Comment 2: Most commenters expressed support for the proposed rule, though several recommended we consider economic and social impacts on the tourism and fishing industries when determining what is restricted and prohibited or when developing recovery plans. One of these commenters noted that U.S. fishing companies will suffer if the gulf grouper is listed as endangered under the ESA because Mexico will not have regulations and laws for bycatch prevention devices and Mexican fishers do not have to abide by the ESA. And another commenter suggested allowing small amounts of sustainable yield to support those industries dependent on these two groupers.

    Response: The ESA requires us to base our listing determinations solely on the best available scientific and commercial information. We may not consider economic or social impacts in making these determinations. When a species is listed as endangered, the ESA section 9 prohibitions are automatically extended to that species. The gulf grouper is listed as endangered, and therefore, it is a violation for anybody subject to U.S. jurisdiction to harvest this species in U.S. waters or on the high seas.

    Therefore, we cannot authorize even small amounts of harvest of this species to support the fishing industry. However, when a species is listed as threatened, section 9 prohibitions are not automatically extended to that species. In this case, we have not extended any section 9 prohibitions to the threatened island grouper, so there is no prohibition against harvesting them. However, any Federal agency that funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect an ESA listed species must consult with us under section 7 of the ESA to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA.

    Comment 3: One commenter asserted that Mexico has an 8,000 km2 area where gill nets are illegal, but more efforts are needed to protect the two grouper species.

    Response: Although we have no authority with respect to how other countries manage species within their territories, we encourage Spain, Portugal, and Mexico to provide for the conservation of these species that are found in their waters.

    Comment 4: One commenter stated that he understood the need to protect these grouper species, but he asserted that ESA protection will not have the protective effect NMFS is seeking, especially for the gulf grouper. This commenter noted that the gulf grouper has limited habitat, the habitat is threatened by dams, and ESA listing will not help. The commenter suggested that NMFS consider public outreach to bring attention to the many problems dams cause.

    Response: While it is true that fewer protections apply under the ESA for foreign species, important protections do apply. All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (including its citizens) must comply with section 9 of the ESA, which, among other things, makes it unlawful to import endangered species into the United States or to export them from the United States, or to “take” endangered species within the territorial sea of the United States or upon the high seas (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(A)-(C)). Also, any Federal agency that funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect an ESA listed species must consult with us under section 7 of the ESA to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed under the ESA. In addition, listing provides important educational benefits by informing the public about the plight of these species and promotes conservation actions by Federal and State agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals.

    Comment 5: One commenter wondered why NMFS was listing the island grouper, which is a foreign species. The commenter noted that ESA listing would have no legal impact, and it would be better to impose a ≥700mm size limit for these two grouper species.

    Response: Section 4 of the ESA requires that we list any species that we determine to be endangered or threatened, whether it occurs within the United States or elsewhere. Demonstrating a need to secure particular protections under the other sections of the ESA, or that such protections will be afforded where the species is found, is not a precondition to listing. As we noted in our response to Comment 3, although we have no authority with respect to how other countries manage species within their territories, we encourage Spain, Portugal, and Mexico to provide for the conservation of these species that are found in their waters. Please see our response to Comment 4 for a summary of protections that will apply to the endangered gulf grouper and threatened island grouper.

    Comment 6: One commenter stated that it would be helpful if other countries would realize that the imminent threats of tidal power, desalination, commercial fishing, and waste runoff are big factors in the degradation and loss of habitat for these grouper species and that they would follow through to begin addressing these issues and help bring these groupers back to viable numbers.

    Response: Again, although we have no authority with respect to how other countries manage species within their territories, we encourage Spain, Portugal, and Mexico to provide for the conservation of these species that are found in their waters.

    Comment 7: One commenter suggested a campaign to increase recreational scuba diving aimed at hunting lionfish for sport, feeding them to the gulf grouper, and serving them at restaurants as an effective tool for conserving gulf grouper (and lionfish eradication), as this has been successful in helping eradicate lionfish in the Caribbean.

    Response: We appreciate the commenter's suggestion, but this is beyond the scope of our final rule.

    Summary of Changes From the Proposed Listing Rule

    We did not receive, nor did we find, scientific data from references that were not previously included in the draft status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015) and proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015). We incorporate, as appropriate, relevant information received as communications during the public comment process.

    However, this information does not present significant new findings that change any of our proposed listing determinations.

    Status Review

    Status reviews for the gulf grouper and the island grouper were conducted by NMFS OPR staff and an in-house contractor. In order to complete the status reviews, we compiled information on the species' biology, ecology, life history, threats, and conservation status from information contained in the petition, our files, a comprehensive literature search, and consultation with experts. Prior to publication of the proposed rule, the status review reports were subjected to peer review. Peer reviewer comments are available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html.

    The status review reports provide a thorough discussion of the life history, demographic risks, and threats to the two grouper species. We considered all identified threats, both individually and cumulatively, to determine whether these grouper species respond in a way that causes actual impacts at the species level. The collective condition of individual populations was also considered at the species level, according to the four viable population descriptors discussed above.

    The proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015) summarizes general background information on the description, reproductive biology and spawning behavior, population structure, distribution, abundance, and habitat of the gulf grouper and island grouper. All of that information is incorporated herein.

    Species Determinations

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information described or referenced above, and included in the status review reports, and as stated in the proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015), we have determined that the gulf grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) and the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) are taxonomically-distinct species and therefore meet the definition of “species” pursuant to section 3 of the ESA and are eligible for listing under the ESA.

    Summary of Factors Affecting the Two Species

    Next we consider whether any one or a combination of the five threat factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA contribute to the extinction risk of these species. The comments that we received on the proposed rule did not change our conclusions regarding any of the section 4(a)(1) factors or their interactions for these species. In fact, the comments lend further support to our conclusion that the threats of overutilization and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms are contributing significantly to the risk of extinction for both Mycteroperca species. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the summary of factors affecting the two grouper species in the status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015) and proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015).

    Extinction Risk

    None of the comments we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected our extinction risk evaluations of these two grouper species. Our evaluations and conclusions regarding extinction risk for these species remain the same. Therefore, we incorporate herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the extinction risk of the two grouper species in the status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015) and proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015).

    Protective Efforts

    Finally, we considered conservation efforts to protect both species and evaluated whether these conservation efforts are adequate to mitigate the existing threats to the point where extinction risk is significantly lowered and the species' status is improved. None of the information we received from public comment on the proposed rule affected our conclusions regarding conservation efforts to protect the two grouper species. We incorporate herein all information, discussion, and conclusions on the protective efforts for the two grouper species in the status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015) and proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015).

    Final Determinations

    We have reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, the information in the status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015), the comments of peer reviewers, and public comments. Following are summaries of our listing determinations for these two species.

    Gulf Grouper

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, as summarized here, in our proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015), and in Dennis (2015), and consideration of protective efforts being made to protect the species, we find that the gulf grouper (Mycteroperca jordani) is at a high risk of extinction. The gulf grouper was once considered abundant, and now it is rare (Jenkins and Evermann 1889, Croker 1937, and Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005a). Direct harvest is the major reason for gulf grouper decline (Sala et al. 2004, Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005a, Aburto-Oropeza et al. 2008) and, due to the lack of protective regulations in Mexico (no meaningful quotas nor protective regulations for gulf grouper), there is no reason to expect fishing to be a diminishing threat.

    Moreover, gulf grouper are intrinsically vulnerable to overfishing due to life history traits, including large size, late onset of reproductive maturity, protogynous hermaphrodite life history, transient aggregate spawning, slow growth rate, long life-span, and restricted geographic range (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012). Based on the best available information, we find that the gulf grouper is in danger of extinction throughout its range. After considering efforts being made to protect this species, we could not conclude that the existing or proposed conservation efforts would alter its extinction risk. We therefore list it as endangered under the ESA.

    Island Grouper

    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, as summarized here, in our proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015), and in Salz (2015), and consideration of protective efforts being made to protect the species, we find that the island grouper (Mycteroperca fusca) is at a moderate risk of extinction. The nature of the threats and demographic risks identified, taking into account the uncertainty associated with the threats and risks, does not demonstrate the species is presently in danger of extinction; and therefore, it does not meet the definition of an endangered species.

    However, the current threats to island grouper from fishing overutilization and inadequate regulatory mechanisms are likely to continue in the future, further exacerbating the demographic risk factors associated with abundance, growth rate and productivity, and spatial structure and connectivity. We conclude that both the species' current risk of extinction and the best available information on the extent of, and trends in, the major threats affecting this species make it likely this species will become an endangered species within the foreseeable future (defined as 40 years, as explained in the proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015)) throughout its range. We therefore list it as threatened under the ESA.

    Effects of Listing

    Conservation measures provided for species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA include recovery actions (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)); Federal agency requirements to consult with NMFS under section 7 of the ESA to ensure their actions do not jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat should it be designated (16 U.S.C. 1536); designation of critical habitat if prudent and determinable (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)); and prohibitions on taking (16 U.S.C. 1538). In addition, recognition of the species' plight through listing promotes conservation actions by Federal and State agencies, foreign entities, private groups, and individuals. Because the ranges of these two species are entirely outside U.S. jurisdiction, the main effects of this final rule are the prohibitions on take, including export and import, of the endangered gulf grouper.

    Identifying Section 7 Consultation Requirements

    Section 7(a)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) of the ESA and NMFS/USFWS regulations require Federal agencies to consult with us to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. It is unlikely that the listing of these species under the ESA will increase the number of section 7 consultations, because these species occur entirely outside of the United States and are unlikely to be affected by Federal actions. Although the gulf grouper's historical range includes parts of Southern California, there are no recent records indicating that this species still exists in U.S. waters.

    Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)) as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) specify that the Secretary will identify, at a scale determined by the Secretary to be appropriate, specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for its conservation, considering the life history, status, and conservation needs of the species based on the best available scientific data. Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(A)) requires that, to the extent prudent and determinable, critical habitat be designated concurrently with the listing of a species. However, critical habitat shall not be designated in foreign countries or other areas outside U.S. jurisdiction (50 CFR 424.12(g)).

    The best available scientific and commercial information as discussed above, the status review reports (Dennis 2015; Salz 2015), and the proposed rule (80 FR 57314; September 23, 2015) does not indicate that U.S. waters provide any specific essential biological or physical function for the gulf grouper. U.S. waters account for a very small portion on the northern limit of the gulf grouper's historical range, and may no longer be part of the species' current range. Based on the best available information, we have not identified unoccupied areas in U.S. waters that are currently essential to the conservation of gulf grouper. Therefore, based on the available information, we do not intend to designate critical habitat for the gulf grouper.

    The island grouper occurs entirely outside of the United States. Therefore, we cannot designate critical habitat for island grouper.

    Identification of Those Activities That Would Likely Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the ESA

    On July 1, 1994, NMFS and FWS published a policy (59 FR 34272) that requires us to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not likely constitute a violation of section 9 of the ESA. Because we are listing Mycteroperca jordani as endangered, all of the prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA will apply to this species. These include prohibitions against the import, export, interstate or foreign trade (including delivery, receipt, carriage, shipment, transport, sale and offering for sale), and “take” of these species. These prohibitions apply to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including in the United States, its territorial sea, or on the high seas. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species' ranges. Activities that we believe could (subject to the exemptions set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539) result in a violation of section 9 prohibitions for the endangered gulf grouper include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (1) Possessing, delivering, transporting, or shipping any individual or part (dead or alive) taken in violation of section 9(a)(1);

    (2) Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, in the course of a commercial activity;

    (3) Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any individual or part, except antique articles at least 100 years old; and

    (4) Importing or exporting gulf grouper or any part of this species.

    We emphasize that whether a particular activity constitutes a violation is entirely dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each incident. Further, an activity not listed above may in fact constitute a violation.

    Identification of Those Activities That Would Not Likely Constitute a Violation of Section 9 of the ESA

    Although the determination of whether any given activity constitutes a violation is fact dependent, we consider the following actions, depending on the circumstances, as being unlikely to violate the prohibitions in ESA section 9 with regard to M. jordani: (1) Take authorized by, and carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of, an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by NMFS for purposes of scientific research or the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species; and (2) continued possession of parts that were in possession at the time of listing. Such parts may be non-commercially exported or imported; however the importer or exporter must be able to provide evidence to show that the parts meet the criteria of ESA section 9(b)(1) (i.e., held in a controlled environment at the time of listing, in a non-commercial activity).

    Section 11(f) of the ESA gives NMFS authority to promulgate regulations that may be appropriate to enforce the ESA. We may promulgate future regulations to regulate trade or holding of gulf grouper, if necessary. We will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on future proposed regulations.

    Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the ESA

    We are listing the island grouper as a threatened species. In the case of threatened species, ESA section 4(d) leaves it to the Secretary's discretion whether, and to what extent, to extend the section 9(a) “take” prohibitions to the species, and authorizes us to issue regulations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. Thus, we have flexibility under section 4(d) to tailor protective regulations, taking into account the effectiveness of available conservation measures. The 4(d) protective regulations may prohibit, with respect to threatened species, some or all of the acts which section 9(a) of the ESA prohibits with respect to endangered species. These 9(a) prohibitions apply to all individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

    Because the island grouper occurs entirely outside of the United States, and is not commercially traded with the United States, extending the section 9(a) “take” prohibitions to this species will not result in added conservation benefits or species protection. Therefore, we do not intend to issue section 4(d) regulations for the island grouper.

    References

    A complete list of the references used in this final rule is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

    Classification National Environmental Policy Act

    The 1982 amendments to the ESA, in section 4(b)(1)(A), restrict the information that may be considered when assessing species for listing. Based on this limitation of criteria for a listing decision and the opinion in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 675 F.2d 825 (6th Cir. 1981), NMFS has concluded that ESA listing actions are not subject to the environmental assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act

    As noted in the Conference Report on the 1982 amendments to the ESA, economic impacts cannot be considered when assessing the status of a species. Therefore, this final rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and the economic analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to the listing process. This final rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, we determined that this final rule does not have significant Federalism effects and that a Federalism assessment is not required.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 224

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

    Dated: October 11, 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 parts 223 and 224 are amended as follows:

    PART 223—THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 1543; subpart B, § 223.201-202 also issued under 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5503(d) for § 223.206(d)(9).

    2. In § 223.102, in the table in paragraph (e), add an entry for “Grouper, island” under Fishes in alphabetical order by common name to read as follows:
    § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

    (e) * * *

    Species1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules Fishes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Grouper, island Mycteroperca fusca Entire species [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], October 20, 2016 NA NA *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
    PART 224—ENDANGERED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES 3. The authority citation for part 224 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531-1543 and 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    4. In § 224.101, in the table in paragraph (h), add an entry for “Grouper, gulf” under Fishes in alphabetical order by common name to read as follows:
    § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

    (h) * * *

    Species1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing determination(s) Critical habitat ESA rules Fishes *         *         *         *         *         *         * Grouper, gulf Mycteroperca jordani Entire species [Insert Federal Register page where the document begins], October 20, 2016 NA NA *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991).
    [FR Doc. 2016-25420 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 203 Thursday, October 20, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2016-0070] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records, System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER) System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0070, by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610, Acting Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER) System of Records.” Concurrent with this newly issued system of records, DHS/CBP is proposing to exempt the BPER System of Records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate personally identifiable information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

    The Privacy Act permits Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

    DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for BPER System of Records. Some information in BPER System of Records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

    The exemptions proposed here are exercised by a large number of federal law enforcement agencies to support law enforcement and national security missions. In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

    A notice of system of records for BPER System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information; Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    2. Amend appendix C to add paragraph 74 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

    74. The DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its components. The DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under; and national security and intelligence activities. The DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), (e)(8); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), and (e)(4)(H). When records received from another system have been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated, and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

    (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of the investigation, and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

    (b) From subsection (d) (Access and Amendment to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the investigation, and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

    (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

    (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of an investigation, thereby interfering with the related investigation and law enforcement activities.

    (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information would impede law enforcement in that it could compromise investigations by: Revealing the existence of an otherwise confidential investigation and thereby provide an opportunity for the subject of an investigation to conceal evidence, alter patterns of behavior, or take other actions that could thwart investigative efforts; reveal the identity of witnesses in investigations, thereby providing an opportunity for the subjects of the investigations or others to harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere with the collection of evidence or other information from such witnesses; or reveal the identity of confidential informants, which would negatively affect the informant's usefulness in any ongoing or future investigations and discourage members of the public from cooperating as confidential informants in any future investigations.

    (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) (Agency Requirements) because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise establishing procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

    (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.

    (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal, and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.

    (i) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act relating to individuals' rights to access and amend their records contained in the system. Therefore DHS is not required to establish rules or procedures pursuant to which individuals may seek a civil remedy for the agency's: Refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply with a request for access to records; failure to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records; or failure to otherwise comply with an individual's right to access or amend records.

    Dated: October 5, 2016.

    Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. 2016-25209 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; NavWorx, Inc. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast Universal Access Transceiver Units AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for NavWorx, Inc. (NavWorx) Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Universal Access Transceiver Units (unit). This proposed AD would require removing the ADS-B unit and would prohibit installing the affected unit on any aircraft. This proposed AD is prompted by a design change for the unit to broadcast a Source Integrity Level (SIL) of 3 when the uncertified internal global positioning system (GPS) source necessitates a SIL of 0. The proposed actions are intended to prevent an ADS-B unit from communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control (ATC) and nearby aircraft, resulting in a potential aircraft collision.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle Cobble, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5172, email [email protected]; or Michael Heusser, Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5038, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

    Discussion

    NavWorx produces ADS-B units under Technical Standard Order (TSO) C-154c. NavWorx has implemented a design change by revising its software for ADS-B units, Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012 and 200-0013 and Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013. The design of the units includes an internal uncertified GPS source. ADS-B units with an uncertified GPS source are required to broadcast a SIL of 0. The software revision (version 4.0.6) resulted in the units broadcasting a SIL of 3. This design change was not approved by the FAA and rendered the units noncompliant with TSO-C154c. Because the ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasts a SIL of 3 instead of 0, the unit could communicate unreliable position information to ATC and nearby aircraft, resulting in an aircraft collision.

    NavWorx ADS-B units with P/N 200-0112 and 200-0113 are TSO-C154c compliant and are not the subject of this proposed AD.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing the ADS-B unit before further flight and would also prohibit installing the affected ADS-B unit on any aircraft.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect approximately 800 ADS-B units installed on various aircraft of U.S. registry. Operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour and removing the ADS-B unit, if required, would take about 1 work-hour, for a total of $85 per aircraft.

    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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    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): NavWorx, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9226; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-065-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following NavWorx, Inc., Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Universal Access Transceiver units (unit) installed on aircraft certificated in any category:

    (1) Model ADS600-B part number (P/N) 200-0012;

    (2) Model ADS600-B P/N 200-0013; and

    (3) Model ADS600-EXP P/N 200-8013.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an ADS-B unit incorrectly broadcasting a Source Integrity Level of 3 instead of 0. This condition could result in the unit communicating unreliable position information to Air Traffic Control and nearby aircraft and a subsequent aircraft collision.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 19, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, remove the ADS-B unit.

    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any ADS-B unit that is listed in the applicability of this AD on any aircraft.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kyle Cobble, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5172, email [email protected]; or Michael Heusser, Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177, telephone (817) 222-5038, email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3452, ATC Transponder System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 11, 2016. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25255 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9188; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-102-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 supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-26-04, which applies to certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2007-26-04 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row of certain areas of a certain circumferential butt splice, and repair if necessary; and also requires a preventive modification, which eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 2007-26-04, an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the forward skin panel at a circumferential butt splice between certain stringers is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would remove the mandatory modification. It would add repetitive inspections of the skin for cracking at the aft fastener column and a one-time inspection for defects of the production countersunk rivets, and require corrective actions if necessary. It would also add an optional skin trim-out repair, which would terminate certain inspections. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the station (STA) 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 5, 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-2016-9188.

    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-2016-9188; 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:

    Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6430; 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9188; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-102-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

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.

    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    On December 10, 2007, we issued AD 2007-26-04, Amendment 39-15806 (72 FR 71216, December 17, 2007) (“AD 2007-26-04”), for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2007-26-04 currently requires repetitive inspections for cracking around the heads of the fasteners on the forward fastener row of certain areas of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, and repair if necessary; and also requires a preventive modification, which eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. AD 2007-26-04 resulted from a report of multiple cracks in the fuselage skin of a Model 737-200 airplane, at the forward fastener row of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19 and 24. We issued AD 2007-26-04 to prevent cracking of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure.

    Actions Since AD 2007-26-04 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-26-04, an evaluation by the DAH indicated that the forward skin panel at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19L and 24L is subject to WFD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1267, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2016 (“ASB 737-53A1267 R1”). The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspections of the skin around the fastener heads for any crack on the forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice; a detailed inspection for any defect of the production countersunk rivet heads on both forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice; and corrective actions, including a skin trim-out repair and other repairs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2007-26-04, this proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2007-26-04. Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified previously, which, in turn, is referenced in this proposed AD.

    This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” 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-2016-9188.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Explanation of Applicability

    Model 737 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 291 have a limit of validity (LOV) of 34,000 total flight cycles, and the actions proposed in this NPRM, as specified in ASB 737-53A1267 R1, would be required at a compliance time occurring after that LOV. Although operation of an airplane beyond its LOV is prohibited by 14 CFR 121.1115 and 129.115, this proposed AD would include those airplanes in the applicability in the event the LOV is extended in the future.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    ASB 737-53A1267 R1, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 115 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections 28 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,380 per inspection cycle $0 $2,380 per inspection cycle $273,700 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the optional skin-trim-out repair specified in this proposed AD.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-26-04, Amendment 39-15806 (72 FR 71216, December 17, 2007), and adding the following new AD: The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9188; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-102-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by December 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected Ads

    This AD replaces AD 2007-26-04, Amendment 39-15806 (72 FR 71216, December 17, 2007) (“AD 2007-26-04”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1267, Revision 1, dated March 8, 2016 (“ASB 737-53A1267 R1”).

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the forward skin panel at station (STA) 259.5 circumferential butt splice between stringers 19L and 24L is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, which could result in loss of structural integrity of the fuselage skin and possible loss of cabin pressure.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Actions for Group 2 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 2 in ASB 737-53A1267 R1: Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (h) Inspections for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in ASB 737-53A1267 R1: Except as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E. “Compliance” of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, except as specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD thereafter at the applicable intervals specified paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, except as provided by paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) Do detailed inspections and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) surface inspections of the skin around the fastener heads for any crack on the forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, in accordance with Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, as applicable.

    (2) Do a one-time detailed inspection for any defect of the production countersunk rivet heads on both forward and aft fastener columns, left and right sides, at STA 259.5 circumferential butt splice, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1.

    (i) Optional Terminating Repairs

    (1) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1 in ASB 737-53A1267 R1: Doing the skin trim-out repair specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1 terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD that are specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1 only; all other repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD must be done, except as provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 1 in ASB 737-53A1267 R1: Doing the skin repair specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD that are specified in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-53A1267 R1 for the repaired area only; all other repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD must be done, except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of ASB 737-53A1267 R1, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Although ASB 737-53A1267 R1, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (l)(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, Los Angeles 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) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2007-26-04 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    (5) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(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 sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. 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.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wade Sullivan, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6430; 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 206-66-5680; 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 30, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24262 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9186; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-160-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-16-08, for certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. AD 2012-16-08 currently requires repetitive detailed inspections for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valves, and repair and application of additional sealant in the affected area if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-16-08, it was found that airplanes on which a certain modification was incorporated during production were excluded from the applicability, but are also affected by the condition that precipitated AD 2012-16-08. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2012-16-08, expand the applicability, and require an additional one-time inspection for the presence of water traps/air driers to determine which airplanes must be inspected. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking that could propagate towards the forward discharge valve outlet and result in the failure of the fuselage skin, leading to a possible sudden loss of cabin pressure and injury to occupants.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9186; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theodore Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9186; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-160-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On July 31, 2012, we issued AD 2012-16-08, Amendment 39-17155 (77 FR 48420, August 14, 2012) (“AD 2012-16-08”). AD 2012-16-08 requires repetitive detailed inspections for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valves, and repair and application of additional sealant in the affected area if necessary.

    Since we issued AD 2012-16-08, it was found that airplanes that have incorporated auto-pressurization modification No. HCM50259A during production, which were excluded from the applicability, are also affected by this condition. In addition, and in order to simplify instructions and determine affected airplanes, BAE Systems (Operations) Limited issued BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015, introducing a one-time inspection to determine if water trap/air driers are installed.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0180, dated August 28, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator reported finding cracking and surface anomalies (bulges and/or dents) of the fuselage skin at the water trap/air drier unit of the forward discharge valve, located between fuselage frame (FR) 22 and FR23 and between stringers 22 and 23. Further investigation established that these surface anomalies were due to corrosion beneath the water trap/air drier unit that has resulted in cracking of the fuselage skin

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the fuselage skin, possibly resulting in loss of cabin pressure and injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011-0099 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-16-08] to require repetitive detailed visual inspections (DVI) of the fuselage skin adjacent to the front and rear discharge valves to check for bulging, surface anomalies and cracking, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s), and the application of additional sealant in the affected area.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was found that aeroplanes that have incorporated auto-pressurisation modification No. HCM50259A during production, which were excluded from the Applicability, were also affected by this condition.

    In addition, and in order to simplify instructions for applicability, BAE Systems (Operations) Limited issued Revision 4 of Inspection Service Bulletin (ISB) No. 21-162, introducing a one-time inspection to identify if water trap/air driers are installed.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0099, which is superseded, expands the Applicability and requires the additional one-time inspection as specified in the latest ISB revision.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9186.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a visual inspection of the internal fuselage at the location of the water trap/air driers to determine if water trap/air driers are installed; an external DVI for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the forward and rear discharge valve outlets; repair; and sealant application.

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has also issued the following service information, which describes procedures for structural repairs.

    • Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100-200, Revision 68, dated October 15, 2014.

    • Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAe SYSTEMS BAE 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 46, dated October 15, 2014.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2012-16-08 and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-16-08 is $680 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,720, or $680 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-16-08, Amendment 39-17155 (77 FR 48420, August 14, 2012), and adding the following new AD: BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2016-9186; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-160-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-16-08, Amendment 39-17155 (77 FR 48420, August 14, 2012) (“AD 2012-16-08”).

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes.

    (2) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air Conditioning.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking and surface anomalies of the fuselage skin at the water trap/air drier unit of the forward discharge valve due to corrosion, and the determination that airplanes on which auto-pressurization modification No. HCM50259A was incorporated during production were excluded from the applicability of AD 2012-16-08, but are also affected by this condition. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking that could propagate towards the forward discharge valve outlet and result in the failure of the fuselage skin, leading to a possible sudden loss of cabin pressure and injury to occupants.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Detailed Inspection of External Fuselage Skin, With Specific Delegation Approval Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-16-08, with specific delegation approval language. For all airplanes except airplanes that have incorporated auto-pressurization modification HCM50259A during production: Within 12 months after September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-16-08), do a detailed inspection to check for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valve outlets (one frame fore and aft, one stringer above and below), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.

    (1) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking of the fuselage skin is found to be within the criteria defined in Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100-200, Revision 66, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146-100A and -200A, and Avro 146-RJ70A and 146-RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAe SYSTEMS BAE 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 44, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146-300A and Avro 146-RJ100A airplanes): Before further flight, repair the damage, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010.

    (2) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking of the fuselage skin is found exceeding the criteria specified by Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100-200, Revision 66, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146-100A and -200A, and Avro 146-RJ70A and 146-RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAE 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 44, dated October 15, 2011 (for Model 146-300A and Avro 146-RJ100A airplanes): Before further flight, repair the condition according to a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (h) Retained Application of Sealant, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-16-08, with no changes. For all airplanes except airplanes on which auto-pressurization modification HCM50259A was incorporated during production: Within 24 months after September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-16-08), unless a repair has already been accomplished in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, apply additional PR1422A-2 or PR1764B-2 edge sealant between the water trap/air drier and the fuselage skin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010. Application of additional sealant does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Accomplishment of a repair as required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection for Water Traps/Air Driers

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane to determine whether water traps/air driers are installed, in accordance with paragraph 2.C of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 4, dated January 28, 2015 (“ISB.21-162 R4”). If there are no water traps/air driers installed on an airplane, then no further inspections are required by this AD, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

    (j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes that have water traps/air driers installed, determined as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish a detailed visual inspection for bulging, surface anomalies, and cracking of the external fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valve outlets (one frame bay fore and aft, one stringer above and below), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of paragraph 2.C. of ISB.21-162 R4. Repeat the inspection of the external fuselage skin adjacent to the discharge valve outlets thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Accomplishing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (k) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Actions

    If, during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found, before further flight, accomplish the applicable corrective action as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) this AD.

    (1) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found to be within the criteria as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of paragraph 2.G. of ISB.21-162 R4.

    (i) For Model BAe 146-100A and -200A airplanes, and Model Avro 146-RJ70A and 146-RJ85A airplanes: Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100-200, Revision 68, dated October 15, 2014.

    (ii) For Model BAe 146-300A airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ100A airplanes: Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAe SYSTEMS BAE 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 46, dated October 15, 2014.

    (2) If any bulging, surface anomalies, or cracking is found exceeding the criteria as specified in the applicable service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA DOA.

    (l) New Requirement of This AD: Application of Sealant

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, unless a repair has already been accomplished as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, apply additional sealant, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of paragraph 2.C.(3) of ISB.21-162 R4. Application of additional sealant on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD for that airplane.

    (m) New Terminating Action for Inspections Required by Paragraph (j) of This AD

    Accomplishment of a repair on the forward (FWD) or aft (AFT) position as required by paragraph (k) of this AD constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (j) of this AD for that FWD or AFT position.

    (n) New Requirement of This AD: Actions for Airplanes on Which Water Trap/Air Driers Are Installed After the Effective Date of This AD

    For airplanes that, determined as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, do not have water traps/air driers installed: If water traps/air driers are installed in service after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD on that airplane within the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (j), (k), and (l) of this AD; except that where paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD refer to “the effective date of this AD,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the installation of water traps/air driers.

    (o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections and sealant applications required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-16-08), using BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, dated June 7, 2010.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for using criteria defined in the following subject of the applicable structural repair manual, as required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, if those criteria were used before September 18, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-16-08), using Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General—Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 100-200, Revision 65, dated September 15, 2010 (for Model 146-100A and -200A, and Avro 146-RJ70A and 146-RJ85A airplanes); or Subject 53-00-00, “Fuselage, General—Description,” of Chapter 53, “Fuselage,” of the BAE SYSTEMS BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Structural Repair Manual for Series 300, Revision 43, dated September 15, 2010 (for Model 146-300A and Avro 146-RJ100A airplanes).

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (i), (j), and (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information specified in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (i)(3)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, dated June 7, 2010.

    (ii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 1, dated September 16, 2010.

    (iii) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 2, dated December 12, 2012.

    (iv) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.21-162, Revision 3, dated January 15, 2013.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Theodore Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, telephone 425-227-1175; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0180, dated August 28, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9186.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-24201 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Parts 41, 48, and 145 [REG-103380-05] RIN 1545-BE31 Excise Tax; Tractors, Trailers, Trucks, and Tires; Definition of Highway Vehicle; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations relating to the excise taxes imposed on the sale of highway tractors, trailers, trucks, and tires; the use of heavy vehicles on the highway; and the definition of highway vehicle related to these and other taxes.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Monday, November 21, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing by Monday, November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, 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.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103380-05), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103380-05), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-103380-05).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Celia Gabrysh (202) 317-6855; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103380-05) that was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, March 31, 2016 (81 FR 18544).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing that submitted written comments by June 29, 2016, must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Monday, November 7, 2016.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors 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 document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-25376 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    81 203 Thursday, October 20, 2016 Notices Agency for International Development Notice of October 26, 2016 President's Global Development Council Meeting AGENCY:

    United States Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the President's Global Development Council (GDC).

    Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016.

    Time: 11:30-1:30 p.m.

    Location: National Press Club Ballroom, 13th Floor, 529 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20045.

    Agenda

    The purpose of the meeting is to solicit public input on key global development issues. The meeting will begin with opening remarks, followed by a panel presentation from GDC members on recommendations for U.S. development policies and practices, and the opportunity for public comment. The full meeting agenda will be forthcoming on https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/global-development-council.

    Stakeholders

    The meeting is free and open to the public. Persons wishing to attend should register online at https://www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/global-development-council.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jayne Thomisee, [email protected]

    Dated: October 11, 2016. Jayne Thomisee, Executive Director & Policy Advisor, U.S. Agency for International Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25366 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Request for Applications: The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Forestry staff, requests applications for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (Community Forest Program or CFP). This is a competitive grant program whereby local governments, qualified nonprofit organizations, and Indian tribes are eligible to apply for grants to establish community forests through fee simple acquisition of private forest land from a willing seller. The purpose of the program is to establish community forests by protecting forest land from conversion to non-forest uses and provide community benefits such as sustainable forest management, environmental benefits including clean air, water, and wildlife habitat; benefits from forest-based educational programs; benefits from serving as models of effective forest stewardship; and recreational benefits secured with public access.

    Eligible lands for grants funded under this program are private forest that is at least five acres in size, suitable to sustain natural vegetation, and at least 75 percent forested. The lands must also be threatened by conversion to non-forest uses, must not be held in trust by the United States on behalf of any Indian Tribe, must not be Tribal allotment lands, must be offered for sale by a willing seller, and if acquired by an eligible entity, must provide defined community benefits under CFP and allow public access.

    DATES:

    Interested local government and nonprofit applicants must submit applications to the State Forester. Tribal applicants must submit applications to the appropriate Tribal government officials. All applications, either hardcopy or electronic, must be received by State Foresters or Tribal governments by January 13, 2017. State Foresters or Tribal government officials must forward applications to the Forest Service Region, Northeastern Area or International Institute of Tropical Forestry by February 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    All local government and qualified nonprofit organization applications must be submitted to the State Forester of the State where the property is located. All Tribal applications must be submitted to the equivalent Tribal government official. Applicants are encouraged to contact and work with the Forest Service Region, Northeastern Area or International Institute of Tropical Forestry, and State Forester or equivalent Tribal government official when developing their proposal. Applicants must consult with the State Forester and equivalent Tribal government official prior to requesting technical assistance for a project. The State Forester's member roster may be found on www.stateforesters.org/about/who-we-are. All applicants must also send an email to [email protected] to confirm an application has been submitted for funding consideration.

    State Foresters and Tribal government officials shall submit applications, either electronic or hardcopy, to the appropriate Forest Service Regional/Area/Institute contact noted below.

    Northern and Intermountain Regions Regions 1 and 4 (ID, MT, ND, NV, UT)

    Janet Valle, U.S. Forest Service, 324 25th St., Ogden, UT 84401, 801-625-5258 (phone), 801-625-5716 (fax), [email protected].

    Rocky Mountain Region Region 2 (CO, KS, NE, SD, WY)

    Claire Harper, U.S. Forest Service, 740 Simms Street, Golden, CO 80401, 303-895-6157 (phone), 303-275-5754 (fax), [email protected]

    Southwestern Region Region 3 (AZ, NM)

    Alicia San Gil, U.S. Forest Service, 333 Broadway SE., Albuquerque, NM 87102, 505-842-3289 (phone), 505-842-3165 (fax), [email protected]

    Pacific Southwest Region Region 5 (CA)

    Paula Randler, U.S. Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592, 707-562-8875 (phone), 707-562-9054 (fax), [email protected]

    (Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia and other Pacific Islands)

    Katie Friday, 60 Nowelo St., Hilo, HI 96720, 808-854-2620 (phone), 503-808-2469 (fax), [email protected].

    Pacific Northwest, and Alaska Regions Regions 6 and 10 (AK, OR, WA)

    Brad Siemens, U.S. Forest Service, 120 Southwest 3rd Ave., Portland, OR 97204, 503-808-2353 (phone), 503-808-2469 (fax), [email protected]

    Southern Region Region 8 (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA)

    Mike Murphy, U.S. Forest Service, 1720 Peachtree Rd. NW., Suite 700B 850S North, Atlanta, GA 30309, 404-347-5214 (phone), 404-347-2776 (fax), [email protected]

    International Institute of Tropical Forestry (PR, VI)

    Magaly Figueroa, U.S. Forest Service, Jardin Botanico Sur, 1201 Calle Ceiba, San Juan, PR 00926-1119, 787-764-7718 (phone), 787-766-6263 (fax), [email protected]

    Northeastern Area (CT, DC, DE, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI, WV)

    Neal Bungard, U.S. Forest Service, 271 Mast Road, Durham, NH 03824-4600, 603-868-7719 (phone), 603-868-7604 (fax), [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    For questions regarding the grant application or administrative regulations, contact Scott Stewart, Program Coordinator, 202-205-1618, [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CFDA Number 10.689: To address the goals of Section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d) as amended, the Forest Service is requesting proposals for community forest projects that protect forest land that has been identified as a national, regional, or local priority for protection and to assist communities in acquiring forestland that will provide public recreation, environmental and economic benefits, and forest-based educational programs.

    Detailed information regarding what to include in the application, definitions of terms, eligibility, and necessary prerequisites for consideration can be found in the final program rule, published October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65121-65133), which is available at www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/cfp.shtml and at www.grants.gov (Opportunity number CFP-FS-1002017).

    Grant Application Requirements 1. Eligibility Information

    a. Eligible Applicants. A local governmental entity, Indian Tribe (including Alaska Native Corporations), or a qualified nonprofit organization that is qualified to acquire and manage land (see § 230.2 of the final rule). Individuals are not eligible to receive funds through this program.

    b. Cost Sharing (Matching Requirement). All applicants must demonstrate a 50 percent match of the total project cost. The match can include cash, in-kind services, or donations, which shall be from a non-Federal source. For additional information, please see § 230.6 of the final rule at www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/cfp.shtml.

    c. DUNS Number. All applicants shall include a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in their application. For this requirement, the applicant is the entity that meets the eligibility criteria and has the legal authority to apply for and receive the grant. For assistance in obtaining a DUNS number at no cost, call the DUNS number request line 1-866-705-5711 or register on-line at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform.

    d. System for Award Management. All prospective awardees shall be registered in the System for Award Management prior to award, during performance, and through final payment of any grant resulting from this solicitation. Further information can be found at www.sam.gov. For assistance, contact Federal Service Desk 1-866-606-8220.

    2. Award Information

    The Administration proposed to fund the CFP at $2 million for fiscal year 2017. Individual grant applications may not exceed $400,000, which does not include technical assistance requests. The Federal Government's obligation under this program is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds.

    No legal liability on the part of the Government shall be incurred until funds are committed by the grant officer for this program to the applicant in writing. The initial grant period shall be for two years, and acquisition of lands should occur within that timeframe. Lands acquired prior to the grant award are not eligible for CFP funding. The grant may be reasonably extended by the Forest Service when necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances in the land acquisition process. Written annual financial performance reports and semi-annual project performance reports shall be required and submitted to the appropriate grant officer.

    Technical assistance funds, totaling not more than 10 percent of all funds, may be allocated to State Foresters and equivalent officials of the Indian tribe. Technical assistance, if provided, will be awarded at the time of the grant. Applicants shall work with State Foresters and equivalent officials of the Indian Tribe to determine technical assistance needs and include the technical assistance request in the project budget.

    As funding allows, applications submitted through this request may be funded in future years, subject to the availability of funds and the continued feasibility and viability of the project.

    3. Application Information

    Application submission. All local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations' applications must be submitted to the State Forester where the property is located by January 13, 2017. All Tribal applications must be submitted to the equivalent Tribal officials by January 13, 2017. Applications may be submitted either electronic or hardcopy to the appropriate official. The State Forester's contact information may be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/cfp.shtml.

    All applicants must also send an email to [email protected] to confirm an application has been submitted to the State Forester or equivalent Tribal official for funding consideration.

    All State Foresters and Tribal government officials must forward applications to the Forest Service by February 17, 2017.

    4. Application Requirements

    The following section outlines grant application requirements:

    a. The application can be no more than eight pages long, plus no more than two maps (eight and half inches by eleven inches in size), the grant forms specified in (b), and the draft community forest plan specified in (d).

    b. The following grant forms and supporting materials must be included in the application:

    (1) An Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);

    (2) Budget information (Standard Form SF 424c—Construction Programs); and

    (3) Assurances of compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies (Standard Form 424d— Construction Programs).

    c. Documentation verifying that the applicant is an eligible entity and that the land proposed for acquisition is eligible (see § 230.2 of the final rule).

    d. Applications must include the following, regarding the property proposed for acquisition:

    (1) A description of the property, including acreage and county location;

    (2) A description of current land uses, including improvements;

    (3) A description of forest type and vegetative cover;

    (4) A map of sufficient scale to show the location of the property in relation to roads and other improvements as well as parks, refuges, or other protected lands in the vicinity;

    (5) A description of applicable zoning and other land use regulations affecting the property;

    (6) A description of the type and extent of community benefits, including to underserved communities (see selection criteria);

    (7) A description of relationship of the property within and its contributions to a landscape conservation initiative; and

    (8) A description of any threats of conversion to non-forest uses, including any encumbrances on the property that prevent conversion to non-forest uses.

    e. Information regarding the proposed establishment of a community forest, including:

    (1) A description of the benefiting community, including demographics, and the associated benefits provided by the proposed land acquisition;

    (2) A description of community involvement to-date in the planning of the community forest acquisition and of community involvement anticipated long-term management;

    (3) An identification of persons and organizations that support the project and their specific role in establishing and managing the community forest; and

    (4) A draft community forest plan. The eligible entity is encouraged to work with the State Forester or equivalent Tribal government official for technical assistance when developing or updating the Community Forest Plan. In addition, the eligible entity is encouraged to work with technical specialists, such as professional foresters, recreation specialists, wildlife biologists, or outdoor education specialists, when developing the Community Forest Plan.

    f. Information regarding the proposed land acquisition, including:

    (1) A proposed project budget not exceeding $400,000 and technical assistance needs as coordinated with the State Forester or equivalent Tribal government official (section § 230.6 of the final program rule);

    (2) The status of due diligence, including signed option or purchase and sale agreement, title search, minerals determination, and appraisal;

    (3) Description and status of cost share (secure, pending, commitment letter, etc. (section § 230.6 of the final rule);

    (4) The status of negotiations with participating landowner(s) including purchase options, contracts, and other terms and conditions of sale;

    (5) The proposed timeline for completing the acquisition and establishing the community forest; and;

    (6) Long term management costs and funding source(s).

    g. Applications must comply with the United States Department of Agriculture's Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards also referred to as the Omni Circular (2 CFR 400).

    h. Applications must also include the forms required to process a Federal grant. Section 6 Grant Requirements references the grant forms that must be included in the application and the specific administrative requirements that apply to the type of Federal grant used for this program.

    A sample grant outline and scoring guidance can be found on the CFP Web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/cfp.shtml.

    5. Forest Service's Project Selection Criteria

    a. Using the criteria described below, to the extent practicable, the Forest Service will give priority to applications that maximize the delivery of community benefits, as defined in the final rule (see section § 230.2 of the final rule); and

    b. The Forest Service will evaluate all applications received by the State Foresters or equivalent Tribal government officials and award grants based on the following criteria:

    (1) Type and extent of community benefits provided, including to underserved communities. Community benefits are defined in the final program rule as:

    (i) Economic benefits, such as timber and non-timber products;

    (ii) Environmental benefits, including clean air and water, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat;

    (iii) Benefits from forest-based experiential learning, including K-12 conservation education programs; vocational education programs in disciplines such as forestry and environmental biology; and environmental education through individual study or voluntary participation in programs offered by organizations such as 4-H, Boy or Girl Scouts, Master Gardeners, etc.;

    (iv) Benefits from serving as replicable models of effective forest stewardship for private landowners; and

    (v) Recreational benefits such as hiking, hunting and fishing secured through public access.

    (2) Extent and nature of community engagement in the establishment and long-term management of the community forest;

    (3) Amount of cost share leveraged;

    (4) Extent to which the community forest contributes to a landscape conservation initiative;

    (5) Extent of due diligence completed on the project, including cost share committed and status of appraisal;

    (6) Likelihood that, unprotected, the property would be converted to non-forest uses; and

    (7) Costs to the Federal Government.

    6. Grant Requirements

    a. Once an application is selected, funding will be obligated to the grant recipient through a grant.

    b. Local and Indian Tribal governments should refer to 2 CFR part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87) and 7 CFR part 3016 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments) for directions.

    c. Nonprofit organizations should refer to 2 CFR part 215 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Nonprofit Organizations (OMB Circular A-110) and 7 CFR part 3019 Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations for directions.

    d. Forest Service must approve any amendments to a proposal or request to reallocate funding within a grant proposal. If negotiations on a selected project fail, the applicant cannot substitute an alternative site.

    e. The grant recipient must comply with the requirements in section § 230.8 in the final rule before funds will be released.

    f. After the project has closed, as a requirement of the grant, grant recipients will be required to provide the Forest Service with a Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile: A digital, vector-based storage format for storing geometric location and associated attribute information, of CFP project tracts and cost share tracts, if applicable.

    g. Any funds not expended within the grant period must be de-obligated and revert to the Forest Service.

    h. All media, press, signage, and other documents discussing the creation of the community forest must reference the partnership and financial assistance by the Forest Service through the CFP.

    Additional information may be found in section § 230.9 of the final rule.

    Dated: September 19, 2016. Debra S. Pressman, Acting Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25334 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory Committee for a Meeting To Discuss Preparations for a Public Hearing on Civil Rights and Voter Participation in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Illinois Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, November 18, 2016, at 12:00pm CST for the purpose of discussing preparations to host a public hearing on civil rights and voter participation in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, November 18, 2016, at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information: Dial: 888-455-2238, Conference ID: 6912685.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-455-2238, conference ID: 6912685. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Illinois Advisory Committee link (http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=246). Select “meeting details” and then “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion of Project Preparation: Voting Rights in Illinois Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Dated: October 17, 2016. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25436 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-43-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158—Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi; Authorization of Production Activity; Bauhaus Furniture Group, LLC; H.M. Richards Company, Inc.; Lane Home Furniture; Morgan Fabrics Corporation; (Upholstered Furniture); Tupelo, Mississippi, Area

    On June 17, 2016, the Greater Mississippi Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauhaus Furniture Group, LLC, H.M. Richards Company, Inc., Lane Home Furniture, and Morgan Fabrics Corporation within FTZ 158 in the greater Tupelo, Mississippi, area.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 42648, June 30, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14. The activity also remains subject to the conditions of B-29-2013, B-21-2013, B-28-2013 and Board Order 1877.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25437 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-42-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 158—Vicksburg/Jackson, Mississippi; Authorization of Production Activity; Southern Motion, Inc.; (Upholstered Furniture) Pontotoc and Baldwyn, Mississippi

    On June 17, 2016, the Greater Mississippi Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 158, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Southern Motion, Inc., within Subzone 158G, in Pontotoc and Baldwyn, Mississippi.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 42649-42650, June 30, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14. The activity also remains subject to the restrictions and conditions established under Docket B-45-2014.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Elizabeth Whiteman, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25432 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 16, 2016, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

    Agenda Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.

    2. Status reports by working group chairs.

    3. Public comments and Proposals.

    Closed Session

    4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected] no later than November 9, 2016.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 5, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482·2813.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25397 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Materials Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 3, 2016, 10:00 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

    Agenda Open Session

    1. Opening remarks and Introductions.

    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security senior management.

    3. Report by regime representatives.

    4. Report by working groups (Composite Working Group, Biological Working Group, Pump and Valves Working Group, and the Chemicals Working Group).

    5. Public Comments and New Business.

    Closed Session

    6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ l0(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at [email protected], no later than October 27, 2016.

    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.

    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on November 5, 2015, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § § 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Yvette Springer, Committee Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25390 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-836] Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 15, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on glycine from the People's Republic of China (PRC).1 The review covers five companies, Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. (Baoding Mantong), Kumar Industries (Kumar), Nutracare International (Nutracare), Ravi Industries (Ravi), and Rudraa International (Rudraa). The period of review (POR) is March 1, 2014, through February 28, 2015. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results do not differ from the Preliminary Results.

    1See Glycine From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 22212 (April 15, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dena Crossland or Brian Davis, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3362 or (202) 482-7924, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 15, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.2 On May 16, 2016, GEO submitted a case brief and requested a hearing.3 On August 10, 2016, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from August 15, 2016, to October 12, 2016.4 On September 21, 2016, GEO withdrew its request for a public hearing. As no other party had requested a hearing, no public hearing was held. The Department conducted on-site verifications of Kumar and Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd., Nutracare's affiliate and glycine producer, from August 1, 2016, through August 5, 2016.5 On September 2, 2016, GEO and respondents submitted post-verification comments.6 On September 7, 2016, GEO and respondents submitted post-verification rebuttal comments.7

    2See Preliminary Results at 22212-22213.

    3See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: GEO Specialty Chemicals' Case Brief,” dated May 16, 2016.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, from Madeline Heeren, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, through Scot Fullerton, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the subject of “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping; 2014/2015,” dated August 10, 2016.

    5See Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis, Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the subject of “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Kumar Industries in the Antidumping Duty Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 19, 2016, and Memorandum to The File from Marcus A. Kraker, Import Policy Analyst, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy & Negotiations, and Elisabeth Urfer, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Customs Liaison Unit, through Brian Davis, Program Manager, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, Office VI, on the subject of “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses of Salvi Chemical Industries Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Review of Glycine from the People's Republic of China,” dated August 19, 2016.

    6See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Comments on Verification Reports,” dated September 2, 2016, and Letter to the Department of Commerce from Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa International regarding “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Comments on the Preliminary Determination,” dated September 2, 2016. In its September 2, 2016, letter, Nutracare, Kumar, Ravi, and Rudraa alleged that GEO submitted untimely, new factual information in its post-verification comments. On September 12, 2016, GEO, submitted a letter in response to respondents' new factual information allegation. We have rejected GEO's submission and requested that they resubmit their comments without the new factual information. GEO resubmitted their comments on October 7, 2016 (see Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding, “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Removal of Information from September 2, 2016 and September 7, 2016 Submissions,” dated October 7, 2016).

    7See Letter to the Department of Commerce from GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. regarding “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: GEO's Rebuttal to the Preliminary Determination and Verification Report Comments of Nutracare, Ravi, Kumar and Rudraa,” dated September 7, 2016, and Letter to the Department of Commerce from Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa International regarding “Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Comments to Petitioner's Case Brief,” dated September 7, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the antidumping duty order is glycine, which is a free-flowing crystalline material, like salt or sugar.8 The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.49.4020. The HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written product description of the scope of the order is dispositive.9

    8See “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Glycine from the People's Republic of China; 2014-2015” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum), for a complete description of the scope of the order.

    9See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 60 FR 16116 (March 29, 1995).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.10 A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    10Id.

    Final Results of the Review

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we determine that that Baoding Mantong, Kumar, Nutracare, Ravi, and Rudraa did not have reviewable transactions of subject merchandise during the POR.

    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review. Given that the Department continues to determine that the exporters under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate, in accordance with our practice.11

    11See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 23, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of these final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Baoding Mantong, Nutracare International, Ravi Industries, Kumar Industries, and Rudraa International, which all claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from rates assigned to these companies in the most recently completed reviews of these companies; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 453.79 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied the non-PRC exporter. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Dated: October 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Discussion of Interested Party Comments A. Kumar-Specific Issue Comment 1: Whether Kumar, Ravi, or Rudraa Had Shipments of Subject Merchandise During the Period of Review B. Salvi/Nutracare-Specific Issue Comment 2: Whether Nutracare/Salvi Had Shipments of Subject Merchandise During the Period of Review VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-25430 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-938] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, based on the timely withdrawal of the only request for review.

    DATES:

    Effective October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Maldonado, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4682.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On May 2, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the countervailing duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the PRC for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.1 In May 2016, the Department received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b), for an administrative review of this countervailing duty order from the Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas LLC (collectively, the petitioners).2 On July 7, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation with respect to 18 individually-named companies or company groups.3

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 26206 (May 2, 2016).

    2See letter requesting an administrative review from the petitioners, dated May 31, 2016.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 44260 (July 7, 2016).

    On October 5, 2016, the petitioners timely withdrew their administrative review request.4

    4See the letter withdrawing request for an administrative review from the petitioners, dated October 5, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. The petitioners withdrew their requests for review by the 90-day deadline. No other parties requested an administrative review of the order. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on citric acid from the PRC covering the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. Countervailing duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25429 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-809] Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products (hot-rolled steel) from the Russian Federation (Russia) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of this antidumping duty order.

    DATES:

    Effective date: October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dena Crossland, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3362.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On December 24, 2014, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Russia.1 On May 2, 2016, the Department initiated a sunset review of the Russia Order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2

    1See Termination of the Suspension Agreement on Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation, Rescission of 2013-2014 Administrative Review, and Issuance of Antidumping Duty Order, 79 FR 77455 (December 24, 2014) (Russia Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 26209 (May 2, 2016).

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department determined that revocation of the Russia Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the USITC of the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail should the order be revoked.3

    3See Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products From the Russian Federation: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 81 FR 62094 (September 8, 2016) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    On October 5, 2016, the USITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the Russia Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United Sates within a reasonably foreseeable time.4

    4See Investigation No. 731-TA-808 (Third Review), 81 FR 69079 (October 5, 2016), and USITC Publication 4639 (September 2016), entitled Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-808 (Third Review).

    Scope of the Order

    For the purposes of this order, “hot-rolled steel” means certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness.

    Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order.

    Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

    Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

    —Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, and A506). —SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher. —Ball bearing steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS. —Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 1.50 percent. —ASTM specifications A710 and A736. —USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500). —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C (%) Mn (%) P (%) S (%) Si (%) Cr (%) Cu (%) Ni (%) 0.10-0.14 0.90 Max 0.025 Max 0.005 Max 0.30-0.50 0.50-.70 0.20-0.40 0.20 Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.063-0.198 inches; Yield Strength = 50,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 70,000-88,000 psi. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C (%) Mn (%) P (%) S (%) Si (%) Cr (%) Cu (%) Ni (%) Mo (%) 0.10-0.16 0.70-0.90 0.25 Max 0.006 Max 0.30-0.50 0.50-0.70 0.25 Max 0.20 Max 0.21 Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C (%) Mn (%) P (%) S (%) Si (%) Cr (%) Cu (%) Ni (%) V(wt.) (%) Cb (%) 0.10-0.14 1.30-1.80 0.025 Max 0.005 Max 0.30-0.50 0.50-0.70 0.20-0.40 0.20 Max 0.10 Max 0.08 Max Width = 44.80 inches maximum; Thickness = 0.350 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 80,000 ksi minimum; Tensile Strength = 105,000 psi Aim. —Hot-rolled steel coil which meets the following chemical, physical and mechanical specifications: C (%) Mn (%) P (%) S (%) Si (%) Cr (%) Cu (%) Ni (%) Nb (%) Ca (%) Al (%) 0.15 Max 1.40 Max 0.025 Max 0.010 Max 0.50 Max 1.00 Max 0.50 Max 0.20 Min 0.005 Min Treated 0.001-0.07 Width = 39.37 inches; Thickness = 0.181 inches maximum; Yield Strength = 70,000 psi minimum for thicknesses ≤ 0.148 inches and 65,000 psi minimum for thicknesses >0.148 inches; Tensile Strength = 80,000 psi minimum. —Hot-rolled dual phase steel, phase-hardened, primarily with a ferritic-martensitic microstructure, contains 0.9 percent up to and including 1.5 percent silicon by weight, further characterized by either (i) tensile strength between 540 N/mm2 and 640 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 26 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above, or (ii) a tensile strength between 590 N/mm2 and 690 N/mm2 and an elongation percentage 25 percent for thicknesses of 2 mm and above. —Hot-rolled bearing quality steel, SAE grade 1050, in coils, with an inclusion rating of 1.0 maximum per ASTM E 45, Method A, with excellent surface quality and chemistry restrictions as follows: —0.012 percent maximum phosphorus, 0.015 percent maximum sulfur, and 0.20 percent maximum residuals including 0.15 percent maximum chromium. —Grade ASTM A570-50 hot-rolled steel sheet in coils or cut lengths, width of 74 inches (nominal, within ASTM tolerances), thickness of 11 gauge (0.119 inch nominal), mill edge and skin passed, with a minimum copper content of 0.20 percent.

    The covered merchandise is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, 7211.19.75.90, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, 7212.50.00.00. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered include: Vacuum degassed, fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the USITC that revocation of the Russia Order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the Russia Order.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of this order will be the effective date listed above. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next sunset review of this order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Dated: October 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25431 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE978 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 1 Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone: (781) 245-9300.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda

    The Advisory Panel review alternatives and analyses prepared for Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP), an action considering modification of accountability measures (AMs) that trigger if the sub-ACL of Georges Bank haddock is exceeded by the midwater trawl herring fishery. The panel may recommend preferred alternatives for the Committee to consider for final action. The panel will also review additional Plan Development Team analysis and Committee discussion of the range of measures developed to date related to localized depletion and user conflicts that will be considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP as well as review plans for future workshop on Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch control rules being considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25394 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Charter Recordkeeping AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586-7008 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Management of and regulations for Pacific halibut in Alaska are developed on the international, Federal, and state levels by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Region and the State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). The IPHC and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut through regulations established under authority of the Convention between the United States Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982, 16 U.S.C. 773c (Halibut Act), and Section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Regulations that implement this collection-of-information are found at 50 CFR part 300.60 through 300.66 and at 50 CFR 679.5(l)(7).

    Annual catch quotas are determined by the IPHC, and Federal responsibility for halibut management extends to halibut stocks and fishing activity within State of Alaska waters. In order to manage halibut effectively, international and Federal managers need information on halibut fishing effort and harvest by all user groups, including the guided sport charter sector of the fishery.

    Federal regulations at 50 CFR 300.65 require charter vessel operators fishing in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A to comply with the ADF&G annual registration of sport fishing guides and businesses and ADF&G saltwater charter halibut logbook. NMFS and ADF&G coordinate closely in the development of this information collection for the monitoring and enforcement of the charter vessel catch limit of halibut.

    A Catch Sharing Program was developed in IPHC Regulatory Areas 2C and 3A for the guided sport and commercial fisheries which authorized commercial halibut quota share (QS) holders to transfer individual fishing quota (IFQ) as guided angler fish (GAF) to charter halibut permit holders. A GAF electronic landing report and GAF permit log were added to provide efficiency in monitoring quota.

    The primary objectives of the Catch Sharing Program are to change the annual process of allocating halibut between the charter and commercial fisheries in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A, establish allocations that balance the differing needs of the charter and commercial sectors that also float with varying levels of annual halibut abundance, and specify a process for determining harvest restrictions for charter anglers that are intended to limit harvest to the annual charter fishery catch limit.

    II. Method of Collection

    Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, and mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0575.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other For-profit; individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 696.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes each for Charter halibut logbook and GAF electronic landing report; 2 minutes for GAF permit log.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,733.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,366 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: October 14, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25327 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XC744 Endangered and Threatened Species; Recovery Plans AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the availability of the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Draft Recovery Plan (Plan) for public review. NMFS is soliciting review and comment from the public and all interested parties on the draft Plan, and will consider all substantive comments received during the review period before submitting the Plan for final approval.

    DATES:

    Comments and information on the draft Plan must be received by close of business on December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0136 by either 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-NMFS-2016-0136. Click the `Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Robert Anderson, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE. Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that we receive, document, and consider them. 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 http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Anderson, NMFS Eulachon Recovery Coordinator, at (503) 231-2226, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 18, 2010, we listed the southern DPS of eulachon as a threatened species under the ESA (75 FR 13012). The listing of the DPS of eulachon was informed by the best available scientific and commercial data and the status review conducted by a Biological Review Team (BRT) (Gustafson et al., 2010). The final critical habitat rule for the listed DPS of eulachon was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2011 (76 FR 65324). In 2013, we appointed a recovery team and initiated recovery planning for eulachon to assist the West Coast Region with the development of research and recovery actions for the recovery plan. In 2015 we announced a 5-year review (80 FR 6695; February 6, 2015) for eulachon. Based on the 5-year review, the southern DPS of eulachon shall remain threatened under the ESA. The 5-year review was completed April 1, 2016 (NMFS 2016) and is available at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa. gov/publications/status_reviews/other_species/other_marine_species_esa_status_reviews.html.

    Draft Recovery Plan

    Recovery plans describe actions beneficial to the conservation and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section 4(f)(1) of the ESA requires that 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 goals; and (3) estimates of the time required and costs to implement recovery actions. The ESA requires the development of recovery plans for each listed species unless such a plan would not promote its recovery.

    The Plan for eulachon was developed by NMFS in cooperation with a recovery team made up of experts from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Additionally, individuals from the Eulachon Stakeholder Group also provided input to the development of the Plan.

    NMFS's goal is to restore the threatened eulachon DPS to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems and no longer need the protections of the ESA. The Plan provides background on the natural history of eulachon, population trends, and the potential threats to their viability. The Plan lays out a recovery strategy to address the potential threats based on the best available science, identifies site-specific actions with time lines and costs, and includes recovery goals and criteria. NMFS concludes that the Plan meets the requirements of the ESA. The primary factors responsible for the decline of eulachon are climate change impacts on ocean conditions, eulachon bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries, climate change impacts on freshwater habitats, dams/water diversions, and predation. The Plan assesses these factors and other threats using the best available scientific and commercial data, provides current information and conservation measures to assess, rank, and prioritize, and provides guidance to address the threats. In some cases, more information is needed to understand the extent of a threat or whether the threat is limiting recovery, and in those cases research to address these data gaps is outlined.

    The Plan is not regulatory, but presents guidance for use by agencies and interested parties to assist in the recovery of eulachon. The Plan identifies substantive actions needed to achieve recovery by assessing the species' population abundance, distribution, and genetic changes over time and addressing the threats to the species. When determining recovery actions, the Plan prioritized actions that increase knowledge of the species, threats ranked as high risk threats, and aims to improve understanding of whether a particular threat is limiting recovery and to eliminate or mitigate that threat, or to improve our understanding of, and ability to manage, that threat. The actions in the Plan include research, management, monitoring, and outreach efforts, because a comprehensive approach to eulachon recovery is likely to have greater success than focusing on any one type of action. There are also actions targeted at incorporating new information and conducting regular reassessments, making this Plan an adaptive management plan.

    We expect the Plan to inform section 7 consultations with Federal agencies under the ESA and to support other ESA decisions, such as considering permits under section 10. We have already begun implementation of several actions as described in the plan, such as partnering with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct spawning stock biomass estimations of eulachon in the Columbia River and coastal systems. After public comment and the adoption of the Final Recovery Plan, we will continue to implement actions in the plan 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.

    The total time and cost to recovery are difficult to predict with the current information. The Plan outlines recovery research and actions, priority numbers, and estimated eulachon recovery program cost over an initial 5-year period. Projections of which actions may continue beyond year five are provided, but there is uncertainty regarding how long recovery will take. Currently, we do not have reliable abundance and productivity information for all subpopulations of eulachon. As prioritized information is obtained on abundance and productivity, as well as additional information to assess the impact on how some threats may limit recovery and how the threats can be effectively managed or mitigated, more robust time and expense projections can be developed.

    The cost of the approximately 70 actions recommended in this Plan for the first 5 years of recovery is approximately $14,750,000. A gross estimate for the total cost of recovery action to be implemented is between $29,500,000 (25 years) to $84,765,000 (100 years).

    There are numerous parallel efforts underway, independent from listed eulachon recovery, to protect and restore the Columbia River and Washington, Oregon, and California coastal ecosystems. These efforts will provide benefits to listed eulachon and their habitats and prey base and are thus highlighted in the plan. However, the costs of these actions are not included in the total cost of listed eulachon recovery because they would occur independently of this Plan. Similarly, actions conducted to restore listed eulachon and their habitats will benefit other listed species that utilize the Columbia River and Washington, Oregon, and California coastal ecosystems, such as the 28 salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) species, and may provide economic benefits. We are unable to quantify the economic benefits of listed eulachon recovery actions, but it is likely the benefits to the ecosystem and economy would offset the total recovery costs estimated in the Plan. NMFS requests and will consider all substantive comments and information presented during the public comment period as we finalize this Plan.

    References Cited

    The complete citations for the references used in this document can be obtained by contacting NMFS (See ADDRESSES and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25399 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE979 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold a webinar that is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The GMT webinar will be held on Monday, November 7, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., or until business for the day is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinar: (1) Join the meeting by visiting this link http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar; (2) enter the Webinar ID: 917-479-603, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging in to the webinar, please (1) dial this TOLL number +1 (415) 655-0052 (not a toll-free number); (2) enter the attendee phone audio access code 764-818-012; and (3) then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). Note: We have disabled Mic/Speakers as on option and require all participants to use a telephone or cell phone to participate. Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (See the GoToMeeting WebinarApps). You may send an email to [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The primary purpose of the GMT webinar is to prepare and develop recommendations for the November 13-21, 2016 Pacific Council meeting in Garden Grove, CA. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. Public comment will be accommodated if time allows, at the discretion of the GMT Chair. A detailed agenda will be provided on the Council's Web site one week prior to the meeting.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 10 business days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25395 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE977 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 1 Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 01880; telephone: (781) 245-9300.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Herring Committee review alternatives and analyses prepared for Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP), an action considering modification of accountability measures (AMs) that trigger if the sub-ACL of Georges Bank haddock is exceeded by the midwater trawl herring fishery. The committee may recommend preferred alternatives for the Council to consider for final action. The committee will also review additional Plan Development Team analysis and discuss a range of the range of measures developed to date related to localized depletion and user conflicts that will be considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP as well as review plans for future workshop on Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch control rules being considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25393 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Rip Current Visualization Survey and Focus Groups.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 580.

    Average Hours per Response: Survey, 30 minutes; focus groups, 1.5 hours.

    Burden Hours: 370.

    Needs and Uses: This is a request for a new collection of information. The objective of the survey and focus groups is to collect information on the current use and knowledge of NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) products and perceptions of various rip current products. The focus groups will ask participants to explain their responses. This information will help create better rip current products used by the National Weather Service (NWS) to protect lives and prevent injury from rip currents.

    The primary data collection vehicles will be an internet-based, public survey and face to face focus groups. The focus groups will target lifeguards and decision makers. Telephone and personal interviews may be employed to supplement and verify survey responses.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, state, local and tribal government, individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25402 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0104] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DAU 06, entitled “Defense Acquisition University Mailing Lists.” Data is used by DAU to provide a mailing list for the distribution of the Defense AT&L Magazine and Defense Acquisition Research Journal.

    This update reflects considerable administrative changes that in sum warrant an alteration to the systems of records notice. The applicable DoD Routine Uses have been incorporated in the notice to provide clarity for the public. Additionally, the categories system name, system location, category of individuals and records, the authorities, purpose, storage, retrievability, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager address, notification and record access procedures, and the record source categories.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before November 21, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on September 27, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DAU 06 System name:

    Defense Acquisition University Mailing Lists (May 13, 2004, 69 FR 26557).

    Changes: System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Visual Arts and Press Records.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Gray Graphics, 8607 Central Avenue, Capitol Heights, MD 20743-3604.

    Paper records are located at Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Visual Arts and Press Department, Building 206, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Program management course graduates, alumni association members, and other DoD affiliated individuals submitting a request to be added to the mailing list.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, work and/or home mailing address, rank or grade, position title, work and/or personal email address, and service affiliation or organization.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 133, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and DoD Instruction 5000.57, Defense Acquisition University.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “Data is used by DAU to provide a mailing list for the distribution of the Defense AT&L Magazine and Defense Acquisition Research Journal.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use:

    A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Files are retrievable by full name, mailing address, and email address.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Files are stored in a controlled access area and locked during non-business hours. Only authorized personnel have access to files. Access to electronic records requires Common Access Card (CAC), password, and Personal Identification Number (PIN).”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “All records are destroyed after appropriate revision of mailing list or after 3 months, whichever is sooner.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, DAU Visual Arts and Press Department, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, DAU Visual Arts and Press Department, Defense Acquisition University, Building 206, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.

    Signed, written requests should contain full name, current address, and telephone number (for possible quick response).

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests for information should contain full name of the individual, current address, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Data is provided by the individual, employer, or staff and faculty of DAU.”

    DAU 06 System name:

    Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Visual Arts and Press Records.

    System location:

    Gray Graphics, 8607 Central Avenue, Capitol Heights, MD 20743-3604.

    Paper records are located at Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Visual Arts and Press Department, Building 206, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Program management course graduates, alumni association members, and other DoD affiliated individuals submitting a request to be added to the mailing list.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Name, work and/or home mailing address, rank or grade, position title, work and/or personal email address, and service affiliation or organization.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 133, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and DoD Instruction 5000.57, Defense Acquisition University.

    Purpose(s):

    Data is used by DAU to provide a mailing list for the distribution of the Defense AT&L Magazine and Defense Acquisition Research Journal.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper records and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Files are retrievable by full name, mailing address, and email address.

    Safeguards:

    Files are stored in a controlled access area and locked during non-business hours. Only authorized personnel have access to files. Access to electronic records requires Common Access Card (CAC), password, and Personal Identification Number (PIN).

    Retention and disposal:

    All records are destroyed after appropriate revision of mailing list or after 3 months, whichever is sooner.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Director, DAU Visual Arts and Press Department, Defense Acquisition University, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, DAU Visual Arts and Press Department, Defense Acquisition University, Building 206, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565.

    Signed, written requests should contain full name, current address, and telephone number (for possible quick response).

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests for information should contain full name of the individual, current address, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

    Contesting record procedures:

    The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    Data is provided by the individual, employer, or staff and faculty of DAU.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-25428 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0103] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DUSDA 14, entitled “Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Information Management System,” last published at 74 FR 66959, December 17, 2009. This system of records exists to enable the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program officials to select qualified scholarship applicants and monitor their progress through the program.

    This update reflects considerable administrative changes that in sum warrant an alteration to the systems of records notice. The categories of records were updated to delineate the information maintained in the records. The purpose was revised to advise individuals that the data may be used for statistical analysis, reporting, research, and evaluation of the program's effectiveness. Additionally, the applicable DoD Routine Uses have been incorporated in the notice to provide clarity for the public. Lastly, the system name, system location, categories of individuals, authorities, storage, retrievability, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager(s) and address, notification procedures, record access procedures, contesting record procedures, and record source categories have also been updated to ensure the information is accurate and current.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before November 21, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on September 23, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DUSDA 14 System name:

    Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation Information Management System (December 17, 2009, 74 FR 66959).

    Changes: System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Information Management System.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Directorate of User Services, Marketing and Registration Division, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.

    American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), 1818 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20036-2476.

    Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), 1 University Circle, Bldg. 330, Monterey, CA 93943-5197.

    NCI Inc., 400 Camino Aguajito, 1st Floor, Monterey, CA 93940-3541.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Applicants and participants of the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship for Service Program.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information includes full name and any other names used, Social Security Number (SSN), home and school mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers, school and alternate email addresses.

    Additional information collected may include SMART Program identification number, resumes and/or curricula vitae, publications, U.S. Citizenship, Selective Service registration status, birth date, employment status, state and country of birth, race/ethnicity, gender, security clearance status, veterans preference, academic status, assessment test scores, copies of transcripts, bank account numbers, bank routing numbers, Individualized Education Program (IEP) or special accommodations testing requirements, projected and actual graduation dates, and projected and actual award amounts.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 3304, Competitive service, examinations; 10 U.S.C. 2192a, Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program; 20 U.S.C. Chapter 17, National Defense Education Program; DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 410, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Training, Education, and Professional Development; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To enable SMART officials to select qualified applicants to be awarded SMART scholarships and monitor participant progress and status through the program. The system is also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting research.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to § 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To contractors working on a contract for DoD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Contractor's provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as applicable to DoD offices and employees.

    To academic institutions for the purpose of providing progress reports for applicants and participants.

    To consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). The purpose of this disclosure is to aid in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal government, typically to provide an incentive for debtors to repay delinquent Federal government debts by making these debts part of their credit records.

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper and electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are retrieved by name and SMART Program identification number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Access to records is permission-granted based on the role of the individual (need-to-know) and further restricted to individuals who require the data in the performance of official duties. Electronic records are maintained on servers in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to storage areas is restricted to personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Hardcopy records are kept in locked safes. Physical entry is restricted by the use of one or more of the following: Security guards, identification badges, cipher locks, electronic locks, combination locks, key card access and closed circuit TV. Technical controls consist of user identification, passwords, intrusion detection systems, encryption, External Certificate Authority, firewalls, Virtual Private Network (VPN), DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificates, and Common Access Cards (CACs). Administrative controls consist of periodic security audits, regular monitoring of users' security practices, methods to ensure only authorized personnel have access to Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Personnel who have access to SMART PII take annual Information Assurance and Privacy Act training, as required by the DoD.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Participant information will be deleted/destroyed 6 years and 3 months after completion of service commitment, or upon repayment of funds. Records of individuals not chosen for participation in the program will be deleted when 3 years old. DoD research and engineering facility data will be deleted/destroyed upon termination of affiliation.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, SMART Scholarship for Service Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3600.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves may address their inquiries to the Director, SMART Scholarship for Service Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3600.

    Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and SMART Program identification number.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and SMART Program identification number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “OSD rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are published in the OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Information is received from the individual and SMART Program support staff.”

    DUSDA 14 System name:

    Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Information Management System.

    System location:

    Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), Directorate of User Services, Marketing and Registration Division, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218.

    American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), 1818 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20036-2476.

    Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), 1 University Circle, Bldg. 330, Monterey, CA 93943-5197.

    NCI Inc., 400 Camino Aguajito, 1st Floor, Monterey, CA 93940-3541.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Applicants and participants of the Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Scholarship for Service Program.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Information includes full name and any other names used, Social Security Number (SSN), home and school mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers, school and alternate email addresses.

    Additional information collected may include SMART Program identification number, resumes and/or curricula vitae, publications, U.S. Citizenship, Selective Service registration status, birth date, employment status, state and country of birth, race/ethnicity, gender, security clearance status, veterans preference, academic status, assessment test scores, copies of transcripts, bank account numbers, bank routing numbers, Individualized Education Program (IEP) or special accommodations testing requirements, projected and actual graduation dates, and projected and actual award amounts.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    5 U.S.C. 3304, Competitive service, examinations; 10 U.S.C. 2192a, Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) Defense Education Program; 20 U.S.C. Chapter 17, National Defense Education Program; DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 410, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System: Training, Education, and Professional Development; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose(s):

    To enable SMART officials to select qualified applicants to be awarded SMART scholarships and monitor participant progress and status through the program. The system is also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, reporting, evaluating program effectiveness, and conducting research.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the Department of Defense as a routine use pursuant to § 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To contractors working on a contract for DoD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Contractor's provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as applicable to DoD offices and employees.

    To academic institutions for the purpose of providing progress reports for applicants and participants.

    To consumer reporting agencies as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)). The purpose of this disclosure is to aid in the collection of outstanding debts owed to the Federal government, typically to provide an incentive for debtors to repay delinquent Federal government debts by making these debts part of their credit records.

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Paper and electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Records are retrieved by name and SMART Program identification number.

    Safeguards:

    Access to records is permission-granted based on the role of the individual (need-to-know) and further restricted to individuals who require the data in the performance of official duties. Electronic records are maintained on servers in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to storage areas is restricted to personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Hardcopy records are kept in locked safes. Physical entry is restricted by the use of one or more of the following: Security guards, identification badges, cipher locks, electronic locks, combination locks, key card access and closed circuit TV. Technical controls consist of user identification, passwords, intrusion detection systems, encryption, External Certificate Authority, firewalls, Virtual Private Network (VPN), DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificates, and Common Access Cards (CACs). Administrative controls consist of periodic security audits, regular monitoring of users' security practices, methods to ensure only authorized personnel have access to Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Personnel who have access to SMART PII take annual Information Assurance and Privacy Act training, as required by the DoD.

    Retention and disposal:

    Participant information will be deleted/destroyed 6 years and 3 months after completion of service commitment, or upon repayment of funds. Records of individuals not chosen for participation in the program will be deleted when 3 years old. DoD research and engineering facility data will be deleted/destroyed upon termination of affiliation.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Director, SMART Scholarship for Service Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3600.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves may address their inquiries to the Director, SMART Scholarship for Service Program, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-3600.

    Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and SMART Program identification number.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff, Freedom of Information Act Requester Service Center, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should contain the individual's full name and SMART Program identification number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    Contesting record procedures:

    OSD rules for accessing records, contesting contents, and appealing initial agency determinations are published in the OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    Information is received from the individual and SMART Program support staff.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-25411 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0113] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCER-NPSAS Grants—Financial Aid Nudges: A National Experiment To Increase Retention of Financial Aid and College Persistence AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0113. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: NCER-NPSAS Grants—Financial Aid Nudges: A National Experiment to Increase Retention of Financial Aid and College Persistence.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 112,500.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 11,625.

    Abstract: In 2010, the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), both within the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), began collaborating on an education grant opportunity related to the cross-sectional National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). NPSAS is a large, nationally-representative sample of postsecondary institutions and students that contains student-level records on student demographics and family background, work experience, expectations, receipt of financial aid, and postsecondary enrollment (see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/about.asp; (OMB #1850-0666)). Since 1987, NPSAS has been fielded every 3 to 4 years, most recently during the 2015-16 academic year. The goal of this NCER-NCES collaboration is to provide researchers the opportunity to develop “one-off” projects that would target a subset of the NPSAS sample. Under this NCER-NCES grant opportunity, researchers submit applications to the Education Research Grants program (84.305A) under the Postsecondary and Adult Education topic and to the Exploration or Efficacy/Replication research goals. NCER supports research projects using NPSAS subsamples to: (1) Explore the relations between postsecondary persistence and completion, and malleable factors (as well as the mediators and moderators of those relationships), and (2) evaluate the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving persistence and completion of postsecondary education. Through the grant award, researchers can obtain indirect access to a subsample of the NPSAS sample after the study's student interviews have been completed. This request is to conduct, in 2017, the “Financial Aid Nudges: A National Experiment to Increase Retention of Financial Aid and College Persistence” study, funded by the NCER-NPSAS grant, designed to measure the effectiveness of an intervention that will provide financial aid information, reminders, and advising to college students who were initially interviewed as part of NPSAS:16.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25427 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0112] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NCER-NPSAS Grants—Connecting Students 2017: Testing the Effectiveness of FAFSA Interventions on College Outcomes AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0112. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: NCER-NPSAS Grants—Connecting Students 2017: Testing the Effectiveness of FAFSA Interventions on College Outcomes.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 53,900.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 30,144.

    Abstract: In 2010, the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), both within the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), began collaborating on an education grant opportunity related to the cross-sectional National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). NPSAS is a large, nationally-representative sample of postsecondary institutions and students that contains student-level records on student demographics and family background, work experience, expectations, receipt of financial aid, and postsecondary enrollment (see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas/about.asp; (OMB #1850-0666)). Since 1987, NPSAS has been fielded every 3 to 4 years, most recently during the 2015-16 academic year. The goal of this NCER-NCES collaboration is to provide researchers the opportunity to develop “one-off” projects that would target a subset of the NPSAS sample. Under this NCER-NCES grant opportunity, researchers submit applications to the Education Research Grants program (84.305A) under the Postsecondary and Adult Education topic and to the Exploration or Efficacy/Replication research goals. NCER supports research projects using NPSAS subsamples to: (1) Explore the relations between postsecondary persistence and completion, and malleable factors (as well as the mediators and moderators of those relationships), and (2) evaluate the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving persistence and completion of postsecondary education. Through the grant award, researchers can obtain indirect access to a subsample of the NPSAS sample after the study's student interviews have been completed. This request is to conduct, in 2017, the “Connecting Students 2017: Testing the Effectiveness of FAFSA Interventions on College Outcomes” study, funded by the NCER-NPSAS grant, designed to measure the effectiveness of an intervention that will provide financial aid information and reminders to college students who were initially interviewed as part of NPSAS:16.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25426 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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: EC17-11-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc., AEP Generating Company, Gavin Power, LLC., Darby Power, LLC., Waterford Power, LLC., Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Assets Under Section 203 of the FPA of AEP Generation Resources, Inc., et al.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-12-000.

    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company.

    Description: Application for Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Treatment of Duquesne Light Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-8-000.

    Applicants: Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-9-000.

    Applicants: Ocean State Power LLC.

    Description: Ocean State Power LLC. Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-012; ER10-1911-012.

    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Duquesne MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-343-007.

    Applicants: CPV Maryland, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of CPV Maryland, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-85-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Third Revised ISA No. 2301, Queue No. AA1-079 to be effective 9/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-86-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to PG&E's WDT LGIA and SGIA in Compliance With Order Nos. 827 and 828 to be effective 10/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-87-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order Nos. 827 and 828 Combined Compliance Filing (Montana OATT) to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5032.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-3-000.

    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of Monongahela Power Company.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF15-999-000.

    Applicants: Garnet Solar Power Generation Station 1.

    Description: Refund Report of Garnet Solar Power Generation Station 1 LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    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 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25360 Filed 10-19-16; 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 corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-184-000.

    Applicants: WGP Acquisition, LLC, Lea Power Partners, LLC, Waterside Power, LLC, Badger Creek Limited, Chalk Cliff Limited, Double C Generation Limited Partnership, High Sierra Limited, Kern Front Limited, McKittrick Limited, Bear Mountain Limited, Live Oak Limited.

    Description: Supplement to September 19, 2016 Joint Section 203 Application for WPG Acquisition, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/12/16.

    Accession Number: 20161012-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-10-000.

    Applicants: Applied Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator of Applied Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-11-000.

    Applicants: Applied Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Applied Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-12-000.

    Applicants: Javelina Wind Energy II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Javelina Wind Energy II, LLC under EG17-12.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-19-006.

    Applicants: West Deptford Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of West Deptford Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/13/16.

    Accession Number: 20161013-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2631-005.

    Applicants: Odell Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Odell Wind Farm, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1672-002; ER16-1354-002; ER16-1913-001

    Applicants: Chaves County Solar, LLC, Live Oak Solar, LLC, River Bend Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Chaves County Solar, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2654-001.

    Applicants: City Point Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5110

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-79-001.

    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Combined Order 827 and 828 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-88-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Flexible Ramping Product Revisions to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-89-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-10-14_Entergy Texas, Inc. Filing to Amend ETI Attachment O to be effective 12/19/2013.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-90-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order 827-828 Compliance to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-91-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 20161014_IREA Amended PPA to be effective 7/13/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-92-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 20161014_IREA Amended PPA to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-93-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: UAMPS Construction Agmt Lehi (Upgrades to Eagle Mountain) to be effective 12/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-94-000.

    Applicants: ESS Snook Project, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 12/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-95-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order Nos. 827 and 828 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-96-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Part 1 of Two-Part Filing to Update Eff Date of Accepted Demand Response Chgs to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-97-000.

    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: FPL's Order Nos. 827 and 828 Single Combined Compliance Filing to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-98-000.

    Applicants: Sky River LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Sky River LLC's Order Nos. 827 and 828 Single Combined Compliance Filing to be effective 10/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-99-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing per Orders 827 & 828 (LGIA & SGIA) to be effective 12/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-100-000.

    Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing per Orders 827 & 828 (LGIA & SGIA) to be effective 12/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-101-000.

    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Sagebrush, a California partnership's OATT to be effective 12/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-102-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-10-14 Compliance Order No. 827 and Order No. 828 to be effective 9/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-103-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SDGEs Order Nos. 827 and 828 Compliance Filing to be effective 10/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161014-5146.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/4/16.

    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 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25361 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Information Collection—Extension without Change: Demographic Information on Applicants for Federal Employment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for a three-year extension of the Demographic Information on Federal Job Applicants, OMB No. 3046-0046.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be sent to Bernadette Wilson, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. As a convenience to commenters, the Executive Secretariat will accept comments totaling six or fewer pages by facsimile (“FAX”) machine. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. The telephone number of the FAX receiver is (202) 663-4114. (This is not a toll-free number). Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at (202) 663-4070 (voice) or (202) 663-4074 (TTD). (These are not toll-free telephone numbers.) Instead of sending written comments to the EEOC, you may submit comments and attachments electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. All comments received through this portal will be posted without change, including any personal information you provide, except as noted below. The EEOC reserves the right to refrain from posting libelous or otherwise inappropriate comments including those that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language; that contain threats or defamatory statements; that contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, or genetic information; or that promote or endorse services or products. All comments received, including any personal information provided, also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours by appointment only at the EEOC Headquarters' Library, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Upon request, individuals who require assistance viewing comments will be provided appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule an appointment to inspect the comments at EEOC's library, contact the library staff at (202) 663-4630 (voice) or (202) 663-4641 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.)

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jamie Price, Federal Sector Programs, Office of Federal Operations, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4484 (voice); (202) 663-4593 (TTY).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 26, 2010, President Obama issued Executive Order 13548, which directs Executive departments and agencies (hereafter “agencies”) to improve their efforts to employ Federal workers with disabilities through increased recruitment, hiring, and retention of these individuals. OPM, in consultation with the White House (including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the EEOC has developed, as required by the E.O. 13548, model recruitment and hiring strategies for agencies to use to increase their employment of individuals with disabilities. The strategies include collecting, maintaining, and analyzing applicant flow data and examining existing recruitment programs and hiring practices to identify and eliminate any barriers to recruiting/hiring individuals with disabilities and, in particular, individuals with targeted disabilities. The EEOC's Demographic Information on Federal Job Applicants form (OMB No. 3046-0046) is intended for use by federal agencies in gathering data on the race, ethnicity, sex, and disability status of job applicants. This form is used by the EEOC and other agencies to gauge progress and trends over time with respect to equal employment opportunity goals.

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed data collection tool will have practical utility by enabling a federal agency to determine whether recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool in compliance with the laws enforced by the Commission and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race, national origin, sex or disability status;

    (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 applicants for federal employees who choose 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

    Collection Title: Demographic Information on Federal Job Applicants.

    OMB Control No.: 3046-0046.

    Description of Affected Public: Individuals submitting applications for federal employment.

    Number of Annual Responses: 5,800.

    Estimated Time per Response: 3 minutes.

    Total Annual Burden Hours: 290.1

    1 This total is calculated as follows: 5,800 annual responses × 3 minutes per response = 17,400 minutes. 17,400/60 = 290 hours.

    Annual Federal Cost: None.

    Abstract: Under section 717 of Title VII and 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Commission is charged with reviewing and approving federal agencies plans to affirmatively address potential discrimination before it occurs. Pursuant to such oversight responsibilities, the Commission has established systems to monitor compliance with Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act by requiring federal agencies to evaluate their employment practices through the collection and analysis of data on the race, national origin, sex and disability status of applicants for both permanent and temporary employment.

    Several federal agencies (or components of such agencies) have previously obtained separate OMB approval for the use of forms collecting data on the race, national origin, sex, and disability status of applicants. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and a proliferation of forms, the EEOC seeks an extension of the approval of a common form to be used by all federal agencies.

    Response by applicants is optional. The information obtained will be used by federal agencies only for evaluating whether an agency's recruitment activities are effectively reaching all segments of the relevant labor pool and whether the agency's selection procedures allow all applicants to compete on a level playing field regardless of race, national origin, sex, or disability status. The voluntary responses are treated in a highly confidential manner and play no part in the job selection process. The information is not provided to any panel rating the applications, to selecting officials, to anyone who can affect the application, or to the public. Rather, the information is used in summary form to determine trends over many selections within a given occupational or organization area. No information from the form is entered into an official personnel file.

    Burden Statement: Because of the predominant use of online application systems, which require only pointing and clicking on the selected responses, and because the form requests only eight questions regarding basic information, the EEOC estimates that an applicant can complete the form in approximately 3 minutes or less. Based on past experience, we expect that 5,800 applicants will choose to complete the form.

    Upon approval of this common form by OMB, federal agencies may request OMB approval to use this common form without having to publish notices and request public comments for 60 and 30 days. Each agency must account for the burden associated with their use of the common form.

    Dated: October 14, 2016.

    For the Commission.

    Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    BILLING CODE 6570-01-P EN20OC16.000 EN20OC16.001 EN20OC16.002 EN20OC16.003
    [FR Doc. 2016-25331 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-C
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0865] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission 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 Communications 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 PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 19, 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 contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0865.

    Title: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third Party Disclosure Requirements.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, Not-for-profit institutions, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 62,490 respondents; 168,908 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .166 hours (10 minutes)—4 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping and third-party disclosure requirements; on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 309(j).

    Total Annual Burden: 88,927 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: This information collection contains personally identifiable information (PII). The FCC has a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records,” to cover the collection, maintenance, use(s), and destruction of this PII, which respondents may provide to the FCC as part of the information collection requirement(s). This SORN was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2006 (71 FR 17234, 17269).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an extension after this 60 day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

    The purpose of this information collection is to continually streamline *64498 and simplify processes for wireless applicants and licensees, who previously used a myriad of forms for various wireless services and types of requests, in order to provide the Commission information that has been collected in separate databases, each for a different group of services. Such processes have resulted in unreliable reporting, duplicate filings for the same licensees/applicants, and higher cost burdens to licensees/applicants. By streamlining the Universal Licensing System (ULS), the Commission eliminates the filing of duplicative applications for wireless carriers; increases the accuracy and reliability of licensing information; and enables all wireless applicants and licensees to file all licensing-related applications and other filings electronically, thus increasing the speed and efficiency of the application process. The ULS also benefits wireless applicants/licensees by reducing the cost of preparing applications, and speeds up the licensing process in that the Commission can introduce new entrants more quickly into this already competitive industry. Finally, ULS enhances the availability of licensing information to the public, which has access to all publicly available wireless licensing information on-line, including maps depicting a licensee's geographic service area.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25363 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE & TIME:

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016 At 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shelley E. Garr, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25570 Filed 10-18-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice October 18, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Thursday, November 17, 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 Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc., 2015-279-DM (Issues include whether the Judge erred in issuing a summary decision concluding that the operator did not interfere with the complainant's statutory rights as a miners' representative.)

    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. 2016-25528 Filed 10-18-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice October 18, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Friday, November 18, 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 consider and act upon the following in open session: Michael K. McNary v. Alcoa World Alumina, Inc., 2015-279-DM. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in issuing a summary decision concluding that the operator did not interfere with the complainant's statutory rights as a miners' representative.)

    Any person attending this meeting 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. 2016-25529 Filed 10-18-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Process Evaluation of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (formerly the Administration on Aging (AoA)) is announcing that the continuation of collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202-395-6974 to the OMB Desk Officer for ACL, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Jenkins, 202-795-7369.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for Community Living (Formerly the Administration for Aging) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    The purpose of the process evaluation is to obtain a thorough understanding of the LTCOP's structure and operations at the national, state and local levels; use of resources to carry out legislative mandates; the nature of program partnerships; and processes for sharing information on promising program practices and areas for improvement. Data collection for the process evaluation consists of two rounds. ACL seeks clearance for round one and provisional clearance for Round 2 dependent upon receiving final marked up surveys. The first round focuses on obtaining information from three respondent categories at the national and state levels: Federal staff, national stakeholders, and State ombudsmen. Data collection from these respondents will help inform and refine the second round of data collection focusing on obtaining information from respondents at the local level. These include local directors/regional representatives, local representatives, and volunteers. For example, data collected from Round 1 will serve to inform the subsequent data collection for Task 7 of the project. This task focuses on investigating how the ombudsman program has been addressing and affecting the changing landscape of long term services and supports (LTSS). State ombudsmen responses to questions about reforms in LTSS and home and community-based care will help identify states for further study and obtain information at the local level. This package addresses these two rounds of the project, with an emphasis on the first round.

    In response to the 60-day Federal Register notice related to this proposed data collection and published on July 19, 2016, no relevant comments were was received. The proposed data collection tool may be found on the ACL Web site: http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Program_Results/Program_survey.aspx.

    The total burden estimate for the remaining data collection is: 482.67 hours.

    Dated: October 12, 2016. Edwin L. Walker, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25416 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the Elderly Nutritional Services Program AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (formerly the Administration on Aging (AoA)) is announcing that the continuation of collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.6974 to the OMB Desk Officer for ACL, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Jenkins, 202.795.7369.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for Community Living (Formerly the Administration for Aging) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The data collection associated with the Evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Services Program (ENSP) is necessary to meet three broad objectives of ACL: (1) To provide information to support program planning, including an analysis of program processes, (2) to develop information about program efficiency and cost issues, and (3) to assess program effectiveness, as measured by the program's effects on a variety of important outcomes, including nutrient adequacy, socialization opportunities, health outcomes, and, ultimately, helping elderly people avoid institutionalization. The renewal is to complete the data collection related to objective 3.

    In response to the 60-day Federal Register notice related to this proposed data collection and published on July 19, 2016, no relevant comments were was received. The proposed data collection tool may be found on the ACL Web site: http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Program_Results/Program_survey.aspx.

    The total burden estimate for the remaining data collection is: 192 hours.

    Dated: October 14, 2016. Edwin L. Walker, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25414 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living/Administration on Aging Agency Information Collection Activities; Public Comment Request; State Annual Long-Term Care Ombudsman Report and Instructions AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living/Administration on Aging, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by fax 202.395.5806 or by email to [email protected], Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ACL.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Louise Ryan, telephone: (206) 615-2514; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    States provide the following data and narrative information in the report:

    1. Numbers and descriptions of cases filed and complaints made on behalf of long-term care facility residents to the statewide ombudsman program;

    2. Major issues identified that impact the quality of care and life of long-term care facility residents;

    3. Statewide program operations; and

    4. Ombudsman activities in addition to complaint investigation.

    5. A new requirement to include organizational conflict of interest reporting as required by the reauthorized Older Americans Act and the LTC Ombudsman program rule CFR 1324.21.

    The report form and instructions have been in continuous use, with minor modifications, since they were first approved by OMB for the FY 1995 reporting period. This current request is for a Revision of a Currently Approved Collection (ICR Rev), which will provide approval for FFY 2016-2018 with modifications to include organizational conflict of interest reporting as required by the reauthorized Older Americans Act, Section 712(f) and the LTC Ombudsman program rule CFR 1324.21.

    The data collected on complaints filed with ombudsman programs and narrative on long-term care issues provide information to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others on patterns of concerns and major long-term care issues affecting residents of long-term care facilities. Both the complaint and program data collected assist the states and local ombudsman programs in planning strategies and activities, providing training and technical assistance and developing performance measures.

    Comments in Response to the 60 Day Federal Register Notice

    A notice was published in the Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 126/Thursday, June 30, 2016 Notices, Pages 42712-42713, announcing that AoA was requesting modification of the current form and instructions to incorporate conflict of interest reporting requirements, directing readers to the AoA Web site where these documents are posted and providing an opportunity for public comment. One comment was received from the National Association of Ombudsman Programs (NASOP).

    NASOP members disagreed with the burden estimate developed by AoA, stating:

    Because an overwhelming majority of state long-term care ombudsman programs designate local ombudsman entities, those circumstances lead to a greater likelihood of organizational conflicts of interest. The burden is compounded by the number of local ombudsman entities within a state and will have multiple sources of reporting organizational conflicts at local or regional levels up to the states before states can report via NORS. Further, because approximately half of state long-term care ombudsman programs are housed within an umbrella agency, this also increases the likelihood that state programs have multiple organizational conflicts that must be identified, remedied or removed, and reported via NORS.

    In response to NASOP's concerns about burden estimates, we made a change in our estimated burden hours from one-half hour per state to one hour per state.

    NASOP requested additions to the instructions and report form such as the ability to certify that there was no change in conflicts/remedies from the previous reporting year; and to allow for the ability to report a conflict and remedy that applies to many entities as a reporting entry. These suggestions were helpful and were incorporated into the instructions and form. They did not affect the estimated burden.

    NASOP also recommended that AoA/ACL add a reporting option in a check box to indicate a state has identified a conflict, but the conflict has not been remedied. We do not intend to take this recommendation because it would be contrary to the rule and law which require states to identify, remove or remedy conflicts and to report on such remedies. ACL is providing on-going technical assistance to states on the implementation of the Ombudsman program rule, including technical assistance on conflicts of interest and steps to remedy any identified conflicts.

    A reporting form and instructions may be viewed in the ombudsman section of the AoA Web site: http://www.aoa.acl.gov/AoA_Programs/Elder_Rights/Ombudsman/index.aspx. AoA estimates the burden of this collection and entering the additional report information as follows: Approximately 10 to 60 minutes per respondent, depending on the number of conflicts to report, with 52 state Ombudsman programs responding annually. This brings the total burden hours to approximately 7,753 hours, (149 hours on average per program) with 52 Offices of Long-Term Care Ombudsman programs responding annually.

    Summary Local Ombudsman
  • programs
  • Office of state
  • Ombudsman
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • 52 Programs
    Hours 132.1 17 149.1 7,753 hours.
    Dated: October 12, 2016. Edwin L. Walker, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25418 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0530] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Pre-Submission Program for Medical Devices AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0756. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Pre-Submission Program for Medical Devices— OMB Control Number 0910-0756—Extension

    The guidance entitled “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” describes the Pre-Submission program for medical devices reviewed in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The guidance provides recommendations regarding the information that should be submitted in a Pre-Submission package and procedures that should be followed for meetings between CDRH and CBER staff and industry representatives or application sponsors. In addition to Pre-Submissions, the guidance addresses other feedback mechanisms including Informational Meetings, Study Risk Determinations, Formal Early Collaboration Meetings, and Submission Issue Meetings and the procedures to request feedback using these mechanisms.

    A Pre-Submission is defined as a formal written request from an applicant for feedback from FDA to be provided in the form of a formal written response or, if the manufacturer chooses, a meeting or teleconference in which the feedback is documented in meeting minutes. A Pre-Submission is appropriate when FDA's feedback on specific questions is necessary to guide product development and/or application preparation. The proposed collections of information are necessary to allow the Agency to receive Pre-Submission packages in order to implement this voluntary submission program.

    For clarity, we are requesting that the title of the information collection request, OMB control number 0910-0756, be changed to “Pre-Submission Program for Medical Devices.”

    In the Federal Register of July 28, 2016 (81 FR 49678), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 FDA center Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • frequency per
  • response
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    CDRH 2,465 1 2,465 137 337,705 CBER 79 1 79 137 10,823 Total 348,528 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Respondents are medical device manufacturers subject to FDA's laws and regulations. FDA's annual estimate of 2,544 submissions is based on experienced trends over the past several years. FDA's administrative and technical staffs, who are familiar with the requirements for current Pre-Submissions, estimate that an average of 137 hours is required to prepare a Pre-Submission.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25359 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Request for Comments on the Proposed Measures and 2020 Targets for the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention: Inpatient and Outpatient Measures for Reduction of Adverse Drug Events From Anticoagulants, Diabetes Agents, and Opioid Analgesics AGENCY:

    Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Federal Interagency Steering Committee for Adverse Drug Events, proposes new measures and targets for adverse drug events (ADEs) from anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics for the National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention (ADE Action Plan). Based on input from the Federal Interagency Workgroups for Adverse Drug Events, six national measures and targets for the reduction of ADEs are being proposed. Each drug class highlighted in the ADE Action Plan (anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics) includes a proposed inpatient and outpatient measure to track national progress in reduction of ADEs from these drug classes. The proposed targets will reflect improvement efforts over a four to six year period since the release of the ADE Action Plan in August 2014. As such, HHS is proposing a baseline year of 2014 for five of the measures and 2016 for one measure. All targets are to be achieved by 2020. HHS invites interested public and private professionals, organizations, and consumer representatives to submit written comments on the proposed 2020 ADE targets, found at https://health.gov/hcq/ade-measures.asp.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed ADE 2020 measures and targets must be received no later than 5 p.m. on November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] (please indicate in the subject line: Proposed ADE Measures and Targets)

    Mail/Courier: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Attn: Division of Health Care Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna Gribble, Health Policy Fellow, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In September 2012, in response to heightened awareness of the contribution of ADEs to the burden of health care-related harm and costs, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) marshaled the wide-ranging and diverse resources of federal partners to form an extensive interagency partnership, the Federal Interagency Steering Committee and Workgroups for Adverse Drug Events, whose goals would be to develop the ADE Action Plan, as well as identify measures to track national progress in reducing ADEs and targets to meet based on those measures.

    ODPHP, in conjunction with the Federal Interagency Steering Committee and three Federal Interagency Workgroups, developed and released the final ADE Action Plan in 2014. The ADE Action Plan seeks to engage all stakeholders in a coordinated, aligned, and multi-sector effort to reduce ADEs that are clinically significant, account for the greatest number of measurable harms as identified by existing surveillance systems, and are largely preventable; these were identified as ADEs resulting from inpatient and outpatient use of anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioid analgesics (with specific focus on ADEs from therapeutic use of opioids). The ADE Action Plan identifies the federal government's highest priority strategies and opportunities for advancement, which will have the greatest impact on reducing ADEs. Implementation of these strategies is expected to result in safer and higher quality health care services, reduced health care costs, informed and engaged consumers and ultimately, improved health outcomes. The reduction of ADEs subsequent to implementation of these strategies will be tracked by the proposed measures and will aim to meet the targeted reduction rate by 2020.

    The six proposed measures use data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The inpatient and outpatient measures for anticoagulants and diabetes agents and the outpatient measure for opioids will set baseline rates using data from 2014 and establish targets to be achieved by 2020. The inpatient opioids measure will have a 2016 baseline and a 2020 target year. The inpatient opioids measure will use data from AHRQ's Quality Safety Review System (QSRS) which will begin collecting data in 2016. The inpatient measures for anticoagulants and diabetes agents will use AHRQ's Medicare Patient Monitoring System (MPSMS) for 2015 and QSRS for 2016-2020 and data will be adjusted accordingly. MPSMS did not include an opioids specific measure and QSRS now allows AHRQ to now track inpatient opioids adverse drug events.

    Descriptions of the surveillance systems, measures, and targets can be found here: https://health.gov/hcq/ade-measures.asp.

    Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments in response to the proposed measures and targets. Written comments should not exceed more than two pages per ADE measure. The comments should reference the specific measure or target to which feedback refers. To be considered, the person or representative from an organization must self-identify and submit the written comments by close of business on November 21, 2016.

    Dated: September 30, 2016. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Director, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25424 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflicts: Genetics and Genomics.

    Date: October 25, 2016.

    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Richard A. Currie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1108, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1219, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships: Risk, Prevention, and Health Behavior.

    Date: October 31-November 1, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Martha M. Faraday, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3110, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3575, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Brain injury.

    Date: November 7, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Samuel C. Edwards, Ph.D., IRG CHIEF, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1246, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 14, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25336 Filed 10-19-16; 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 Rapid Assessment of Zika Virus (ZIKV) Complications (R21).

    Date: November 14, 2016

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Travis J. Taylor, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific, Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G62B, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5082, [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 14, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25339 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Invention; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Licensing information may be obtained by emailing the indicated licensing contact at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood, Office of Technology Transfer and Development Office of Technology Transfer, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC 2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479; telephone: 301-402-5579. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive any unpublished information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Capsid-Free AAV Vectors for Gene Delivery and Their Use for Gene Therapy

    Description of Technology: The invention concerns novel capsid-free AAV vectors that can be used for gene delivery and gene therapy applications. The invention provides for a linear nucleic acid molecule comprising in this order: A first adeno-associated virus (AAV) inverted terminal repeat (ITR), a nucleotide sequence of interest, and a second AAV ITR, wherein said nucleic acid molecule is devoid of AAV capsid protein coding sequences. The said nucleic acid molecule can be applied to a host at repetition without eliciting an immune response. Methods of producing and purifying this nucleic acid molecule, as well as its use for gene transfer and gene therapy are also described.

    Potential Commercial Applications: The commercial applications of the technology relate to the field of gene therapy. It may offer significant advantages compared to existing methods of gene delivery and gene therapy.

    Competitive Advantages:

    • The AAV vectors described in the invention devoid the AAV capsid proteins and thus are not exposed to the adverse effects caused by immunogenicity.

    • In contrast to the use of plasmid DNA for gene delivery, the AAV DNA of the invention seems to confer greater stability in cell nuclei, allowing prolonged expression compared to plasmid DNA.

    • The vector DNA of the invention is not limited in size to the packageable size genome.

    • The production of the AAV DNA vector is economical, simple and provides high yields.

    Development Stage: Early-stage; In vitro data available

    Inventors: Drs. Luis Garcia, Cyriaque Beley, and Thomas Voit (INSERM Paris); Drs. Robert M. Kotin and Lina Li (NHLBI).

    Publication: Li L, Dimitriadis EK, Yang Y, Li J, Yuan Z, Qiao C, Beley C, Smith RH, Garcia L, Kotin RM. Production and characterization of novel recombinant adeno-associated virus replicative-form genomes: A eukaryotic source of DNA for gene transfer. PLoS One. 2013 Aug 1;8(8):e69879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069879.

    Intellectual Property: NIH Reference No. E-241-2010/0—US Patent Application No. 14/004,379 (Publication No. 2014-0107186 A), and its foreign counterparts in Europe (11 157986.8; 12 708035.6), Canada (2,829,518), Australia (2012228376), Brazil (BR 1 1 2013 023185 8), China (201280022523.5), Israel (228328), India (8000/DELNP/2013), Japan (2013-557138), and South Korea (10-2013-7026982).

    Licensing Contact: Uri Reichman, Ph.D., M.BA.; Phone: 301-435-4616; Email: [email protected]

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Uri Reichman, Senior Advisor for Licensing, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25343 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR16-297: Native American Research Centers for Health (NARCH).

    Date: November 14-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Crowne Plaza Tyson's Corner, 1960 Chain Bridge Road, Mclean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Delia Olufokunbi Sam, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3158, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0684, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Genetic Diseases.

    Date: November 15, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dominique Lorang-Leins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, MSC 7766, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-326-9721, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Non-HIV Diagnostics, Food Safety, Sterilization/Disinfection, and Bioremediation.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Gagan Pandya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 3200, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1167, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Medical Imaging.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.

    Contact Person: Leonid V. Tsap, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2507, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 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: Sergei Ruvinov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1180, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: Basic Research in Cancer Health Disparities/Diversity.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Arnold Revzin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4146, MSC 7824, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1153, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-15-024: Molecular Profiles and Biomarkers of Food and Nutrient Intake.

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 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: Gregory S. Shelness, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6156, Bethesda, MD 20892-7892, (301) 435-0492, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Clinical Neurophysiology, Devices, Neuroprosthetics, and Biosensors.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westgate Hotel, San Diego, 1055 Second Ave., San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Cristina Backman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, ETTN IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Cancer Drug Development and Therapeutics.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Marines' Memorial Club and Hotel, 609 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.

    Contact Person: Lilia Topol, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0131, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomaterials, Delivery and Nanotechnology.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: David Filpula, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6181, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2902, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Innate and Adaptive Immunity to Pathogens.

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Deborah Hodge, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4207 MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1238, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Physiological Mechanism of Diabetes/Obesity and Molecular Integrative Reproduction.

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Hui Chen, M.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1044, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Radiation Biology and Therapeutics.

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Denise R. Shaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0198, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Informatics.

    Date: November 17-18, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Claire E. Gutkin, MPH, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3106, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3139, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 14, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25337 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed 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 Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Urgent Review of Exposure Evaluation Applications.

    Date: October 27, 2016.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Keystone, 530 Davis Drive, Room 3118, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Janice B Allen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Science, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30/Room 3170 B, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541-7556.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 13, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25342 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Non-HIV Microbial Vaccines.

    Date: November 4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Andrea Keane-Myers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4218, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1221, [email protected]ih.gov.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-089: Imaging and Biomarkers for Early Detection of Aggressive, Cancer (U01).

    Date: November 9, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Chiayeng Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2397, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: AIDS and Related Research Integrated Review Group; Behavioral and Social Science Approaches to Preventing HIV/AIDS Study Section.

    Date: November 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Sheraton Suites Alexandria, 801 North Saint Asaph, Alexandria, VA 22314171.

    Contact Person: Jose H. Guerrier, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5222, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 201-435-1137, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Endocrinology, Metabolism, Nutrition and Reproductive Sciences.

    Date: November 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Clara M. Cheng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6170, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1041, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences AREA.

    Date: November 15-16, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To provide concept review of proposed grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Sara Ahlgren, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 4136, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0904, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR Panel: International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development.

    Date: November 15, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Karin F. Helmers, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3148, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 254-9975, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Gene Regulatory Networks.

    Date: November 15, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Baishali Maskeri, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-2864, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Biomedical Technology Research Resource for NMR Spectroscopy.

    Date: November 15-17, 2016.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.

    Contact Person: Kee Hyang Pyon, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Limited Competition National Primate Research.

    Date: November 16-18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Double Tree by Hilton, Madison, 525 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53703.

    Contact Person: Biao Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3089B, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-4411, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Hematology.

    Date: November 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Bukhtiar H. Shah, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4120, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-806-7314, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Hematology—Rump A.

    Date: November 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Katherine M. Malinda, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4140, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0912, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Topics on Infectious Diseases and Drug Discovery.

    Date: November 16, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Liangbiao Zheng, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3202, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-996-5819, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Skeletal Muscle—Structure and Function.

    Date: November 16, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Srikanth Ranganathan, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Road, RM 4214, MSC-7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1787, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Molecular and Computational Genetics.

    Date: November 16, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Ronald Adkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2206, MSC 7890, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-4511, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Projects: BTRR Center Review.

    Date: November 16-18, 2016.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Wyndham Pittsburgh University Center, 100 Lytton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

    Contact Person: Craig Giroux, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BST IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5150, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2204, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Eukaryotic Parasites and Vectors.

    Date: November 16-17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 p.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: Fouad A El-Zaatari, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3206, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1149, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 13, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25335 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 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 Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: November 3, 2015.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Yin Liu, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0505, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: November 4, 2015.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Yin Liu, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-0505, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 14, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25341 Filed 10-19-16; 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; Zika R21 Rapid Review.

    Date: November 14, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7189, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Stephanie L. Constant, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7189, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-8784, [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 14, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25338 Filed 10-19-16; 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 Pilot Clinical Trials to Eliminate the Latent HIV Reservoir (U01).

    Date: November 17, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: J. Bruce Sundstrom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G11A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, 240-669-5045, [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 14, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25340 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. No. 16-18] Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) Requirements: Identification of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as an EVUS Country and Designation of Maximum Validity B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 Visas as Designated Visa Categories AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this Federal Register, DHS is publishing a final rule titled “Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)” (hereafter “EVUS Final Rule”), amending 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, to establish the Electronic Visa Update System and to specify certain requirements. According to the rule, nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category will be required to provide biographic and other information to DHS by enrolling in EVUS to maintain the validity of those visas. The EVUS final rule specifies that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may identify countries and designate nonimmigrant visa categories for purposes of the EVUS requirements and that notice of identified countries and designated nonimmigrant visa categories will be published in the Federal Register. Through this notice, the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State, identifies the People's Republic of China (PRC) as an EVUS country and designates B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas issued without restriction for the maximum validity period, which is generally 10 years,1 as designated visa categories when the visas are contained in a passport issued by the PRC.

    1 This includes visas issued for more than nine years and all replacement visas issued to correct errors in the original instance.

    DATES:

    This identification and designation is effective October 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Shepherd, Office of Field Operations, [email protected] or (202) 344-2073.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In this Federal Register, DHS is publishing a final rule titled “Establishment of the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS)” amending 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, to establish the Electronic Visa Update System. EVUS is an online information update system that allows for the collection of biographic and other information from nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. See EVUS Final Rule. Nonimmigrant aliens subject to these regulations must periodically enroll in EVUS and obtain a notification of compliance prior to travel to the United States. As discussed in the Department of State's parallel rule, “Visa Information Update Requirements under the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS),” also published in this Federal Register, individuals subject to the EVUS requirements must comply with the EVUS regulations in 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, in order to maintain the validity of their visas of a designated category.

    As specified in 8 CFR 215.22, and explained in the EVUS Final Rule, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary's discretion and in consultation with the Secretary of State, may identify countries (“EVUS countries”) whose passport holders will be subject to the EVUS regulations, if the passport contains a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category, and designate applicable visa categories. The regulations state that notice of identified countries and designated visa categories will be published in the Federal Register. See 8 CFR 215.22 and 8 CFR 215.23(c). This announcement provides such a notice.

    Identification and Designation

    Pursuant to 8 CFR 215.22, the Secretary, following consultation with the Secretary of State, identifies the People's Republic of China (PRC) as an EVUS country and designates all B-1, B-2, and B-1/B-2 visas issued without restriction for maximum validity, which generally will be 10 years, but includes visas issued for more than nine years and all replacement visas issued to correct errors in the original visa, as designated visa categories when the visas are contained in a passport issued by the PRC.

    B nonimmigrant visas, often referred to as “visitor visas,” are issued to individuals seeking to travel and be admitted to the United States temporarily for business (visa category B-1); for tourism or pleasure, (visa category B-2), or a combination of both purposes (visa category B-1/B-2). See section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B)), 8 CFR 214.1(a), and 22 CFR 41.31.

    Accordingly, nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by the PRC containing a U.S. nonimmigrant B-1, B-2 or B-1/B-2 visa issued without restriction, for maximum validity, which generally will be 10 years, but includes visas issued for more than nine years and all replacement visas issued to correct an error in the original visa, must comply with the EVUS regulations in 8 CFR part 215, subpart B, in addition to all other applicable immigration laws and regulations.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25326 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2016-0067] Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records, System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to establish a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER) System of Records.” This system of records contains information DHS/CBP collects and maintains to secure the U.S. border between the Ports of Entry (POE), furthering its enforcement and immigration mission. DHS previously maintained these records under the DHS/ICE-011 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Operational Records (ENFORCE) (April 30, 2015, 80 FR 24269) and the DHS/USVISIT-004 DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) (June 5, 2007, 72 FR 31080) System of Records Notices (SORNs), as part of a DHS-wide initiative in 2008 to restructure the former INS-012 Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) SORN.

    DHS/CBP is issuing this new system of records to claim ownership of records created as a result of CBP interactions between the POE. CBP inputs non-intelligence information it collects as a result of these interactions into its E3 Portal. CBP also collects and maintains information related to camera and sensor alerts in its Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) database. This system of records applies to the categories of information input and maintained in these systems. This information includes biographic, biometric, geolocation imagery and coordinates, and other enforcement and detention data associated with encounters, investigations, border violence, seized property in relation to an apprehension, inspections, prosecutions, and custody operations of DHS/CBP between the ports of entry for law enforcement, immigration, or border security purposes.

    Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, elsewhere in the Federal Register. This newly established system of records will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before November 21, 2016. This new system will be effective November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0067 by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, please visit http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: Debra L. Danisek, (202) 344-1610, Acting Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER) System of Records.”

    This system of records contains information DHS/CBP collects and maintains to prevent the illegal entry of people, terrorists, terrorist weapons, and contraband from entering the United States between the Ports of Entry (POE) (for records collected at the POE, either for lawful admission or entry to the United States or for enforcement purposes, please see DHS/CBP-007 Border Crossing Information (BCI) (January 25, 2016, 81 FR 4040 and DHS/CBP-011 U.S. Customs and Border Protection TECS (December 19, 2008, 73 FR 77778), respectfully). DHS previously covered these records under the DHS/ICE-011 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Operational Records (ENFORCE) (April 30, 2015, 80 FR 24269) and the DHS/NPPD-004 DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) (June 5, 2007, 72 FR 31080) SORNs, as part of a DHS-wide initiative in 2008 to restructure the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)-012 DACS SORN.

    DHS/CBP is issuing this new system of records to claim ownership of records created as a result of CBP interactions between the POE. CBP inputs non-intelligence information it collects as a result of these interactions into its E3 Portal,1 which serves as a conduit to ICE Enforcement and Integrated Database (EID) and DHS Office of Biometric Identity Management (OBIM) IDENT (for biometric storage). CBP also collects and maintains information related to camera and sensor alerts in its ICAD database.2 This system of records applies to the categories of information input and maintained in these systems. This information includes biographic, biometric, geolocation imagery and coordinates, and other enforcement and detention data associated with encounters, investigations, border violence, seized property in relation to an apprehension, inspections, prosecutions, and custody operations of DHS/CBP between the ports of entry for law enforcement, immigration, or border security purposes.

    1 DHS/CBP/PIA-012 CBP Portal (E3) to ENFORCE/IDENT (July 25, 2012), available at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/cbp-portal-e3-enforceident.

    2 DHS/CBP/PIA-022 Border Surveillance Systems (BSS) (August 29, 2014), available at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/border-surveillance-systems-bss.

    CBP, through the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), plays a critical role in securing the U.S. borders between POE against all threats. CBP/USBP prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States between the POE through improved and focused intelligence-driven operations and enhanced integration, planning, and execution of operations with law enforcement partners. CBP/USBP manages risk through the introduction and expansion of sophisticated technologies, tactics, techniques, and procedures, including mobile-response capabilities. CBP/USBP enforces the law, primarily immigration and customs laws, performs related homeland security functions, and disrupts and degrades Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCO) by targeting enforcement efforts against the highest priority threats and expanding programs that reduce smuggling and crimes associated with smuggling.

    To facilitate and further the overall CBP/USBP goal to secure the U.S. borders, DHS/CBP uses BPER to collect, store, and retrieve geolocation imagery and coordinates, biographic, and biometric records about individuals, vehicles, vessels, property, or aircrafts encountered, apprehended, or seized between POE. These records include encounters of individuals (including U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens) between POE, related to border crossing events and activities, and information associated with individuals that are detected, apprehended, detained, or involved with surveillance technologies. These encounters can also include information about Border Patrol Agents and assaults made against them, as well as the use of force that may be necessarily exercised during an encounter.

    BPER can include any associated encounter, enforcement, or detection information (including citizen reports) to assist CBP in making determinations about individuals that violated, or are suspected of violating, a law or regulation that is enforced or administered by DHS/CBP. DHS/CBP may use BPER information to determine immigration or citizenship status, eligibility for immigration benefits, to prosecute individuals apprehended for violation of U.S. laws enforced by DHS, and for other uses related to the enforcement of U.S. laws. DHS/CBP will also use BPER records to carry out its national security, law enforcement, immigration, and other homeland security functions.

    Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in DHS/CBP-023 BPER may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information in order to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.

    Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the Federal Register. This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

    Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records, System of Records.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

    System of Records

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-023.

    System name:

    DHS/CBP-023 Border Patrol Enforcement Records (BPER).

    Security classification:

    Unclassified. The data may be retained on the classified networks but this does not change the nature and character of the data until it is combined with classified information.

    System location:

    DHS/CBP primarily maintains records at the CBP Headquarters offices in Washington, DC and at Office of Border Patrol Sector and Station locations. BPER are primarily collected and or maintained within three information technology systems (E3 Portal, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) EID, and the ICAD database), however these records may also be stored locally by Sector or Station offices, checkpoints, mobile information collection devices, and border surveillance technologies. This system of record notice encompasses the categories of information currently input and or maintained in E3, EID, and ICAD. On behalf of CBP, DHS stores BPER biometric records in the DHS biometrics repository, OBIM IDENT.3

    3 DHS/NPPD/PIA-002 Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), and Appendices (December 7, 2012), available at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsnppdpia-002-automated-biometric-identification-system.

    DHS/CBP also replicates records from these operational systems and maintains them on other DHS unclassified and classified systems and networks.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Categories of individuals covered by this system of records include:

    1. Individuals encountered, apprehended, detained, or removed in relation to border crossings, checkpoint operations, law enforcement actions and investigations, inspections, patrols, examinations, legal proceedings, or other operations that implement and enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and related treaties, statutes, orders, and regulations;

    2. Individuals wanted by other law enforcement agencies, including federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, and international, or individuals who are the subject of inquiries, lookouts, or notices by another agency or a foreign government; and

    3. Individuals who contact DHS/CBP with complaints, tips, leads, or other information regarding a violation, or potential violation, of laws enforced by DHS/CBP.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Categories of records in this system include:

    1. Biographic, descriptive, historical, and other identifying data, including but not limited to: Names; aliases; fingerprint identification number (FIN) or other biometric identifying numbers; date and place of birth; passport and other travel or identification document information; nationality; aliases; Alien Registration Number (A-Number); Social Security number (SSN); contact or location information (e.g., known or possible addresses, phone numbers); employment, educational, immigration, and criminal history; marital status; occupation; height, weight, eye color, hair color, and other unique physical characteristics (e.g., scars and tattoos). Identifying information also includes vehicle, vessel, and aircraft identifying information, such as license plate numbers, even if not directly related to an individual at the time of collection.

    2. Biometric data including: Fingerprints, iris scans, blood type, and photographs. Biometric information is obtained directly from individuals, and from matches against other Government biometric databases. Biometric data is not normally collected for individuals under the age of 14.

    3. Geolocation imagery and coordinates including: Sensor alerts and camera images of individuals, vehicles, vessels, or aircraft and the time, date, and location of the image.

    4. Enforcement-related data including: Case number, record number, and other data describing an event involving alleged violations of criminal, immigration, or other laws (location, date, time, event category, types of criminal or immigration law violations alleged, types of property involved, use of violence, weapons, or assault against DHS personnel or third parties, attempted escape, and other related information); CBP encounter management information, including: Category (event categories describe broad categories of criminal law enforcement, such as smuggling and human trafficking), agent or officer, location of officer or officer's vehicle, date/time initiated, date/time completed, assets used for encounter (bike, horse, vehicle, etc.), results of the encounter, and any agent or officer notes and comments.

    5. Data on aliens in custody or detained, including: Transportation information, identification numbers, custodial actions (such as meals, conditions of detainee cell, overall detainee care information), custodial property, information related to detainers, book-in/book-out date and time, and other alerts.

    6. Limited health information gathered during a temporary detention in a CBP facility or otherwise relevant to transportation requirements.

    7. Contact, biographical, and identifying data of relatives, associates of an alien (which may include information for individuals such as an attorney), or witnesses to an encounter, but not limited to: Name, date of birth, place of birth, address, telephone number, and business or agency name.

    8. Alerts, typically containing biographic but occasionally biometric information, concerning individuals who are the subject of inquiries, lookouts, or notices by another federal agency, state, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign government.

    9. Data concerning personnel of other agencies that arrested, or assisted or participated in the arrest or investigation of, or are maintaining custody of, an individual whose arrest record is contained in this system of records. This can include: Name, title, agency name, address, telephone number, and other information.

    10. Basic contact information, including name, phone numbers, and address, from members of the public who voluntarily contact DHS with complaints, tips, leads, or information about violations, or potential violations, of law.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 202; 8 U.S.C. secs. 1103, 1185, 1225, 1357, 1365a, 1365b, 1379, and 1732; 19 U.S.C. secs. 482, 1461, 1496, 1581, 1582; Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296); Justice for All Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-405); Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458); Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109, 367); 8 CFR 287.

    Purpose(s):

    The purposes of this system of records are to:

    1. Prevent the entry of inadmissible aliens into the United States;

    2. Record the detection, location, encounter, identification, apprehension, and/or detention of individuals who commit violations of U.S. laws enforced by CBP or DHS between the POE;

    3. Support the identification and arrest of individuals (both citizens and non-citizens) who commit violations of federal criminal laws enforced by DHS;

    4. Support the grant, denial, and tracking of individuals who seek or receive parole into the United States;

    5. Provide criminal and immigration history information during DHS enforcement encounters, and background checks on applicants for DHS immigration benefits (e.g., employment authorization and petitions); and

    6. Identify potential terrorist and criminal activity, immigration violations, and threats to homeland security; to uphold and enforce the law; and to ensure public safety.

    DHS/CBP maintains a replica of some or all of the data in the operating system on other unclassified and classified systems and networks to allow for analysis and vetting consistent with the above stated purposes and this published notice.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    A. To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the United States Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:

    1. DHS or any component thereof;

    2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;

    3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or

    4. The United States or any agency thereof.

    B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made pursuant to a written Privacy Act waiver at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;

    C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. secs. 2904 and 2906;

    D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function;

    E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

    2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees;

    G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure;

    H. To appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, when DHS/CBP believes the information would assist in the enforcement of applicable civil or criminal laws;

    I. To federal and foreign government intelligence or counterterrorism agencies or components when DHS/CBP becomes aware of an indication of a threat or potential threat to national or international security, or when such use is to assist in the anti-terrorism efforts and disclosure is appropriate in the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the disclosure;

    J. To a federal, state, or local agency, or other appropriate entity or individual, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to provide intelligence, counterintelligence, or other information for the purposes of intelligence, counterintelligence, or antiterrorism activities authorized by U.S. law, Executive Order, or other applicable national security directive;

    K. To an organization or person in either the public or private sector, either foreign or domestic, when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, or when the information is relevant to the protection of life, property, or other vital interests of a person;

    L. To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations, or in connection with criminal law proceedings;

    M. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate in the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure;

    N. To other federal agencies for the purposes of biometric identity verification and resolution, such as the Department of Defense (DoD) Automated Biometric Information System and the DOJ Next Generation Identification (NGI);

    O. To foreign governments for the purpose of coordinating and conducting the removal of aliens to other nations, including issuance of relevant travel documents; and to international, foreign, and intergovernmental agencies, authorities, and organizations in accordance with law and formal or informal international arrangements;

    P. To federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, and foreign law enforcement or custodial agencies for the purpose of placing an immigration detainer on an individual in that agency's custody, or to facilitate the transfer of custody of an individual from CBP to the other agency. This will include the transfer of information about unaccompanied minor children to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), to facilitate the custodial transfer of such children from CBP to HHS;

    Q. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, foreign governmental agencies, multilateral governmental organizations, or other public health entities, for the purpose of protecting the vital interests of a data subject or other persons, including to assist such agencies or organizations in preventing exposure to or transmission of a communicable or quarantinable disease or to combat other significant public health threats; appropriate notice will be provided of any identified health threat or risk;

    R. To appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations when CBP is aware of a need to use relevant data for purposes of testing new technology and systems designed to enhance border security or identify other violations of law.

    S. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information or when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that the release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies:

    None.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    DHS/CBP stores records in this system electronically (on unclassified and classified systems and networks) or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media, or in any other electronic form.

    Retrievability:

    DHS/CBP may be retrieve records by name or other personal identifiers listed in the categories of records, above.

    Safeguards:

    DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS/CBP has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer systems containing the records in this system of records is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate permissions.

    Retention and disposal:

    CBP is in the process of drafting a proposed record retention schedule for the information maintained in the BPER SORN. CBP anticipates retaining records of arrests, detentions, and removals for seventy-five (75) years. Investigative information that does not result in an individual's arrest, detention, or removal, is stored for twenty (20) years after the investigation is closed, consistent with the N1-563-08-4-2. User account management records for ten (10) years following an individual's separation of employment from federal service; statistical records for ten (10) years; audit files for fifteen (15) years; and backup files for up to one (1) month. Records replicated on other DHS or CBP unclassified and classified systems and networks will follow the same retention schedule.

    System Manager and address:

    Associate Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Enforcement Systems Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229.

    Notification procedure:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, accounting, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS/CBP will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters or CBP Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/foia under “Contacts.” If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her, the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive SW., Building 410, STOP-0655, Washington, DC 20528.

    When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5.20, et seq. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer, http://www.dhs.gov/foia or 1-866-431-0486. In addition, you should:

    • Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;

    • Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;

    • Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and

    • Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;

    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.

    Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    In processing Privacy Act requests for related to information in this system, DHS/CBP will review the records in the operational system, and coordinate review of records that were replicated on other unclassified and classified systems and networks.

    Record access procedures:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    Contesting record procedures:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    Record source categories:

    Records in the system are supplied by several sources. In general, information is obtained from individuals covered by this system, and other federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governments. More specifically, DHS/CBP-023 BPER derive from the following sources:

    (a) Individuals covered by the system and other individuals (e.g., witnesses, family members);

    (b) Other federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign governments and government information systems;

    (c) Business records;

    (d) Evidence, contraband, and other seized material; and

    (e) Public and commercial sources.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted portions of this system of records from subsecs. (c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5), and (e)(8); and (g) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted portions of this system of records from subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), and (e)(4)(H) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). These exemptions apply only to the extent that records in the system are subject to exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2). In addition, to the extent a record contains information from other exempt systems of records, DHS will rely on the exemptions claimed for those systems.

    Dated: October 5, 2016 Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25206 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5988-N-01] The Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Office of the Deputy Secretary, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of appointments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development announces the establishment of two Performance Review Boards to make recommendations to the appointing authority on the performance of its senior executives. Towanda A. Brooks, Sarah L. Gerecke, Keith W. Surber, Joy L. Hadley, Craig T. Clemmensen, and Barbara M. Cooper-Jones will serve as members of the Departmental Performance Review Board to review career SES performance. Laura H. Hogshead, Rafael C. Diaz, Tonya T. Robinson, and Patrick J. Pontius will serve as members of the Departmental Performance Review Board to review noncareer SES performance. The address is: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0050.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Persons desiring any further information about the Performance Review Board and its members may contact Lynette Warren, Director, Office of Executive Resources, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 402-4169. (This is not a toll-free number)

    Dated: October 14, 2016. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25413 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0128; FXIA16710900000-178-FF09A30000] Endangered Species; Marine Mammals; Receipt of Applications for Permit AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of applications for permit.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibit activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before November 21, 2016. We must receive requests for marine mammal permit public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0128.

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-IA-2016-0128; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

    Viewing Comments: Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda Tapia, (703) 358-2104 (telephone); (703) 358-2281 (fax); [email protected] (email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Public Comment Procedures A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?

    Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES. Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an email or address not listed under ADDRESSES. If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.

    Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.

    The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES).

    B. May I review comments submitted by others?

    Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under ADDRESSES. The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. 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.

    II. Background

    To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), along with Executive Order 13576, “Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government,” and the President's Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies of January 21, 2009—Transparency and Open Government (74 FR 4685; January 26, 2009), which call on all Federal agencies to promote openness and transparency in Government by disclosing information to the public, we invite public comment on these permit applications before final action is taken. Under the MMPA, you may request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service Director.

    III. Permit Applications A. Endangered Species Applicant: Saginaw Valley Zoological Society, Saginaw, MI; PRT-31852A

    The applicant requests an amendment of an existing captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance species propagation or survival: Black-footed cat (Felis nigripes). This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Applicant: Phoenix Herpetological Society, Scottsdale, AZ; PRT-02044C

    The applicant requests a permit to import four captive-bred Tomistoma, or false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii), for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Multiple Applicants

    The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

    Applicant: Lawrence Miller, Palatine, IL; PRT-03197C Applicant: Seixas Milner, Lawrenceville, GA; PRT-04168C Applicant: David McNeil, Buhl, AL; PRT-05019C B. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals Applicant: Anthony Pagano, USGS/Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK; PRT-77245B

    The applicant requests an amendment to the permit to take captive polar bears for the purpose of scientific research on polar bear diets and energetics. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.

    Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal Register, we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review.

    Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25382 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Model Indian Juvenile Code AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs is announcing availability of the final version of the updated 2016 Model Indian Juvenile Code. The updated Model Indian Juvenile Code is intended as a tool to assist Indian Tribes in creating or revising their juvenile codes.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natasha Anderson, Deputy Associate Director, Tribal Justice Support Directorate, Office of Justice Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (202) 513-0367 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The BIA initially contracted with the National Indian Justice Center to develop the first Code in 1988 after the passage Public Law 99-570, title IV, section 4221, which required the creation of a “Model Indian Juvenile Code” (25 U.S.C. 2454).

    Most codes should be updated on a regular basis; and it has been over 25 years since the initial Model Indian Juvenile Code was created. Additionally, after the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, a Memorandum of Agreement among DOI, DOJ, and DHHS was developed to establish a framework for collaboration that results in the coordination of resources and programs. The MOA specifically referenced 25 U.S.C. 2454 and the Model Indian Juvenile Code.

    Since the creation of the initial Model Indian Juvenile Code, much has changed in the field of juvenile justice. Since the late 1980s, many jurisdictions have engaged in reforms of their juvenile justice systems in response to research finding that the standard juvenile justice system model used in the United States showed no impact to juvenile delinquency and may have, in fact, increased delinquency rates. Research has also found that adolescent brains develop later in life than previously thought. Researchers, advocates and policy makers urge changes to the more punitive models of juvenile justice and encourage systems that are more restorative.

    After contracting with the Center of Indigenous Research & Justice (CIRJ), the BIA shepherded an “information gathering phase” beginning with a workshop to discuss a plan of action in updating the Code, at the Office on Victims of Crime's National Indian Nations Conference in Palm Springs, California on December 12, 2014. In April 2015, BIA made available a Discussion Draft on the BIA Web site for review and comment. The CIRJ contractor presented details on the Discussion Draft at the 2015 Annual Federal Bar Indian Law Conference. The BIA held a listening session on the Discussion Draft at the 2015 National Congress of American Indians' Mid-Year Conference in Saint Paul, Minnesota. NCAI hosted a follow-up webinar in November 2015 on Juvenile Justice with a focus on the principles of the Model Indian Juvenile Code update.

    On February 24, 2016, the BIA announced the availability of the Draft 2016 Model Indian Juvenile Code for Consultation. Four telephonic Tribal consultation sessions were held on March 30-31 and April 13-14, 2016 in addition to an in-person listening session on April 6, 2016, at the Annual Conference of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. Written Comments were also accepted with a deadline of May 27, 2016.

    II. Summary of the Model Indian Juvenile Code

    The 2016 Model Indian Juvenile Code is divided into three categories: (1) Delinquency; (2) Child in Need of Services; and (3) Truancy.

    The 2016 Model Indian Juvenile Code focuses on several principles including, but not limited to:

    • Ability to divert out of formal process at each decision point;

    • Embeds right to counsel for juveniles in delinquency/truancy;

    • Restricts use of detention;

    • Commentary on choices made in the code and discussion of options for implementation—including diversion examples;

    • Distinguishing between delinquent acts and need for services;

    ○ For delinquent acts, focus on supervision, treatment and rehabilitation;

    • Process ensuring rights of parties; and

    • Coordination of services.

    We have considered the comments received on the draft; and now issue the updated and annotated Model Indian Juvenile Code available at: http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xojs/documents/document/idc2-047015.pdf or by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. The updated Code is available in both an Annotated PDF and a Microsoft Word version which can be adapted for each Tribe's needs. Further information is available on the Tribal Justice Support Directorate's page at http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OJS/ojs-services/ojs-tjs/index.htm.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Lawrence Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25374 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] HEARTH Act Approval of Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 7, 2016, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California leasing regulations under the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH Act). With this approval, the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe is authorized to enter into business site leases without further BIA approval.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, MS-4642-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of the HEARTH Act

    The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). The HEARTH Act also authorizes tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The HEARTH Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the HEARTH Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California.

    II. Federal Preemption of State and Local Taxes

    The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440, 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.

    Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). Similarly, section 465 preempts State taxation of rent payments by a lessee for leased trust lands, because “tax on the payment of rent is indistinguishable from an impermissible tax on the land.” See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, No. 14-14524, *13-*17, n.8 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of “traditional notions of Indian self-government,” requires a particularized examination of the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72447-48, as supplemented by the analysis below.

    The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” Id. at 5-6.

    Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2043 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that “[a] key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on Federal funding”). The additional costs of State and local taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own sovereign right to impose a Tribal tax to support its infrastructure needs. See id. at 2043-44 (finding that State and local taxes greatly discourage tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources because the imposition of double taxation would impede tribal economic growth).

    Similar to BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. See 25 U.S.C. 415(h)(3)(B)(i) (requiring Tribal regulations be consistent with BIA surface leasing regulations). Furthermore, the Federal government remains involved in the Tribal land leasing process by approving the Tribal leasing regulations in the first instance and providing technical assistance, upon request by a Tribe, for the development of an environmental review process. The Secretary also retains authority to take any necessary actions to remedy violations of a lease or of the Tribal regulations, including terminating the lease or rescinding approval of the Tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve, and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not covered under the Tribal regulations according to the part 162 regulations.

    Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or Part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California.

    Dated: October 7, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25373 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVL02000 L58480000.EU0000 241A; N-89322; N-89336; N-89778; MO # 4500095617] Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Competitive Sale of Public Lands in Lincoln County, NV AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of realty action.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer by competitive sale three parcels of public land totaling 165.92 acres in Lincoln County, Nevada, at no less than the appraised fair market values (FMV) of $154,000 for N-89778, containing 12.20 acres; $145,000 for N-89322 containing 143.72 acres; and $140,000 for N-89336 containing 10.00 acres. The sale will be subject to the applicable provision of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and applicable BLM land sale regulations.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit written comments to the BLM at the address below. The BLM must receive the comments on or before December 5, 2016. The sale by sealed bid and oral public auction will be held on January 10, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., Pacific Time at the Caliente Railroad Depot, 100 Depot Avenue, Caliente, NV 89008. The BLM will start accepting sealed bids beginning December 29, 2016. Sealed bids must be received at the BLM, Ely District Office no later than 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time on January 6, 2017. The BLM will open sealed bids on the day of the sale just prior to the oral bidding.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments concerning this notice and submit sealed bids to Ely District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Grande, Realty Specialist, Ely District Office, 702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301 or by telephone at 775-289-1809 or by email at [email protected]; or Chris Carlton, Field Manager, Caliente Field Office, at 775-726-8100 or by email at [email protected] or http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office.html. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The Service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The BLM will conduct a competitive sale (N-89322, N-89336, N-89778) for three parcels totaling 165.92 acres of public land in Lincoln County described as follows:

    Mount Diablo Meridian N-89322 Parcel 1 T. 3 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 35, lots 1 and 3. T. 4 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 1, NW1/4SW1/4SW1/4. T. 4 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 2, lot 5. T. 4 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 2, lot 8. T. 4 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 11, N1/2SW1/4SE1/4. T. 4 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 11, S1/2NW1/4SE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4, and S1/2SE1/4NW1/4.

    The area described aggregates 143.72 acres.

    N-89336 T. 6 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 29, lots 8 and 9, and S1/2SW1/4NE1/4SW1/4.

    The area described contains 10.00 acres.

    N-89778 T. 6 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 32, lots 4 and 6.

    The area described contains 12.20 acres.

    The total area aggregates 165.92 acres.

    Upon publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, the described land will be segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, except for the sale provisions of FLPMA. Upon publication and until completion of the sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the identified public lands, except applications for the amendment of previously filed right-of-way (ROW) applications or existing authorizations to increase the term of the grants in accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 2886.15. The segregated effect will terminate upon issuance of a patent, publication in the Federal Register of a termination of the segregation, or on October 22, 2018, unless extended by the BLM State Director, Nevada in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.1-2(d) prior to the termination date.

    These tracts of public land meet the disposal criteria consistent with Section 203 of FLPMA and the BLM Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) dated August 20, 2008. The parcels are suitable for disposal and would be in compliance with Public Law 108-424, Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA), enacted on November 30, 2004, and conform to the ROD/RMP as referenced in the Lands and Realty objectives LR-8, page 66; and Appendix B, page B-1. An Environmental Assessment NV-L030-2015-0027 was prepared and a decision record signed on January 8, 2016. All documents including a map and the appraisal for the sale are available for review at the BLM Caliente Field Office.

    FLPMA Section 209, 43 U.S.C. 1719(a), states that “[a]ll conveyances of title issued by the Secretary . . . shall reserve to the United States all minerals in the lands.” The BLM prepared a mineral potential report dated July 22, 2014, which concluded that no significant mineral resource value will be affected by the disposal of these parcels. These parcels are not required for any Federal purposes, and their disposal is in the public interest and meets the intent of the LCCRDA.

    In accordance with the policy direction in 43 CFR Section 2710.0-6(c)(3)(i), a competitive sale of public land may be used where “there would be a number of interested parties bidding for the lands and (A) wherever in the judgment of the authorized officer the lands are accessible and usable regardless of adjoining land ownership and (B) wherever the lands are within a developing or urbanizing area and land values are increasing due to their location and interest on the competitive market.” The BLM examined the parcels and found them to be consistent with and suitable for disposal using competitive sale procedures.

    Competitive Sale Procedures as prescribed by 43 CFR Section 2711.3-1:

    Sales Procedures: Registration for oral bidding will begin at 12:00 p.m., Pacific Time at the Depot Building, 100 Depot Avenue, Council Chambers Room, Caliente, NV 89008, on the day of the sale. There will be no prior registration before the sale date. The public sale auction will be through sealed and oral bids. To determine the high bids among the qualified bids received, the sealed bids must be received at the place of the sale prior to the hour fixed in the notice. They will be opened and recorded on the day of the sale. The highest bid above FMV of the sealed bids will set the starting point for oral bidding on a parcel. Parcels that receive no qualified sealed bids will begin at the established FMV. Bidders who are participating and attending the oral auction on the day of the sale are not required to submit a sealed bid but may choose to do so.

    Sealed-bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the lower front left corner with the parcel number and name of the sale, for example: “N-XXXXX, 3-parcel LCCRDA Land Sale 2016.” Sealed bids must include an amount not less than 20 percent of the total bid amount by certified check, bank draft, cashier's check, or U.S. postal money order made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management.” The BLM will not accept personal or company checks. The sealed-bid envelope must contain the deposit and a completed and signed “Certificate of Eligibility” form stating the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the entity or person submitting the bid. Certificate of Eligibility and registration forms are available at the BLM Caliente Field Office at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section and on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma/Land_Auctions.html. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-1(c), if two or more sealed-bid envelopes contain valid bids of the same amount, the bidders will be notified via phone or in person to submit another bid within ten minutes or to withdraw their original bid. Oral bidding will start at the highest sealed-bid amount. If there are no oral bids on the parcel, the authorized officer will determine the winning bidder. Bids for less than the federally approved FMV will not be qualified.

    The high bidder will be declared the successful bidder in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d), competitive bidding procedures, where the “highest qualifying bid received shall be publicly declared by the authorized officer.” Acceptance or rejection of any offer(s) to purchase will be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 43 CFR 2711.3-1 (f) and (g).

    Bid Deposits and Payment: A high bidder will be declared by BLM's authorized officer. In accordance with 2711.3-1(d), the person declared the highest bidder shall submit their bid deposit in the form of a bank draft, cashier's check, certified check, or U.S. postal money order, or any combination thereof, and made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management.” The high bidder shall submit a deposit of no less than 20 percent of the successful bid by 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time on the day of the sale to the BLM, Collections Officers at BLM, Caliente Field Office, 1400 South Front Street, Caliente, NV 89008. Failure to submit the bid deposit following the close of the sale will result in the forfeiture of the bid deposit and the cancellation of the sale. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid. All funds submitted with unsuccessful bids will be returned to the bidders or their authorized representative upon presentation of acceptable photo identification at the BLM Caliente Field Office or by certified mail.

    In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d), “The successful bidder . . . shall submit the remainder of the full bid price prior to the expiration of 180 days from the date of the sale.” Failure to pay the full purchase price within 180 days of the sale will result in forfeiture of the bid deposit. No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the remainder of the bid price at any time following the 180th day after the sale.

    Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM shall be made a minimum of two weeks prior to final payment. Failure to meet conditions established for this sale will void the sale and any funds received will be forfeited.

    In order to qualify for a Federal conveyance of title, you must meet one of these conditions: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) A corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; (3) A State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada.

    Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Failure to submit the above requested documents to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high-bidder letter will result in cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the bid deposit. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM Caliente Field Office for each sale. The successful bidder is allowed 180 days from the date of the sale to submit the remainder of the full purchase price.

    The public land will not be offered for sale prior to 60 days from the date this Notice is published in the Federal Register. The patents, if issued, would be subject to the following terms, conditions, and reservations:

    1. A reservation for any right-of-way thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States, Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);

    2. A reservation for all mineral deposits in the land so patented, and to it or person authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, or remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe shall be reserved to the United States;

    3. The parcels are subject to valid existing rights; and

    4. By accepting this patent, the purchasers/patentees agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind or nature arising from the past, present, and future acts or omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third-party, arising out of or in connection with the patentee's use, occupancy, or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractors, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property resulting in: (a) Violations of Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that are now or may in the future become, applicable to the real property; (b) Judgments, claims or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (c) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (d) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substances(s), as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into or under land, property and other interests of the United States; (e) Other activities by which solid waste or hazardous substances or waste, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substances or wastes; or (f) Natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the patented real property, and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.

    No representation, warranty, or covenant of any kind, express or implied, is given or made by the United States, its officers or employees, as to title, access to or from the above described parcels of land, the title of the land, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, or past, present or future uses, and the conveyance of any such parcel will not be on a contingency basis. The buyer is responsible to be aware of all applicable federal, state, and local government policies and regulations that would affect the subject lands. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. Lands without access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.

    The parcels may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Encumbrances of record, appearing in the case file are available for review during business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday at the Caliente Field Office, except during federally recognized holidays.

    The parcels are subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and prior to patent issuance, a holder of any ROW within the parcels will be given the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or to an easement.

    The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of their ability to convert their complaint ROW to perpetual ROW or easements. Each valid holder will be notified in writing of their rights and then must apply for the conversion of their current authorization.

    Unless other satisfactory arrangements are approved in advance by a BLM authorized officer, conveyance of title shall be through the use of escrow. Designation of the escrow agent shall be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow shall be borne by the prospective patentee.

    Requests for all escrow instructions must be received by the Caliente Field Office 30 days before the scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.

    All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the Caliente Field Office 30 days from the date of the high bidder letter by 4:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. Name changes will not be accepted after that date. To submit a name change, the high bidder must submit the name change on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM, Caliente Field Office in writing. Certificate of Eligibility forms are available at the Caliente Field Office and at the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office.html.

    The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of the exchange is the bidder's responsibility in accordance with Internal Revenue Service regulations. The BLM is not a party to any 1031 Exchange.

    In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions are made concerning the attributes and limitations of the land and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local Government.

    In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale, if, in the opinion of the BLM authorized officer, consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons.

    Only written comments will be considered properly filed.

    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 personnel identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Any comments regarding the proposed date will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of Interior.

    (Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1-2(a) and (c)). Chris Carlton, Caliente Field Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25406 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCOF00000-L19900000.PO0000-17X] Notice of Meeting, Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rocky Mountain Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on November 10, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the BLM Royal Gorge Field Office, 3028 E. Main St., Cañon City, CO 81212.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jayson Barangan, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield St., Lakewood, CO 80215. Phone: (303) 239-3681. Email: [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 the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Rocky Mountain District, which includes the Gunnison, Royal Gorge and the San Luis Valley field offices in Colorado. Planned topics of discussion items include: Review of draft alternatives for the Eastern Colorado Resource Management Plan. The public is encouraged to make oral comments to the Council at 9:15 a.m., or written statements may be submitted for the Council's consideration. Summary minutes for the RAC meetings will be maintained in the Royal Gorge Field Office and will be available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours within thirty (30) days following the meeting. Previous meeting minutes and agendas are available at: www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Resources/racs/frrac/co_rac_minutes_front.html.

    Ruth Welch, Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25369 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement [Docket ID BSEE-2016-0005; OMB Control Number 1014-0010; 17XE1700DX EEEE500000 EX1SF0000.DAQ000] Information Collection Activities: Decommissioning Activities; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    30-day Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is notifying the public that we have submitted to OMB an information collection request (ICR) to renew approval of the paperwork requirements in the regulations under Subpart Q, Decommissioning Activities. This notice also provides the public a second opportunity to comment on the revised paperwork burden of these regulatory requirements.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments by November 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments by either fax (202) 395-5806 or email ([email protected]) directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (1014-0010). Please provide a copy of your comments to BSEE by any of the means below.

    Electronically go to http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter BSEE-2016-0005 then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view all related materials. We will post all comments.

    Email [email protected], fax (703) 787-1546, or mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Regulations and Standards Branch; ATTN: Nicole Mason; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166. Please reference ICR 1014-0010 in your comment and include your name and return address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicole Mason, Regulations and Standards Branch, (703) 787-1607, to request additional information about this ICR. To see a copy of the entire ICR submitted to OMB, go to http://www.reginfo.gov (select Information Collection Review, Currently Under Review).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: 30 CFR part 250, subpart Q, Decommissioning Activities.

    OMB Control Number: 1014-0010.

    Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act at 43 U.S.C. 1334 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the leasing provisions of that Act related to mineral resources on the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease, right-of-way, or a right-of-use and easement. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

    In addition to the general rulemaking authority of the OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334, section 301(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (FOGRMA), 30 U.S.C. 1751(a), grants authority to the Secretary to prescribe such rules and regulations as are reasonably necessary to carry out FOGRMA's provisions. While the majority of FOGRMA is directed to royalty collection and enforcement, some provisions apply to offshore operations. For example, section 108 of FOGRMA, 30 U.S.C. 1718, grants the Secretary broad authority to inspect lease sites for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance with the mineral leasing laws. Section 109(c)(2) and (d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 1719(c)(2) and (d)(1), impose substantial civil penalties for failure to permit lawful inspections and for knowing or willful preparation or submission of false, inaccurate, or misleading reports, records, or other information. Because the Secretary has delegated some of the authority under FOGRMA to BSEE, 30 U.S.C. 1751 is included as additional authority for these requirements.

    The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (Pub. L. 104-133, 110 Stat. 1321, April 26, 1996), and OMB Circular A-25, authorize Federal agencies to recover the full cost of services that confer special benefits. Under the Department of the Interior's implementing policy, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is required to charge fees for services that provide special benefits or privileges to an identifiable non-Federal recipient above and beyond those which accrue to the public at large. Respondents pay cost recovery fees when removing a platform or other facility, or for decommissioning a pipeline lease term or a right-of-way.

    This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to BSEE. The regulations at 30 CFR 250, Subpart Q, concern decommissioning of platforms, wells, and pipelines, as well as site clearance and platform removal and are the subject of this collection. This request also covers the related Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) that BSEE issues to clarify, supplement, or provide additional guidance on some aspects of our regulations.

    Responses to this collection are mandatory and are generally submitted on occasion, depending on the requirement. No questions of a sensitive nature are asked. BSEE will protect any confidential commercial or proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR 2); section 26 of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1352); 30 CFR 250.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection; and 30 CFR part 252, OCS Oil and Gas Information Program.

    The BSEE uses the information collected under Subpart Q primarily for the following reasons:

    • To determine the necessity for allowing a well to be temporarily abandoned, the lessee/operator must demonstrate that there is a reason for not permanently plugging the well, and the temporary abandonment will not interfere with fishing, navigation, or other uses of the OCS. We use the information and documentation to verify that the lessee/operator is diligently pursuing the final disposition of the well and has performed the temporary plugging of the wellbore.

    • To ensure the information submitted in initial decommissioning plans in the Alaska and Pacific OCS Regions will permit BSEE to become involved in the initial planning stages of platform removals anticipated to occur in these OCS regions.

    • To ensure that all objects (wellheads, platforms, etc.) installed on the OCS are properly removed using procedures that will protect marine life and the environment during removal operations, and the site cleared so as not to conflict with or harm other uses of the OCS.

    • To ensure that information regarding decommissioning a pipeline in place will not constitute a hazard to navigation and commercial fishing operations, unduly interfere with other uses of the OCS, such as sand resource areas for coastal restoration projects, or have adverse environmental effects.

    • To verify that decommissioning activities comply with approved applications and procedures and are satisfactorily completed.

    • To evaluate and approve the adequacy of the equipment, materials, and/or procedures that the lessee or operator plans to use during well modifications and changes in equipment, etc.

    • To help BSEE better estimate future decommissioning costs for OCS leases, rights-of-way, and rights of use and easements. BSEE's future decommissioning cost estimates may then be used by BOEM to set necessary financial assurance levels to minimize or eliminate the possibility that the government will incur abandonment liability. The information will assist BSEE and BOEM in meeting their stewardship responsibilities and in their roles as regulators.

    Frequency: Generally on occasion, annual, and as required by regulations.

    Description of Respondents: Potential respondents comprise Federal OCS oil, gas, or sulfur lessees and/or operators and holders of pipeline rights-of-way.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: The estimated annual hour burden for this information collection is a total of 15,524 hours and $1,686,396 non-hour costs. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

    Burden Breakdown Citation 30 CFR 250
  • subpart Q
  • Reporting requirement* Non-hour cost burdens Hour burden Average
  • number of
  • annual responses
  • Annual burden
  • hours
  • (rounded)
  • General 1704(g); 1706(a), (f); 1712; 1715; 1716; 1721(a),(d), (f)-(g); 1722(a), (b), (d); 1723(b); 1743(a); Sub G These sections contain references to information, approvals, requests, payments, etc., which are submitted with an APM, the burdens for which are covered under its own information collection APM burden covered under 1014-0026. 1700 thru 1754 General departure and alternative compliance requests not specifically covered elsewhere in Subpart Q regulations Burden covered under Subpart A 1014-0022 0 1703; 1704 Request approval for decommissioning Burden included below 0 1704(i), (j) Submit to BSEE, within 120 days after completion of each decommissioning activity, a summary of expenditures incurred; any additional information that will support and/or verify the summary 1 820 summaries/additional information 820 Subtotal 820 responses 820 hours Permanently Plugging Wells 1712 Required data if permanently plugging a well Requirement not considered Information Collection under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9). 0 1713 Notify BSEE 48 hours before beginning operations to permanently plug a well 0.5 725 notices 363 Subtotal 725 responses 363 hours Temporary Abandoned Wells 1721(f) Install a protector structure designed according to 30 CFR 250, Subpart I, and equipped with aids to navigation. (These requests are processed via the appropriate Platform Application, 30 CFR 250 Subpart I by the OSTS.) Burden covered under Subpart I 1014-0011 0 1721(e); 172