Federal Register Vol. 81, No.206,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 206 (October 25, 2016)

Page Range73333-74277
FR Document

81_FR_206
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 74277 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Democratic Republic of the CongoPDF
81 FR 73401 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
81 FR 73352 - Requirement for Nondiscrimination Against End-Users of Supplies or Services (“Beneficiaries”) Under USAID-Funded ContractsPDF
81 FR 73447 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 73459 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 73447 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 73475 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Information Collection ToolsPDF
81 FR 73474 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73474 - Senior Executive Service; Fiscal Service Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 73476 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy PanelPDF
81 FR 73363 - Special Enrollment Examination User Fee for Enrolled AgentsPDF
81 FR 73407 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73462 - Shipping Coordinating Committee: Amended Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 73397 - Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to EPA on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on PerchloratePDF
81 FR 73387 - Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen SuitPDF
81 FR 73388 - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs for FY2017PDF
81 FR 73426 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Program To Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal MinesPDF
81 FR 73467 - Traffic Safety for Older Road Users MeetingPDF
81 FR 73447 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C Systems; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 73466 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
81 FR 73381 - Marine Mammals; File No. 18879PDF
81 FR 73386 - Supporting Clean Energy Startups-Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling InnovationPDF
81 FR 73386 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review BoardPDF
81 FR 73383 - Request for Comments on Examination Time GoalsPDF
81 FR 73463 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Clay, Marion, and Clinton Counties, Ill.PDF
81 FR 73381 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20430PDF
81 FR 73465 - Hours of Service of Drivers: American Concrete Pumping Association (ACPA); Application for ExemptionPDF
81 FR 73406 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73474 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13224PDF
81 FR 73464 - Notice of Statute of Limitations on Claims; Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 73448 - Superseded or Outdated Generic CommunicationsPDF
81 FR 73416 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Bear Sighting and Encounter ReportsPDF
81 FR 73378 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73385 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cash Management Contract URL CollectionPDF
81 FR 73427 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73407 - The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance; Public Workshop; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 73380 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Amendment 14 Data CollectionPDF
81 FR 73382 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Herring Amendment 5 Data CollectionPDF
81 FR 73385 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study: (BPS: 12/17)PDF
81 FR 73404 - Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (the STAC or the Committee), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human ServicesPDF
81 FR 73405 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
81 FR 73404 - Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHRAC, NIOSH)PDF
81 FR 73402 - Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
81 FR 73410 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Animation in Direct-to-Consumer AdvertisingPDF
81 FR 73427 - Meeting of National Council on the HumanitiesPDF
81 FR 73418 - Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 73419 - Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 73417 - Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year ReviewsPDF
81 FR 73400 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 73398 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
81 FR 73421 - Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 73420 - Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year ReviewsPDF
81 FR 73398 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 73452 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, To Amend Certain Rules Related to Flexible Exchange OptionsPDF
81 FR 73339 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MAPDF
81 FR 73362 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Drummond Island, MIPDF
81 FR 73449 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73460 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73458 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73459 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73341 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MDPDF
81 FR 73340 - Amendment of Class E Airspace; Miles City, MTPDF
81 FR 73461 - South Carolina Disaster #SC-00040PDF
81 FR 73421 - Final Adjusted Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016PDF
81 FR 73462 - South Carolina Disaster Number SC-00040PDF
81 FR 73461 - Georgia Disaster # GA-00081PDF
81 FR 73462 - Florida Disaster #FL-00121PDF
81 FR 73461 - North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081PDF
81 FR 73463 - Supplemental Type Certificate SA893CE (Original Product Type Certificate Number A4CE)PDF
81 FR 73460 - North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081PDF
81 FR 73450 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Allow DTC To Automate the Process for Participants To Submit Eligibility Requests for Older IssuesPDF
81 FR 73473 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Affiliate MarketingPDF
81 FR 73333 - Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment RatePDF
81 FR 73405 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 73402 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 73379 - National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Executive Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 73378 - Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of the Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.PDF
81 FR 73360 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH AirplanesPDF
81 FR 73428 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 73342 - Spirotetramat; Pesticide TolerancePDF
81 FR 73368 - Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video ProgrammingPDF
81 FR 73471 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 73472 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 73470 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 73468 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 73355 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2PDF
81 FR 73335 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2PDF
81 FR 73357 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 73368 - Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management ProgramPDF
81 FR 73347 - Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management ProgramPDF
81 FR 73478 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2PDF

Issue

81 206 Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Contents Agency Agency for International Development RULES Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: Nondiscrimination Against End-Users of Supplies or Services, 73352-73354 2016-25881 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Increased Assessment Rates: Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley, TX, 73333-73335 2016-25681 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73378 2016-25740
Fiscal Bureau of the Fiscal Service NOTICES Senior Executive Service; Fiscal Service Performance Review Board, 73474 2016-25779 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73402-73404 2016-25677 Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Initial review, 73405 2016-25730 Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 73404 2016-25729 Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 73402 2016-25728 Requests for Nominations: World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee, 73404-73405 2016-25731 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73405-73406 2016-25678 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73406-73407 2016-25753 2016-25775 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affiliate Marketing, 73473-73474 2016-25683 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine Production Quotas for 2016, 73421-73426 2016-25696 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 73385 2016-25732 Cash Management Contract URL Collection, 73385-73386 2016-25737 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

NOTICES Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 73386 2016-25759 2016-25760
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Supporting Clean Energy Startups—Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling Innovation, 73386 2016-25763 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2, 73881-74274 2016-21203 Pesticide Tolerances: Spirotetramat, 73342-73347 2016-25638 State Hazardous Waste Management Programs: Oklahoma, 73347-73352 2016-25300 PROPOSED RULES State Hazardous Waste Management Programs: Oklahoma, 73368 2016-25303 NOTICES Consent Decrees: Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, 73387-73388 2016-25771 Funding Availability: State and Tribal Response Programs for FY2017 under CERCLA, 73388-73397 2016-25770 Peer Review Materials to Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making: Perchlorate; Extension of Comment Period, 73397-73398 2016-25772 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Falmouth, MA, 73339-73340 2016-25710 Hagerstown, MD, 73341-73342 2016-25704 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Miles City, MT, 73340-73341 2016-25703 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 73357-73360 2016-25352 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes, 73360-73362 2016-25655 Class E Airspace; Establishments: Drummond Island, MI, 73362-73363 2016-25709 NOTICES Release of Airport Properties: Supplemental Type Certificates; SA893CE (Original Product Type Certificate Number A4CE); Request for Information on Holder, 73463-73464 2016-25688 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming, 73368-73377 2016-25568 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73398-73401 2016-25714 2016-25718 2016-25719 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review: Actions by the California Department of Transportation, 73464-73465 2016-25751 Federal Mine Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 73401 2016-25912 2016-25913 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: American Concrete Pumping Association, 73465-73466 2016-25755 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 73466-73467 2016-25766 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising, 73410-73416 2016-25727 Meetings: Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance, 73407-73410 2016-25735 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 73474 2016-25752 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

Interior Interior Department See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Special Enrollment Examination User Fees: Enrolled Agents, 73363-73367 2016-25776 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73474-73476 2016-25780 2016-25781 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 73476 2016-25777 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China; Jinxiang Huameng Import and Export Co., Ltd., 73378-73379 2016-25675 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Heavy Forged Hand Tools from China, 73417-73418 2016-25720 Stainless Steel Plate from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan, 73420-73421 2016-25715 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same, 73418-73419 2016-25722 Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products, 73421 2016-25716 Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers, 73419-73420 2016-25721 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines, 73426-73427 2016-25769 National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73427 2016-25736 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: National Council on the Humanities, 73427-73428 2016-25723 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Phase 2, 73881-74274 2016-21203 NOTICES Meetings: Traffic Safety for Older Road Users, 73467-73468 2016-25768 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Atlantic Herring Amendment 5 Data, 73382-73383 2016-25733 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Amendment 14 Data Collection, 73380-73381 2016-25734 Meetings: National Integrated Drought Information System Executive Council, 73379-73380 2016-25676 Permits: Marine Mammals; File No. 18879, 73381-73382 2016-25764 Marine Mammals; File No. 20430, 73381 2016-25756 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Bear Sighting and Encounter Reports, 73416-73417 2016-25744 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2, 73335-73339 2016-25408 PROPOSED RULES List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2, 73355-73357 2016-25409 NOTICES Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 73428-73447 2016-25641 Guidance: Superseded or Outdated Generic Communications, 73448-73449 2016-25750 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems, 73447 2016-25767 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 73447 2016-25796 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 73447-73448 2016-25842 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Applications: Examination Time Goals; Request for Comments, 73383-73384 2016-25758 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Special Permit Applications, 73468-73473 2016-25534 2016-25536 2016-25537 2016-25538 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Congo, Democratic Republic of the; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of October 21, 2016), 74275-74277 2016-25960 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 73449-73450, 73458-73460 2016-25705 2016-25706 2016-25707 2016-25708 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 73459 2016-25807 2016-25827 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Depository Trust Co., 73450-73452 2016-25686 NYSE MKT LLC, 73452-73458 2016-25713 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Florida, 73462 2016-25691 Georgia, 73461 2016-25693 North Carolina, 73460-73461 2016-25687 2016-25689 South Carolina, 73461-73462 2016-25695 2016-25697 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Shipping Coordinating Committee, 73462-73463 2016-25774 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Clay, Marion, and Clinton Counties, IL, 73463 2016-25757 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 73477-74274 2016-21203 Transportation Department, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 73477-74274 2016-21203 Part III Presidential Documents, 74275-74277 2016-25960 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.

81 206 Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 906 [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0059; SC16-906-2 FR] Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Increased Assessment Rate AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule implements a recommendation from the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) for an increase of the assessment rate established for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled under the marketing order (order). The Committee locally administers the order, and is comprised of producers and handlers of oranges and grapefruit operating within the area of production. Assessments upon orange and grapefruit handlers are used by the Committee to fund reasonable and necessary expenses of the program. The fiscal period begins August 1 and ends July 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

DATES:

Effective October 26, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 291-8614, or Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Texas orange and grapefruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable oranges and grapefruit beginning on August 1, 2016, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit handled.

The Texas orange and grapefruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2015-16 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on June 2, 2016, and unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $751,148 and an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $701,148. The assessment rate of $0.09 is $0.01 higher than the rate currently in effect. At the current assessment rate, assessment income would equal around $640,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures, which includes a $50,000 increase in funding for compliance. The Committee considered the estimated expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $600,248 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $77,200 for management, and $50,000 for compliance. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $600,248, $77,200, and $0, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Texas oranges and grapefruit. Orange and grapefruit shipments for the 2016-17 year are estimated at 8 million 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalent, which should provide $720,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently around $367,000) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (approximately one fiscal period's expenses as stated in § 906.35).

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.

Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2016-17 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 170 producers of oranges and grapefruit in the production area and 13 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Committee data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2014-15 season was around $16.50 per box and total shipments were near 4.1 million boxes. Using the average price and shipment information, the number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers have average annual receipts of less than $7,500,000. In addition, based on information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the weighted grower price for Texas citrus during the 2014-15 season was around $9.55 per box. Using the weighted average price and shipment information, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of Texas citrus handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.

This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2016-17 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.08 to $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of Texas oranges and grapefruit. The Committee unanimously recommended 2016-17 expenditures of $751,148 and an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.09 is $0.01 higher than the 2015-16 rate. The quantity of assessable oranges and grapefruit for the 2016-17 season is estimated at 8 million 7/10-bushel cartons or equivalent. Thus, the $0.09 rate should provide $720,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to meet this year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2016-17 year include $600,248 for the Mexican fruit fly control program, $77,200 for management, and $50,000 for compliance. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2015-16 were $600,248, $77,200, and $0, respectively.

At the current assessment rate, assessment income would only equal around $640,000, an amount insufficient to cover the Committee's anticipated expenditures, which includes a $50,000 increase in funding for compliance. The Committee considered the estimated expenses and recommended increasing the assessment rate.

Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Budget and Personnel Committee, and Committee management. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various activities to the Texas citrus industry. Based on estimated shipments, the recommended assessment rate of $0.09 should provide $720,000 in assessment income. The Committee determined that the assessment revenue, along with funds from interest income and funds from reserves, would be adequate to cover budgeted expenses for the 2016-17 fiscal period.

A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming crop year indicates that the average grower price for the 2016-17 season could be around $13.50 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent of oranges and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2016-17 crop year as a percentage of total grower revenue could be around 0.6 percent.

This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order.

The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the June 2, 2016, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189 Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this final rule.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2016 (81 FR 54748). Copies of the proposed rule were also mailed or sent via facsimile to all Texas orange and grapefruit handlers. Finally, the proposal was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending September 16, 2016, was provided for interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously-mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postposing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2016-17 fiscal period began on August 1, 2016, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable Texas oranges and grapefruit handled during such fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 906 is amended as follows:

PART 906—ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 906 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-674.

2. Section 906.235 is revised to read as follows:
§ 906.235 Assessment rate.

On and after August 1, 2016, an assessment rate of $0.09 per 7/10-bushel carton or equivalent is established for oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

Dated: October 19, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-25681 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2016-0155] RIN 3150-AJ80 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad. Each of these changes is described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

DATES:

The direct final rule is effective January 9, 2017, unless significant adverse comments are received by November 25, 2016. If the direct final rule is withdrawn as a result of such comments, timely notice of the withdrawal will be published in the Federal Register. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Comments received on this direct final rule will also be considered to be comments on a companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0155. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445, or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Procedural Background III. Background IV. Discussion of Changes V. Voluntary Consensus Standards VI. Agreement State Compatibility VII. Plain Writing VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification XI. Regulatory Analysis XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality XIII. Congressional Review Act XIV. Availability of Documents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0155.

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

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

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Procedural Background

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on January 9, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule by November 25, 2016, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rule section of this issue of the Federal Register.

III. Background

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule (80 FR 12073; March 6, 2015), as corrected (80 FR 15679; March 25, 2015), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1040.

IV. Discussion of Changes

By letter dated March 31, 2015, as supplemented June 19 and November 30, 2015, Holtec International submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.

Specifically, Amendment No. 2 adds new 16X16 fuel types to approved contents, in CoC No. 1040, named 16X16B and 16X16C and updates 15X15I fuel types to include those with guide tubes. Amendment No. 2 revises Table 2.1-1 to allow up to 37 undamaged 16X16A fuel assemblies in damaged fuel containers (DFCs) for the multipurpose canister—37 permitted for storage in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. An updated heat load pattern is also included for loading up to 37 intact 16X16A fuel assemblies in DFCs. Also, Appendix B, Table 3-4 was revised to clarify the “Top Surface Pad” term.

As documented in the Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report (PSER), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask fabrication or design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Thus, as discussed in the PSER, staff has determined that there is reasonable assurance that: (i) The activities authorized by the amended certificate can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) these activities will be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations of 10 CFR part 72.

This direct final rule revises the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the PSER.

The amended Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 under 10 CFR 72.212.

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

VI. Agreement State Compatibility

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and a Category “NRC” does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws.

VII. Plain Writing

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883).

VIII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact A. The Action

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

B. The Need for the Action

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.

Specifically, Amendment No. 2 adds new 16X16 fuel types to approved contents, in CoC No. 1040, named 16X16B and 16X16C and updates 15X15I fuel types to include those with guide tubes. Amendment No. 2 revises Table 2.1-1 to allow up to 37 undamaged 16X16A fuel assemblies in DFCs for the multipurpose canister—37 permitted for storage in the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. An updated heat load pattern is also included for loading up to 37 intact 16X16A fuel assemblies in DFCs. Also, Appendix B, Table 3-4 was revised to clarify the “Top Surface Pad” term.

C. Environmental Impacts of the Action

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 2 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings in a PSER.

D. Alternative to the Action

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 2 and discontinue the direct final rule process. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 2 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, an interested licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the proposed action.

E. Alternative Use of Resources

Approval of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

F. Agencies and Persons Contacted

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

G. Finding of No Significant Impact

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51. Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 2” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing collections os information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0132.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information collection unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Certification

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Holtec International. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

XI. Regulatory Analysis

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12073), as corrected on March 25, 2015 (80 FR 15679), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214. By letter dated March 31, 2015, as supplemented June 19 and November 30, 2015, Holtec submitted an application to amend the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 2 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 2 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the PSER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

XII. Backfitting and Issue Finality

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.

Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System was initiated by Holtec and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 2 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 2. These changes do not affect existing users of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, and the current Amendment No. 1 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 2, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.

XIII. Congressional Review Act

The Office of Management and Budget has not found this to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

XIV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

Document ADAMS accession No. Holtec License Amendment Request; Letter Dated March 31, 2015 ML15092A783 Supplemental Letter Dated June 19, 2015 ML15170A434 Supplemental Letter Dated November 30, 2015 ML15334A496 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 ML16035A416 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Technical Specifications, Appendix A ML16039A113 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Technical Specifications, Appendix B ML16039A115 CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report ML16039A156

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2016-0155. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2016-0155); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1040 is revised to read as follows:
§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

Certificate Number: 1040.

Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 6, 2015.

Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: September 8, 2015.

Amendment Number 2, Effective Date: January 9, 2017.

SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.

Docket Number: 72-1040.

Certificate Expiration Date: April 6, 2035.

Model Number: MPC-37, MPC-89.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of October, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2016-25408 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of September 23, 2016, amending Class D and E airspace. Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, (formerly Otis ANGB), Falmouth, MA is corrected by adjusting the radials of the Class E surface extensions to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, Falmouth Airpark is added to the Class E extension airspace description.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class D and E airspace at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA (81 FR 65532, September 23, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2016-5444. In the Class E airspace designated as an extension, further review revealed the surface area extension radials for Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station were given in magnetic values, instead of true values. Also, Falmouth Airpark, previously excluded from this Class E airspace is included in the description.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

Correction to Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of September 23, 2016 (81 FR 65532) FR Doc. 22748, Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA, is corrected as follows:
§ 71.1 [Amended] AEA MD E4 Falmouth, MA [Corrected]

On page 65533, column 2, add the following:

after line 39, add “Falmouth Airpark (lat. 41°35′08″ N., long. 70°32′25″ W.)”,

and on line 41, remove “55°”, and add in its place, “39°”,

and on line 45, remove “143°”, and add in its place, “127°”,

and on line 49, remove “234°”, and add in its place, “219°”,

and on line 51, after “airport,” add “excluding that airspace within a 1-mile

radius of Falmouth Airpark”,

and on line 52, remove “323°”, and add in its place, “307°”.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 18, 2016. Paul Lore, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-25710 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7046; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-3] Amendment of Class E Airspace; Miles City, MT AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT, due to airspace redesign for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. The Class E airspace designated as an extension, proposed for revocation in the NPRM, is removed from this rulemaking as it was proposed in error.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, January 5, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-366-9826. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

On June 17, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (81 FR 39603) Docket No. FAA-2016-7046, to modify Class E airspace extending upward from the surface, remove Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class E surface airspace, and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that there is no Class E airspace designated as an extension to the Class E surface area airspace at the airport and was added in error. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Frank Wiley Field Airport, Miles City, MT. The Class E surface area airspace is modified to within a 5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field Airport to support terminal operations below 700 feet above the surface and to account for rising terrain. Additionally, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within an 8-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field Airport to support IFR departures below 1,200 feet above the surface due to rising terrain. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found redesign of the airspace necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace designated as an extension is removed from this rulemaking as the airspace was added in error.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM MT E2 Miles City, MT [Modified] Miles City, Frank Wiley Field, MT (Lat. 46°25′41″ N., long. 105°53′10″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM MT E5 Miles City, MT [Modified] Miles City, Frank Wiley Field, MT (Lat. 46°25′41″ N., long. 105°53′10″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 34.5-mile radius of Frank Wiley Field.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 12, 2016. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-25703 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4513; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-8] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Hagerstown, MD AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of September 23, 2016, amending Class E Airspace designated as an extension, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field by correcting the geographic coordinates of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 Localizer. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

The Federal Register published a final rule amending Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD (81 FR 65533, September 23, 2016) Docket No. FAA-2015-4513. Further review revealed the geographic coordinates for the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 Localizer did not match the FAA's charting information.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

Correction to Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of September 23, 2016 (81 FR 65533) FR Doc. FAA-2015-4513, Amendment of E Airspace for Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, Hagerstown, MD, is corrected as follows:
§ 71.1 [Amended] AEA MD E4 Hagerstown, MD [Corrected]

On page 65535, column 1, line 20, remove “(lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)”, and add in its place, “(lat. 39°42′23″ N., long. 77°44′31″ W.)”;

AEA MD E5 Hagerstown, MD [Corrected]

On page 65535, column 1 line 50, remove “(lat. 39°42′22″ N., long. 77°44′41″ W.)”, and add in its place, “(lat. 39°42′23″ N., long. 77°44′31″ W.)”.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 18, 2016. Paul Lore, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-25704 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679; FRL-9951-80] Spirotetramat; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of spirotetramat in or on asparagus. Bayer CropScience LP requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective October 25, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before December 27, 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-2015-0679, 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-2015-0679 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 27, 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-2015-0679, 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 May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31581) (FRL-9946-02), 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 5E8376) by Bayer CropScience LP, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.641 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide spirotetramat in or on asparagus at 0.10 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

A. Toxicological Profile

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

The target organs of toxicity following subchronic and chronic oral exposures to spirotetramat were different in rats and dogs. The thyroid and thymus glands were the target organs identified in subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in dogs while the testes were the target organs identified in rats. The dog was the most sensitive species, and in both rats and dogs, males were more sensitive than females. The thyroid effects in the dog consisted of lower circulating levels of thyroid hormones (T3 and/or T4) along with a reduction in follicle size, a possible indication of reduced amount of colloid. The effects in the dog thymus were described microscopically as involution, which also resulted in decreased organ weight.

In rats, reported testicular effects consisted of abnormal spermatozoa and hypospermia in the epididymis, decreased testicular weights, and testicular degenerative vacuolation. An investigative subchronic study where rats were dosed with a primary enol metabolite of spirotetramat reproduced the same testicular effects as the parent chemical, suggesting that this metabolite is, at minimum, a primary contributor to the observed male reproductive toxicity. Consistent with this notion, orally administered spirotetramat was demonstrated in rats to be extensively metabolized, and males were noted to achieve much higher systemic exposures than their female counterparts, which helps explain the higher sensitivity of males. Other effects reported in a rat chronic toxicity study were associated with kidney effects consisting of decreased organ weight and tubular dilatation.

In one- and two-generation rat reproductive toxicity studies, male reproductive toxicity (abnormal sperm cells and reproductive performance) similar to that reported in subchronic toxicity studies with adult rats was reported in the first generation (F1) males at relatively high dose levels. In all cases, a well-defined no-observed adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was established.

There was evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study with reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations observed at the limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body weight decrements. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure to spirotetramat in the rabbit developmental or two-generation reproduction studies.

The only evidence of neurotoxicity in the rat acute neurotoxicity study was based on decreased motor and locomotor activity, which occurred only at relatively high dose levels. The rat subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study does not indicate a concern for neurotoxicity, even at relatively high dose levels.

The results of an immunotoxicity study in rats do not indicate any functional deficits in immune function. There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies performed in rats and mice and spirotetramat was also negative for mutagenicity and clastogenicity in guideline in vivo and in vitro assays.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by spirotetramat as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Spirotetramat. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for a Tolerance for Residues in/on Asparagus Without a U.S. Registration” at page 19 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0679.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

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

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Spirotetramat for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and uncertainty/
  • safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (General population including infants and children) NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Acute RfD = 1.0 mg/kg/day
  • aPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/day.
  • Acute neurotoxicity (rat).
  • LOAEL = 200 mg/kg based on clinical signs and decreased motor activity in males.
  • Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day.
  • Chronic toxicity (dog).
  • LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on thymus involution in males.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to spirotetramat, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing spirotetramat tolerances in 40 CFR 180.641. EPA assessed dietary exposures from spirotetramat in food as follows:

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

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

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA (2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities, and 100 PCT.

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

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spirotetramat in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of spirotetramat. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of spirotetramat and its metabolites for acute exposures are estimated to be 395 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 7.99 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 395 ppb for surface water and 5.36 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments, the water concentration value of 395 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

    Spirotetramat is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: golf courses and residential citrus trees. The golf course use could result in potential post-application dermal exposure; however, there is no dermal hazard and therefore, quantification of dermal risk is not necessary. For the residential citrus tree use, because the product is sold in bulk packaging for agricultural uses and the label requires that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long-sleeve shirt/long pants) and the use of personal-protective equipment (e.g., gloves), based on current Agency policy, EPA has made the assumption that this product is not meant for homeowner use, and therefore, there is no need to conduct a quantitative residential handler assessment.

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

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study, such that reduced fetal weight and increased incidences of malformations and skeletal deviations were observed at the limit dose, while maternal effects at this dose consisted of only body weight decrements. Concern is low since effects were only seen at the limit dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.

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

    i. The toxicity database for spirotetramat is complete.

    ii. Although there is evidence of neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity study, concern is low since the effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values, the selected endpoints are protective of the observed neurotoxic effect, there are no neurotoxic effects seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study, and the existing toxicological database indicates that spirotetramat is not a neurotoxic chemical.

    iii. There was no evidence of quantitative susceptibility of offspring following pre- or postnatal exposure. There is evidence of qualitative susceptibility in the rat developmental study; however, there is no residual uncertainty concerning these effects due to the clear NOAEL/LOAELs in the study for these effects. Moreover, concern for these effects is low since effects were only seen at the limit dose, effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity, and selected endpoints are protective of the observed effects.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The acute dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. The chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes average field trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for the remaining commodities, and 100 PCT. The chronic assessment is somewhat refined; however, since it is based on reliable data, it will not underestimate exposure and risk. The drinking water assessments provide conservative, health-protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations that will not likely be exceeded. These assessments of exposure are not likely to underestimate the resulting estimates of risk from exposure to spirotetramat.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to spirotetramat will occupy 16% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to spirotetramat from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for spirotetramat resulting in long-term exposure that require a quantitative risk assessment.

    3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short- and intermediate-term inhalation adverse effect was identified; however, spirotetramat is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term inhalation residential exposure. In a dermal toxicity study, no evidence of dermal hazard was found; therefore, dermal risk was not included in the aggregate assessment. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for spirotetramat.

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

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has not established a MRL for spirotetramat in or on asparagus.

    C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing noting general concerns about the potential effects on the cornea, thymus and thyroid, and testicular histopathy and stating, in part, that EPA should deny any approval of use of this chemical on any food products. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. EPA has assessed the effects of this chemical on human health and determined that aggregate exposure to it will be safe. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of spirotetramat, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on asparagus at 0.10 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

    VII. Congressional Review Act

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 14, 2016. Michael Goodis, 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 § 180.641: a. Add alphabetically the commodity “Asparagus” to the table in paragraph (a)(1); and b. Revise the footnote at the end of the table in paragraph (a)(1).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.641 Spirotetramat; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Asparagus 1 0.10 *    *    *    *    * 1 There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25638 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 272 [EPA-R06-2014-0791 FRL-9951-74-Region 6] Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize States to operate their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal program. The EPA uses the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs” to provide notice of the authorization status of State programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of the State statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement. The rule codifies in the regulations the prior approval of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program and incorporates by reference authorized provisions of the State's statutes and regulations.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective December 27, 2016, unless the EPA receives adverse written comment on this regulation by the close of business November 25, 2016. If the EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference as of December 27, 2016 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments by one of the following methods:

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

    2. Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, RCRA Permits Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division (6MM), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, RCRA Permits Section, Multimedia Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. (For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).

    You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733, phone number (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional Authorization Coordinator or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, RCRA Permits Section (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division (6MM), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone numbers: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178, email address: [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. What is codification?

    Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.

    B. What is the history of the authorization and codification of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program?

    Oklahoma initially received Final authorization effective January 10, 1985, (49 FR 50362) to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management program.

    Subsequently, the EPA approved additional program revision applications effective on June 18, 1990 (55 FR 14280), November 27, 1990 (55 FR 39274), June 3, 1991 (56 FR 13411), November 19, 1991 (56 FR 47675), November 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854), December 21, 1994 (59 FR 51116), April 27, 1995 (60 FR 2699), March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100), July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), November 23, 1998 (63 FR 50528), February 8, 1999 (63 FR 67800), March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16528), July 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981) March 5, 2001 (66 FR 28), June 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308), April 6, 2009 (74 FR 5994), May 6, 2011 (76 FR 18927), May 14, 2012 (77 FR 15273), July 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161), and October 28, 2014 (79 FR 51497). The EPA first incorporated by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52679), and updated the incorporation by reference effective July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 46567), October 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36546), July 16, 2012 (77 FR 29231), October 9, 2012 (77 FR 46964), July 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161), and September 2, 2014 (79 FR 37226). In this document, the EPA is revising Subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272 to include the recent authorization revision actions effective October 28, 2014 (79 FR 51497).

    C. What codification decisions have we made in this rule?

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Oklahoma rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 272 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify Oklahoma's base hazardous waste management program and its revisions to that program. The EPA provided notices and opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to authorize the Oklahoma program, and the EPA is not reopening the decisions, nor requesting comments, on the Oklahoma authorizations as published in the Federal Register notices specified in Section B of this document.

    This document incorporates by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and Federally enforceable program. By codifying Oklahoma's authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of Federally approved requirements of the Oklahoma hazardous waste management program.

    The EPA is incorporating by reference the Oklahoma authorized hazardous waste program in subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.1851 incorporates by reference Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste statutes and regulations. Section 272.1851 also references the statutory provisions (including procedural and enforcement provisions) which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are approved as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA.

    D. What is the effect of Oklahoma's codification on enforcement?

    The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Oklahoma procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 272.1851(c)(2) of 40 CFR lists the statutory provisions which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as those procedural and enforcement authorities that are part of the State's approved program, but these are not incorporated by reference.

    E. What State provisions are not part of the codification?

    The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program.

    These provisions include:

    (1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

    (2) Federal rules for which Oklahoma is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted Federal regulations by reference;

    (3) A Federal program which has since been withdrawn by the U.S. EPA; and

    (4) Federal rules for which Oklahoma is authorized but which were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, June 27, 2014).

    State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.1851(c)(3) lists the Oklahoma regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.

    Oklahoma has adopted but is not authorized for the Federal rules published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40834); February 1, 1991 (56 FR 3978); February 13, 1991 (56 FR 5910); April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13406); May 1, 1991 (56 FR 19951); December 23, 1991 (56 FR 66365); June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33912), May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34538), August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44150); and December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77954). Therefore, these Federal amendments included in Oklahoma's adoption by reference at 252:205-3-2(b) through 252:205-3-2(m) of the Oklahoma Administrative Code, are not part of the State's authorized program and are not part of the incorporation by reference addressed by this Federal Register document.

    Oklahoma adopted and was authorized for the following Federal Performance Track program, which has since been terminated by the U.S. EPA: published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21737), as amended October 25, 2004 (69 FR 62217), and the April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16862) Burden Reduction Initiative amendments to the following provisions regarding Performance Track: 40 CFR 260.10, 264.15, 264 .174, 264.195, 264.1101, 265.15, 265.174, 265.195, 265.201, 265.1101, 270.42(l) and Item O.1 of Appendix I to 270.42.

    Oklahoma has adopted and was authorized for the following Federal rules which have since been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, respectively; June 27, 2014): (1) The Comparable Fuels Exclusion Rule published in the Federal Register on June 19, 1998 (63 FR 33782), as amended on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33712); and (2) the Gasification Exclusion Rule published on January 2, 2008 (73 FR 57).

    With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.

    F. What will be the effect of Federal HSWA requirements on the codification?

    The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek authorization for those revisions pursuant to 40 CFR part 271.

    Instead of amending the 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.

    Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.

    G. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This rule incorporates by reference Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste management regulations and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule merely incorporates by reference certain existing State hazardous waste management program requirements which the EPA already approved under 40 CFR part 271, and with which regulated entities must already comply, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

    This action 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely incorporates by reference existing authorized State hazardous waste management program requirements without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also does not have Tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).

    This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    The requirements being codified are the result of Oklahoma's voluntary participation in the EPA's State program authorization process under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 272

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Incorporation by reference, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    This action is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: August 1, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 272 is amended as follows:

    PART 272—APPROVED STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 272 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    2. Revise § 272.1851 to read as follows:
    § 272.1851 Oklahoma State-Administered program: Final authorization.

    (a) Pursuant to section 3006(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), the EPA granted Oklahoma final authorization for the following elements as submitted to EPA in Oklahoma's base program application for final authorization which was approved by EPA effective on January 10, 1985. Subsequent program revision applications were approved effective on June 18, 1990, November 27, 1990, June 3, 1991, November 19, 1991, November 29, 1993, December 21, 1994, April 27, 1995, March 14, 1997, July 14, 1998 and November 23, 1998, February 8, 1999, March 30, 2000, July 10, 2000, March 5, 2001, June 9, 2003, April 6, 2009, May 6, 2011, May 14, 2012, July 29, 2013, and October 28, 2014.

    (b) The State of Oklahoma has primary responsibility for enforcing its hazardous waste management program. However, EPA retains the authority to exercise its inspection and enforcement authorities in accordance with sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 7003 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927, 6928, 6934, 6973, and any other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions, as well as in accordance with other statutory and regulatory provisions.

    (c) State Statutes and regulations:

    (1) The Oklahoma statutes and regulations cited in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are incorporated by reference as part of the hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain copies of the Oklahoma regulations that are incorporated by reference in this paragraph from the State's Office of Administrative Rules, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 53390, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3390; Phone number: 405-521-4911;Web site: https://www.sos.ok.gov/oar/Default.aspx. The statutes are available from West Publishing Company, 610 Opperman Drive, P. O. Box 64526, St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 0526; Phone: 1-800-328-4880; Web site: http://west.thomson.com. You may inspect a copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 (Phone number (214) 665-8533), or 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.

    (i) The binder entitled “EPA-Approved Oklahoma Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the Hazardous Waste Management Program”, October, 2014. Only those provisions that have been authorized by EPA are incorporated by reference. These provisions are listed in Appendix A to Part 272.

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (2) The following provisions provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, but they are not being incorporated by reference and do not replace Federal authorities:

    (i) Oklahoma Environmental Crimes Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 21 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 1230.1 et seq.

    (ii) Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 25 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 301 et seq.

    (iii) Oklahoma Statutes, Title 27A, “Environment and Natural Resources”, as amended effective July 1, 2013: Chapter 1, “Oklahoma Environmental Quality Act”, Sections 1-1-101 et seq.; Chapter 2, “Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code”, Sections 2-2-101, 2-2-104, 2-2-201, 2-3-101(F)(1), 2-3-104, 2-3-202, 2-3-501, 2-3-502, 2-3-503, 2-3-504; “Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act”, Sections 2-7-102, 2-7-104, 2-7-105 (except 2-7-105(27), 2-7-105(29) and 2-7-105(34)), 2-7-106, 2-7-107, 2-7-108(B)(2), 2-7-109, 2-7-110(A), 2-7-111(C)(2)(b) and (c), 2-7-111(C)(3), 2-7-113.1, 2-7-114, 2-7-115, 2-7-116(A), 2-7-116(G), 2-7-116(H)(1), 2-7-117, 2-7-123, 2-7-126, 2-7-129, 2-7-130, 2-7-131, 2-7-132, and 2-7-133; “Oklahoma Uniform Environmental Permitting Act”, Sections 2-14-101 et seq.

    (iv) Oklahoma Open Records Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 51 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 24A.1 et seq.

    (v) Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act, as amended effective July 1, 2013, 75 Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.), Sections 250 et seq.

    (vi) The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, Hazardous Waste Management, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(b), 252:205-1-3(a) and (b), 252:205-1-4(a)-(d); Subchapter 3, Sections 252:205-3-2(a) introductory paragraph, 252:205-3-2(a)(1) and 252:205-3-2(a)(3); Subchapter 11, Section 252:205-11-3.

    (3) The following statutory and regulatory provisions are broader in scope than the Federal program, are not part of the authorized program, and are not incorporated by reference:

    (i) Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, 27A Oklahoma Statutes (O.S.) as amended effective July 1, 2013, Sections 2-7-119, 2-7-120, 2-7-121, 2-7-121.1, and 2-7-134.

    (ii) The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(c)(2) and (3), 252:205-1-2 “RRSIA”. 252:205-1-2 “Reuse”, 252:205-1-2 “Speculative accumulation”, 252:205-1-2 “Transfer facility”, 252:205-1-2 “Transfer station”, 252:205-1-4(e); Subchapter 5, Section 252:205-5-1(4), Subchapter 15; Subchapter 17; Subchapter 21; Subchapter 23; and 252:205 Appendices B, C and D.

    (4) Unauthorized State Amendments. (i) Oklahoma has adopted, but is not authorized to implement, the Federal rules that are listed in the following table. The EPA will continue to implement the Federal HSWA requirements for which Oklahoma is not authorized until the State receives specific authorization for those requirements. The EPA will not enforce the non-HSWA Federal rules although they may be enforceable under State law. For those Federal rules that contain both HSWA and non-HSWA requirements, the EPA will enforce only the HSWA portions of the rules.

    Federal requirement Federal Register reference Publication date Toxicity Characteristics; Hydrocarbon Recovery Operations (HSWA) (Checklist 80) 55 FR 40834 10/5/90 56 FR 3978 2/1/91 56 FR 13406 4/2/91 Toxicity Characteristics; Chlorofluorocarbon Refrigerants (HSWA) (Checklist 84) 56 FR 5910 2/13/91 Administrative Stay for K069 Listing (Non-HSWA) (Checklist 88) 56 FR 19951 5/1/91 Amendments to Interim Status Standards for Downgradient Ground-water Monitoring Well Locations (non-HSWA) (Checklist 99) 56 FR 66365 12/23/91 Removal of Legally Obsolete Rules (HSWA/Non-HSWA) (Checklist 144) 60 FR 33912 6/29/95 Mineral Processing Secondary Materials Exclusion.—(Non-HSWA) (Checklist 167D—Amendments to 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3), 261.2(c)(4)/Table, 261.2(e)(1)(iii) and 261.4(a)(16)) 63 FR 28556 5/26/98 Methods Innovation: SW-846 (HSWA/non-HSWA) (Checklist 208) 70 FR 34538 6/14/05 70 FR 44150 8/1/05 Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion (Non-HSWA) (Checklist 221) 73 FR 77954 12/19/08

    (ii) The Federal rules listed in the table below are not delegable to States. Oklahoma has excluded the rules from its incorporation by reference of the Federal regulations. EPA retains its authority for the implementation and enforcement of these rules.

    Federal requirement Federal Register
  • reference
  • Publication date
    Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementation of OECD Council Decision (HSWA) (Checklist 152) 61 FR 16290 April 12, 1996. OECD Requirements; Export Shipments of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (Non-HSWA) (Checklist 222) 75 FR 1236 January 8, 2010.

    (5) Terminated Federal program. Oklahoma adopted and was authorized for the following Federal program as amended, which has since been terminated by the U.S. EPA:

    Federal requirement Federal Register
  • reference
  • Publication date
    National Environmental Performance Track Program (Checklist 204) 69 FR 21737 April 22, 2004. National Environmental Performance Track Program; Corrections (Rule 204.1) 69 FR 62217 October 25, 2004. Burden Reduction Initiative (Checklist 213); amendments to the following provisions regarding Performance Track: 40 CFR 260.10, 264.15, 264.174, 264.195, 264.1101, 265.15, 265.174, 265.195, 265.201, 265.1101, 270.42(l) and Item O.1 of Appendix I to 270.42 71 FR 16862 April 4, 2006.

    (6) Vacated Federal rules. Oklahoma adopted and was authorized for the following Federal rules which have since been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Cir. No. 98-1379 and 08-1144, respectively; June 27, 2014):

    Federal requirement Federal Register
  • reference
  • Publication date
    Hazardous Waste Combustors; Revised Standards (HSWA) (Checklist 168—40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 261.38 only) 63 FR 33782 June 19, 1998. Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthesis Gas (Checklist 216—Definition of “Gasification” at 40 CFR 260.10 and amendment to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)(i)) 73 FR 57 January 2, 2008. Withdrawal of the Emission Comparable Fuel Exclusion under RCRA (Checklist 224—amendments to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(16) and 261.38) 7 FR 33712 June 15, 2010.

    (7) Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Region 6 and the State of Oklahoma, signed by the EPA Regional Administrator on May 15, 2013, is referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921, et seq.

    (8) Statement of Legal Authority. “Attorney General's Statement for Final Authorization”, signed by the Attorney General of Oklahoma January 20, 1984 and revisions, supplements, and addenda to that Statement dated January 14, 1988 (as amended July 20, 1989); December 22, 1988 (as amended June 7, 1989 and August 13, 1990); November 20, 1989; November 16, 1990; November 6, 1992; June 24, 1994; December 8, 1994; March 4, 1996; April 15, 1997; February 6, 1998, December 2, 1998, October 15, 1999, May 31, 2000, October 15, 2001, June 27, 2003, March 1, 2005, July 12, 2005, July 03, 2006, August 25, 2008, March 26, 2010, October 11, 2010, October 31, 2011, July 27, 2012, and July 1, 2013, are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    (9) Program description. The Program Description and any other materials submitted as supplements thereto are referenced as part of the authorized hazardous waste management program under subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

    3. Appendix A to part 272 is amended by revising the listing for “Oklahoma” to read as follows: Appendix A to part 272—State Requirements Oklahoma

    The statutory provisions include:

    Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act, as amended, 27A Oklahoma Statute (O.S.) 2011 Main Volume, Sections 2-7-103, 2-7-108(A), 2-7-108(B)(1), 2-7-108(B)(3), 2-7-108(C), 2-7-110(B), 2-7-110(C), 2-7-111(A), 2-7-111(B), 2-7-111(C)(1), 2-7-111(C)(2)(a), 2-7-111(D), 2-7-111(E), 2-7-112, 2-7-116(B) through 2-7-116(F), 2-7-116(H)(2), 2-7-118, 2-7-124, 2-7-125, 2-7-127, and 2-10-301(G), as published by West Publishing Company, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 0526; Phone: 1-800-328-4880; Web site: http://west.thomson.com.

    The regulatory provisions include:

    The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 252, Chapter 205, effective July 1, 2013 (2011 Edition, as amended by the 2013 Supplement): Subchapter 1, Sections 252:205-1-1(a), 252:205-1-1(c) introductory paragraph, 252:205-1-1(c)(1), 252:205-1-2 introductory paragraph, 252:205-1-2 “OHWMA”, 252:205-1-2 “Post-closure permit”, 252:205-1-3(c); Subchapter 3, Sections 252:205-3-1 (2013 Supplement), 252:205-3-2(a)(2), 252:205-3-2(b)-(n), 252:205-3-4, 252:205-3-5 and 252:205-3-6; Subchapter 5, Sections 252:205-5-1 (except 252:205-5-1(4)), 252:205-5-2 through 252:205-5-5; Subchapter 7, Sections 252:205-7-2 and 252:205-7-4 (except the phrase “or in accordance with 252:205-15-1(d)); Subchapter 9, Sections 252:205-9-1 through 252:205-9-4; Subchapter 11, Sections 252:205-11-1(a) (except the word “recycling”), 252:205-11-1(b)-(e), and 252:205-11-2; and Subchapter 13, Sections 252:205-13-1(a)-(e), as published by the State's Office of Administrative Rules, Secretary of State, P.O. Box 53390, Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3390; Phone number: 405-521-4911; Web site: https://www.sos.ok.gov/oar/Default.aspx.

    [FR Doc. 2016-25300 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Part 752 RIN 0412-AA81 Requirement for Nondiscrimination Against End-Users of Supplies or Services (“Beneficiaries”) Under USAID-Funded Contracts AGENCY:

    U.S. Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), authorizes the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide foreign assistance in the form of development and humanitarian assistance that reflect American ideals. To help emphasize USAID's intent and expectation of non-discrimination of beneficiaries in USAID-funded activities, USAID is issuing a final rule to amend its Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to include a new clause entitled “Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.” This clause expressly states that USAID-funded contractors must not discriminate among end-users of supplies or services (referred to in this rule as beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries) in any way that is contrary to the scope of the activity as defined in the statements of work (SOWs).

    DATES:

    Effective: October 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Larson Telephone: 202-712-4969 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    USAID published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 56572 on August 22, 2016 to amend its Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to include a new clause entitled “Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.”

    USAID seeks to improve the lives of people around the world by being inclusive in its development and humanitarian assistance efforts. In so doing, USAID recognizes that every person is instrumental in the transformation of their own societies, with the end result that each and every person is recognized and equally valued without regard to artificial and discriminatory distinctions. The inclusion, protection, and empowerment of all persons is critical because drawing on the full contributions of the entire population leads to more effective, comprehensive, and sustainable development results.

    Nondiscrimination is the basic foundation of USAID's inclusive development approach; as such, all USAID programs seek to ensure access for all potential beneficiaries within the scope of the contract without discrimination. Contractors must adhere to this by implementing the activities as outlined in the contract SOWs. Nondiscrimination is a critical foundation for protecting and promoting the human rights of all persons. In addition, nondiscrimination ensures equitable access to USAID programs. Effective nondiscrimination practices support USAID's principles of inclusion and equal access and help to ensure that USAID programs empower and effectively reach women and girls; marginalized ethnic and religious populations; indigenous peoples; internally displaced persons; persons with disabilities; youth and the elderly; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals; and other socially marginalized individuals and peoples unique to the country or regional context.

    In recent years, the Government has made multiple pronouncements of policy in many areas reflecting its emphasis on equity, fairness, and human dignity—effective nondiscrimination is a means toward achieving all of these. For example, in 2011, the White House issued E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to update all agencies on factors to consider when issuing rules; in addition to quantitative factors, it advised that the qualitative values of equity, fairness, and human dignity are important considerations. Additionally, a 2011 Presidential Memorandum, “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons,” directs all agencies engaged abroad to advance nondiscrimination. This rule addressing discrimination in the provision of supplies or services is consistent with the values that animate the above.

    II. Discussion

    This rulemaking revises (48 CFR) AIDAR to add a new clause at 752.7038 entitled “Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.” The clause, applicable to all solicitations, contracts, and subcontracts at any tier, prohibits contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries (i.e., those individuals intended to receive the benefits of the award, whether goods or services) on the basis of any characteristics not expressly stated in the award.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure adherence to the intent and authorities in the FAA, and other statutes related to humanitarian assistance and international development. The intent of the FAA is to help people, without regard to irrelevant and discriminatory distinctions among them. This intent is reflected in many places in the statute. The first words of the Act set out that it seeks to promote United States interests “by assisting peoples of the world.” Congress explained its intent thusly in FAA section 101: “[T]he Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.”

    A survey of FAA provisions relevant to USAID awards reflects that they focus on development and humanitarian assistance needs and effectiveness toward meeting them. For example, FAA section 103, on agriculture, rural development, and nutrition, suggests assistance should focus on alleviating poverty. FAA section 104, on health-related assistance, suggests limited targeting of activities to the specialized health needs of children, infants, and mothers. FAA section 491, on international disaster assistance, contemplates “prompt United States assistance to alleviate human suffering” and emphasizes that the implementing agency “shall insure that the assistance provided by the United States shall, to the greatest extent possible, reach those most in need of relief and rehabilitation as a result of natural and manmade disaster.”

    In some contexts, such as assistance for child survival, the foreign assistance authorities contemplate a focus on women and children, but that is a matter of programmatic need and effectiveness. USAID has identified no context where excluding individuals from assistance based on any of the types of discrimination proscribed by this clause, outside the scope of the award, would have a positive effect on implementing USAID's foreign assistance authorities.

    The main effect of this clause is to ensure that USAID's policy and practice of non-discrimination in planning projects and activities is followed through to completion by the contractors that implement them. Its impact on contractors and offerors is to remind them to follow the terms and conditions of the contract, including the implementation of the SOW as designed, and to refrain from the types of discrimination described in the clause. In itself, the clause serves as a reminder to contractors and offerors of USAID's long-standing, pre-existing expectations based on USAID's programmatic and planning priorities and authorities.

    III. Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions

    The proposed rule was published for public comment pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 1707). In total, six public comments were received. All six comments were supportive in nature.

    Five commenters recommended minor edits to the second sentence of subsection (a) of the rule to clarify that all of the listed categories are included among the factors, which if not expressly stated in the award, are precluded from being used as a basis for discrimination by the contractor. The second sentence of this final rule has accordingly been clarified in response to these comments to eliminate any potential ambiguity.

    Four commenters suggested that the rule be modified to apply to USAID grantees and be included in USAID grant and cooperative agreement awards. One commenter also urged that the rule be clarified to apply to subcontracts and subgrants. These comments did not warrant any changes to the final rule. The AIDAR only applies to contracts. USAID will address assistance awards (i.e., grants and cooperative agreements) and subawards separately from this rulemaking. Additionally, the new clause already specifies in subsection (b) that it must be inserted in all subcontracts at any tier.

    One commenter recommended the inclusion of language in the third sentence of the new clause to specify that targeted activities by the contractor toward the assistance needs of certain populations specified in the contract must serve a “legitimate programmatic purpose.” This change was not included in the final rule, as the programmatic purpose of USAID contracts is already considered as part of the contract SOWs. On its own initiative, USAID made a minor editorial revision to better clarify the regulation, replacing the article “a” with “the” in the third sentence of the clause to clearly refer to the contractor receiving a USAID funded contract.

    Finally, USAID also received a comment outside the scope of this rule from one commenter urging the Agency to examine its reporting and verification procedures to ensure compliance with the rule, and urging the government-wide harmonization of nondiscrimination policies for beneficiaries of foreign assistance.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation. E.O. 13563 allows that in making this assessment, an agency “may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.” The estimated costs of this rulemaking do not exceed the threshold of economic significance (i.e., an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more). However, the rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This rule provides a benefit by promoting non-discrimination, which itself promotes programmatic efficiency, with very little additional administrative burden for the affected entities, USAID contractors. It does not ask them to carry out activities beyond those in their contract SOWs and terms and conditions; it does not ask them to alter the manner in which they conduct the work as set out in their contracts. In fact, it reminds them to stay within those instructions. The only potential cost the Agency could identify for contractors and subcontractors is for minimal training, to the extent that contractors do not already proscribe discrimination as part of the normal conduct of their business.

    USAID awards approximately 1,300 contracts/task orders annually. As a practical matter for these current contracts, even absent this clause, if for example a contract specified the provision of food parcels in a certain community, the contractor could not, on its own, decide that only certain members of that community should receive the food parcels or that certain members should be excluded.

    Including this clause in all new contracts and subcontracts going forward provides an explicit reminder of USAID's expectation that its contractors not discriminate against any protected group or individual, and is particularly important in countries where stigma and discrimination toward certain groups is tolerated or officially endorsed by the government. The benefits of the rule would be to expressly reinforce notions of equity, fairness, and human dignity under Federal Government contracts.

    Contractors responding to a solicitation (e.g. request for proposals (RFP) or invitation for bid (IFB)) would further be on notice not to include any discriminatory criteria in their response to a solicitation, absent specific programmatic justification in the SOW to do so.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. It requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities.

    In fiscal year 2015, 330 small businesses received USAID funds. In fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 the 391, 384, 349, and 363 small businesses received USAID funds, respectively. The requirement this rule would impose on small businesses is no different than the requirement for other entities: Contracts or subcontracts awarded to them will include a provision reminding them not to discriminate. Beyond adding a brief reminder or discussion of this now explicit requirement to existing trainings on business ethics and conduct they provide to their staff, as already required by FAR 3.10, we do not estimate that this will impose a significant additional cost. As with all contractors, the employees of small businesses will be expected to be mindful of the principles of equity, fairness, and human dignity when performing the work under their contracts; as they have always been. The additional effort by small businesses (a matter of a few minutes of discussion) is so de minimis that we do not estimate that this will impose more than a negligible cost.

    There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements associated with this rule. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. There is currently no other Federal rule addressing discrimination of recipients of supplies or services pursuant to a Federal Government contract. There were no significant alternatives identified that would meet the objective of the rule.

    In light of the above analysis, the USAID Chief Acquisition Officer certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not include a reporting or information collection requirement. Therefore, USAID has determined that this rule does not impose any new or revised reporting or disclosure requirements that would be considered collections of information requiring Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 752

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID amends 48 CFR Chapter 7 as set forth below:

    PART 752—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 1. The authority citation for part 752 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445 (22 U.S.C. 2381), as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    PART 752—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 2. Add section 752.7038 to read as follows:
    §  752.7038 Nondiscrimination against End-Users of Supplies or Services.

    The following clause must be inserted in section I of all solicitations and resulting contracts.

    Nondiscrimination Against End-Users of Supplies or Services (OCT 2016)

    (a) USAID policy requires that the contractor not discriminate against any end-user of the contract supplies or services (i.e., the beneficiaries of the supplies or services) in implementation of this award, such as, but not limited to, by withholding, adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to the supplies or services (benefits) provided through this contract on the basis of any factor not expressly stated in the award. This includes, for example, race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, disability, age, genetic information, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran's status. Nothing in this clause is intended to limit the ability of the contractor to target activities toward the assistance needs of certain populations as defined in the contract.

    (b) The Contractor must insert this clause, including this paragraph, in all subcontracts under this contract.

    (End of clause)

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Roy Plucknett, Chief Acquisition Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25881 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    81 206 Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2016-0155] RIN 3150-AJ80 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System; Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International HI-STORM Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System and updates an existing fuel type description. Additionally, Amendment No. 2 updates Table 3-4 of Appendix B of the CoC to reflect correct terminology and makes editorial changes to Appendix B of the CoC to clarify the description of the top surface pad.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by November 25, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0155. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected] If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0155.

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

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0155 in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Procedural Background

    This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule concurrently with a direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on January 9, 2017. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments on this proposed rule by November 25, 2016, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule. If the direct final rule is withdrawn, the NRC will address the comments received in response to these proposed revisions in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn.

    A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For additional procedural information and the regulatory analysis, see the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    III. Background

    Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

    To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule (80 FR 12073; March 6, 2015), as corrected (80 FR 15679; March 25, 2015), that approved the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1040.

    IV. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that also follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and the intended audience. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on the proposed rule with respect to clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    V. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

    Document ADAMS
  • accession No.
  • Holtec/License Amendment Request, Letter Dated March 31, 2015 ML15092A783 Supplemental Letter Dated June 19, 2015 ML15170A434 Supplemental Letter Dated November 30, 2015 ML15334A496 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2 ML16035A416 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Technical Specifications, Appendix A ML16039A113 Proposed CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Technical Specifications, Appendix B ML16039A115 CoC No. 1040, Amendment No. 2—Preliminary Safety Evaluation Report ML16039A156

    The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2016-0155. The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2016-0155); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72

    Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Hazardous waste, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Manpower training programs, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

    PART 72—LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2210e, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 117(a), 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 141, 145(g), 148, 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10137(a), 10152, 10153, 10154, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10165(g), 10168, 10198(a)); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

    2. In § 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1040 is revised to read as follows:
    § 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks.

    Certificate Number: 1040.

    Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 6, 2015.

    Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: September 8, 2015.

    Amendment Number 2, Effective Date: January 9, 2017.

    SAR Submitted by: Holtec International, Inc.

    SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Holtec International HI-STORM UMAX Canister Storage System.

    Docket Number: 72-1040.

    Certificate Expiration Date: April 6, 2035.

    Model Number: MPC-37, MPC-89.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of October, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Michael R. Johnson, Acting Executive Director for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25409 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7575-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9192; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-038-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking at fastener holes located at a certain frame on the lower shell panel junction. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of certain fastener holes, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; 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.

    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-2016-9192; 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:

    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: 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-2016-9192; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-038-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0136, dated June 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During A330/A340 aeroplanes full scale fatigue test specimen in the FR40-to-fuselage skin panel junction, fatigue damage has been found. Corrective actions consisted of the following actions:

    —In-service installation of an internal reinforcing strap on related junction required by DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC)] France AD 1999-448-126(B) and AD 2001-070(B), —retrofit improvement of internal reinforcing strap fatigue life through recommended Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-53-3145, and —new design in production through Airbus modification 44360.

    The aeroplanes listed in the Applicability section of this AD are all aeroplanes post-mod 44360 and pre-mod 55792 (fuselage reinforcement at FR40 in production).

    Recently, during embodiment of a FR40 web repair on an A330 aeroplane and during FR40 keel beam fitting replacement on an A340 aeroplane, the internal strap was removed and rototest inspection was performed on several holes.

    Cracks were found on both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides on internal strap, or butt strap, or keel beam fitting, or forward fitting FR40 flange.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive rototest inspections of 10 fastener holes located at FR40 lower shell panel junction on both LH and RH sides, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions [which include oversizing, installing fasteners and repair; and accomplishment of applicable related investigative actions, which include a rototest inspection for cracking after oversizing].

    The compliance time ranges between 20,000 flight cycles or 65,400 flight hours and 20,800 flight cycles or 68,300 flight hours, depending on airplane utilization and configuration. The repetitive inspection interval ranges between 14,000 flight cycles or 95,200 flight hours and 24,600 flight cycles or 98,700 flight hours, depending on airplane configuration. 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-2016-9192.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive rototest inspections of certain fastener holes, and corrective actions if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. 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 41 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
  • Inspection 41 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,485 per inspection cycle $0 $3,485 $142,885 per inspection cycle.

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 $4,186 $8,096
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9192; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-038-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 9, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, having serial numbers 0176 through 0915 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 report of cracking at fastener holes located at frame (FR)40 on the lower shell panel junction. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking at FR40 on the lower shell panel junction; such cracking could lead to reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    Within the compliance times defined in table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, and, thereafter, at intervals not to exceed the compliance times defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration: Accomplish a special detailed inspection of fastener holes located at FR40 lower shell panel junction on both left-hand (LH) and right-side (RH) sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD—Compliance Time for Initial Inspection Compliance time
  • (whichever occurs later, A or B)
  • A Before exceeding the compliance time “threshold” defined in table 1 of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable, depending on airplane utilization and configuration and to be counted from airplane first flight. B For Model A330 airplanes: Within 2,400 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
  • For Model A340 airplanes: Within 1,300 flight cycles or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
  • (1) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; as applicable, except where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight 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).

    (2) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, the hole diameter is not within tolerance of the transition fit as nominal, or first oversize, or second oversize, or next nominal, as applicable, and Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, Revision 01, dated April 17, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (3) Accomplishment of corrective actions, as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (4) Accomplishment of a repair on an airplane, as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane, unless the method approved in accordance with the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA indicates otherwise.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3215, dated June 21, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4215, dated June 21, 2013; as applicable.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Technical Disposition (TD) Reference LR57D11023360, Issue B, dated July 12, 2011.

    (i) 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 the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(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.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0136, dated June 13, 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-2016-9192.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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 October 12, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25352 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9317; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-029-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 42 airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases escaping from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9317; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; 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-2016-9317; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-029-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2016-0156, dated August 2, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Two cases were reported of uncommanded engine in-flight shutdown (IFSD) on DA 42 aeroplanes. Subsequent investigations identified these occurrences were due to failure of the propeller regulating valve, caused by hot exhaust gases coming from fractured engine exhaust pipes. The initiating cracks on the exhaust pipes were not detected during previous inspections, since those exhaust pipes are equipped with non-removable heat shields that do not allow inspection for certain sections of the exhaust pipe.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of IFSD or overheat damage, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI) developed an exhaust pipe without a directly attached integral heat shield that allows visual inspection over the entire exhaust pipe length. DAI issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 42-120 and relevant Working Instruction (WI) WI-MSB 42-120, providing instructions to install the modified exhaust pipes. As an interim measure, an additional bracket was designed to hold the exhaust pipe in place in case of a pipe fracture.

    For the reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of the exhaust pipes with pipes having new design, and prohibits (re)installation of the previous design pipes.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9317.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016. In combination, this service information describes procedures for replacing the exhaust pipes with exhaust pipes having a new design. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 130 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take the following to comply with the requirements of this proposed AD:

    It would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the installation of additional exhaust clamps required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $125 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators for the installation of additional exhaust clamps to be $27,300, or $210 per product.

    It would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the exhaust pipe replacement required by this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,990 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators for the exhaust pipe replacement requirement to be $302,900, or $2,330 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2016-9317; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-029-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 9, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA 42 airplanes, serial numbers 42.004 through 42.427 and 42.AC001 through 42.AC151, that have a TAE 125-02-99 or TAE 125-02-114 engine installed, are equipped with an exhaust pipe, DAI part number (P/N) D60-9078-06-01, or Technify P/Ns 52-7810-H0001 02, 52-7810-H0001 03, or 52-7810-H0001 04, and are certificated in any category.

    Note to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    Airplanes equipped with an exhaust pipe, DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01, are not affected by this AD.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 78: Engine Exhaust.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due to failure of the propeller regulating valve caused by hot exhaust gases escaping from fractured engine exhaust pipes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the propeller regulating valve, which could result in forced landing with consequent damage to the airplane.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions. For the purpose of this AD, if the flight hours accumulated since first installation of an affected exhaust pipe is not known, use the total hours time-in-service (TIS) accumulated on the airplane.

    (1) At whichever of the following compliance times that occurs later, install additional exhaust pipe clamps following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, as specified in the Accomplishments/Instructions paragraph of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016. The replacement required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD may be done in lieu of installing additional exhaust pipe clamps.

    (i) Before or upon accumulating 1,300 hours TIS since the affected exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane; or

    (ii) Within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (2) At whichever of the following compliance times that occurs later, replace the exhaust pipes listed in paragraph (c) of this AD with an exhaust pipe DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01. Do the replacement following the INSTRUCTIONS section of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016, as specified in the Accomplishments/Instructions paragraph of Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 42-120, dated June 24, 2016.

    (i) Before or upon accumulating 2,800 hours TIS since the affected exhaust pipe was first installed on an airplane; or

    (ii) Within the next 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (3) After installing an exhaust pipe DAI P/N D60-9078-06-01_01 or Technify P/N 52-7810-H0014 01, as required by this AD, do not install an exhaust pipe listed in paragraph (c) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0156, dated August 2, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9317. For service information related to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 17, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25655 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5045; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Drummond Island, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E en route domestic airspace at Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Drummond Island Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20591: telephone 1 800 617-5527, or 1 202 366-9826. You must identify the docket number FAA-2016-5045/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5045/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 17-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, Drummond Island, MI, excluding Canadian airspace. This action would contain aircraft while in IFR conditions under control of Minneapolis ARTCC by safely vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6006 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas. AGL MI E6 Drummond Island, MI [New] Drummond Island Airport, MI (Lat. 46°00′34″ N., long. 083°44′38″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 17-mile radius of Drummond Island Airport, excluding that airspace within Canada.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 11, 2016. Robert W. Beck, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25709 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [REG-134122-15] RIN 1545-BN09 Special Enrollment Examination User Fee for Enrolled Agents AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws a proposed regulation relating to the user fee for the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent. This document also proposes a new regulation to increase the user fee for the examination to recover the cost to the IRS of overseeing the administration of the examination. The withdrawal and proposal affect individuals taking the enrolled agent special enrollment examination. This document also contains a notice of public hearing on the new proposed regulation.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments must be received by December 27, 2016. Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for December 29, 2016, must be received by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134122-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134122-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-134122-15). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning this proposed regulation, Jonathan R. Black, (202) 317-6845 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number); concerning cost methodology, Eva Williams, (202) 803-9728 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Explanation of Provisions A. Enrolled Agents and the Special Enrollment Examination

    Section 330 of title 31 of the United States Code authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to regulate the practice of representatives before the Treasury Department. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 330, the Secretary has published regulations governing practice before the IRS in 31 CFR part 10 and reprinted the regulations as Treasury Department Circular No. 230 (Circular 230).

    Section 10.4(a) of Circular 230 authorizes the IRS to grant status as enrolled agents to individuals who demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination (Enrolled Agent Special Enrollment Examination (EA-SEE)) administered by, or under the oversight of, the IRS and who have not engaged in any conduct that would justify suspension or disbarment under Circular 230. There were a total of 51,755 active enrolled agents as of September 1, 2016.

    Starting in 2006, the IRS engaged the services of a third-party contractor to develop and administer the EA-SEE. The EA-SEE is composed of three parts, which are offered in a testing period that begins each May 1 and ends the last day of the following February. The EA-SEE is not available in March and April, during which period it is updated to reflect recent changes in the relevant law. More information on the EA-SEE, including content, scoring, and how to register, can be found on the IRS Web site at www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/enrolled-agents. The IRS Return Preparer Office (RPO) oversees the administration of the EA-SEE.

    B. User Fee Authority

    The Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) authorizes each agency to promulgate regulations establishing the charge for services provided by the agency (user fees). The IOAA provides that these user fee regulations are subject to policies prescribed by the President and shall be as uniform as practicable. Those policies are currently set forth in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 (OMB Circular), 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993).

    The IOAA states that the services provided by an agency should be self-sustaining to the extent possible. 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). The OMB Circular states that agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public are to establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing those services. The OMB Circular requires that agencies identify all services that confer special benefits and determine whether user fees should be assessed for those services.

    Agencies are to review user fees biennially and update them as necessary to reflect changes in the cost of providing the underlying services. During this biennial review, an agency must calculate the full cost of providing each service, taking into account all direct and indirect costs to any part of the U.S. government. The full cost of providing a service includes, but is not limited to, salaries, retirement benefits, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs, as well as an appropriate allocation of overhead and other support costs associated with providing the service.

    An agency should set the user fee at an amount that recovers the full cost of providing the service unless the agency requests, and the OMB grants, an exception to the full-cost requirement. The OMB may grant exceptions only where the cost of collecting the fees would represent an unduly large part of the fee for the activity, or where any other condition exists that, in the opinion of the agency head, justifies an exception. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency does not collect the full cost of providing the service and therefore must fund the remaining cost of providing the service from other available funding sources. When the OMB grants an exception, the agency subsidizes the cost of the service to the recipients of reduced-fee services even though the service confers a special benefit on those recipients who should otherwise be required to pay the full costs of receiving that benefit as provided for by the IOAA and the OMB Circular.

    C. The EA-SEE User Fee

    As discussed above, Circular 230 § 10.4(a) provides that the IRS will grant enrolled agent status to an applicant if the applicant, among other things, demonstrates special competence in tax matters by written examination. The EA-SEE is the written examination that tests special competence in tax matters for purposes of that provision, and an applicant must pass all parts of the EA-SEE to be granted enrolled agent status through written examination. The IRS confers a benefit on individuals who take the EA-SEE beyond those that accrue to the general public by providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate special competence in tax matters by passing a written examination and therefore satisfying one of the requirements for becoming an enrolled agent under Circular 230 § 10.4(a). Because the opportunity to take the EA-SEE is a special benefit, the IRS charges a user fee to take the examination.

    Pursuant to the guidelines in the OMB Circular, the IRS has calculated its cost of providing examination services under the enrolled agent program. The proposed user fee will be implemented under the authority of the IOAA and the OMB Circular and will recover the full cost of overseeing the program. The current user fee is $11 to take each part of the EA-SEE. The contractor who administers the EA-SEE also charges individuals taking the EA-SEE an additional fee for its services. For the May 2016 to February 2017 testing period, the contractor's fee is $98 for each part of the EA-SEE. For the March 2017 to February 2019 testing periods, the contractor's fee will be $100.94. For the March 2019 to February 2020 testing period, the contractor's fee will be $103.97. The fee charged by the contractor is fixed by the current contract terms and therefore may not be reduced or renegotiated at this time. The contract will expire on February 29, 2020. The contract was subject to public procurement procedures, and there were no tenders that were more competitive.

    The IRS has not increased the EA-SEE user fee since 2006, when it published the existing user fee regulation. Since that time, the costs incurred by the IRS to implement the EA-SEE program have increased. The IRS has recently gathered sufficient data to reliably estimate the IRS's current costs in implementing the EA-SEE program as described in the costing analysis contained in this preamble.

    The increased costs require an increase in the EA-SEE user fee. The increased costs are primarily attributable to the following: (1) The cost for background checks required under Publication 4812, “Contractor Security Controls,” for individuals working at the contractor's testing centers increased by $289,000 per year; (2) the IRS estimates that the contractor will administer 12,000 fewer parts of the EA-SEE per year than the estimated 34,000 used to calculate the $11 fee, and the total costs are therefore being recovered from fewer individuals; and (3) the IRS's costs of verifying the contractor's compliance with the information technology security requirements necessary to protect the personally identifiable information of individuals taking the EA-SEE have increased, because Publication 4812 has strengthened those requirements.

    In addition, the scope of the work performed to oversee the contract has expanded beyond what it was in 2006. The proposed fee more accurately accounts for the time and personnel necessary to oversee the development and administration of the EA-SEE and to ensure the contractor complies with the terms of its contract. The IRS's costs for oversight now include costs associated with: (1) Review and approval of materials used by the contractor in developing the EA-SEE; (2) review of surveys of existing enrolled agents, which help to determine the topics to be covered in the EA-SEE; (3) composition of potential EA-SEE questions in coordination with the contractor's external tax law experts; (4) Office of Chief Counsel review and revision of the potential questions for legal accuracy; and (5) analysis of the answers and raw scores of a testing population to determine what should be a passing score.

    Further, the IRS's personnel ensure the contractor's compliance with its contract by reviewing the work of the contractor using an annual Work Breakdown Structure—a project management tool—and reviewing and verifying that the contractor is in compliance with its Quality Assurance Plan regarding customer satisfaction and accuracy. The IRS incurs additional costs associated with resolution of test-related issues such as cheating incidents, appeals regarding scores, refund requests, and customer service complaints that are not resolved at the contractor level.

    Taking into account the full amount of these costs, the user fee for the EA-SEE is proposed to be increased to $81 per part as of the testing period that begins on May 1, 2017. The IRS does not intend to subsidize any of the cost of making the EA-SEE available to examinees, and is not applying for an exception to the full-cost requirement from the OMB.

    D. Previous EA-SEE NPRM Is Withdrawn

    On January 26, 2016, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134122-15) proposing an increase to the EA-SEE user fee was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 4221). The January 26, 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to increase the EA-SEE user fee to $99 per part. The IRS has redetermined the user fee and now proposes to increase the user fee to $81 per part. The January 26, 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn.

    E. Calculation of User Fees Generally

    User fee calculations begin by first determining the full cost for the service. The IRS follows the guidance provided by the OMB Circular to compute the full cost of the service, which includes all indirect and direct costs to any part of the U.S. government, including, but not limited to, direct and indirect personnel costs, physical overhead, rents, utilities, travel, and management costs. The IRS's cost methodology is described below.

    Once the total amount of direct and indirect costs associated with a service is determined, the IRS follows the guidance in the OMB Circular to determine the costs associated with providing the service to each recipient, which represents the average per unit cost of that service. This average per unit cost is the amount of the user fee that will recover the full cost of the service.

    The IRS follows generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), as established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) in calculating the full cost of providing services. The FASAB Handbook of Accounting Standards and Other Pronouncements, as amended, which is available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/2015_fasab_handbook.pdf, includes the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government (SFFAS No. 4). SFFAS No. 4 establishes internal costing standards under GAAP to accurately measure and manage the full cost of federal programs. The methodology described below is in accordance with SFFAS No. 4.

    1. Cost Center Allocation

    The IRS determines the cost of its services and the activities involved in producing them through a cost accounting system that tracks costs to organizational units. The lowest organizational unit in the IRS's cost accounting system is called a cost center. Cost centers are usually separate offices that are distinguished by subject-matter area of responsibility or geographic region. All costs of operating a cost center are recorded in the IRS's cost accounting system and allocated to that cost center. The costs allocated to a cost center are the direct costs for the cost center's activities as well as all indirect costs, including overhead, associated with that cost center. Each cost is recorded in only one cost center.

    2. Determining the Per-Unit Cost

    To establish the per-unit cost, the total cost of providing the service is divided by the volume of services provided. The volume of services provided includes both services for which a fee is charged as well as subsidized services. The subsidized services are those where the OMB has approved an exception to the full cost requirement, for example, to charge a reduced fee to low-income taxpayers. The volume of subsidized services is included in the total volume of services provided to ensure that the IRS, and not those who are paying full cost, subsidizes the cost of the reduced-full cost services.

    3. Cost Estimation of Direct Labor and Benefits

    Not all cost centers are fully devoted to only one service for which the IRS charges a user fee. Some cost centers work on a number of different services. In these cases, the IRS estimates the cost incurred in those cost centers attributable to the service for which a user fee is being calculated by measuring the time required to accomplish activities related to the service and estimating the average time required to accomplish these activities. The average time required to accomplish these activities is multiplied by the relevant organizational unit's average labor and benefits costs per unit of time to determine the labor and benefits costs incurred to provide the service. To determine the full cost, the IRS then adds an appropriate overhead charge as discussed below.

    4. Calculating Overhead

    Overhead is an indirect cost of operating an organization that cannot be immediately associated with an activity that the organization performs. Overhead includes costs of resources that are jointly or commonly consumed by one or more organizational unit's activities but are not specifically identifiable to a single activity.

    These costs can include:

    • General management and administrative services of sustaining and supporting organizations

    • Facilities management and ground maintenance services (security, rent, utilities, and building maintenance)

    • Procurement and contracting services

    • Financial management and accounting services

    • Information technology services

    • Services to acquire and operate property, plants and equipment

    • Publication, reproduction, and graphics and video services

    • Research, analytical, and statistical services

    • Human resources/personnel services

    • Library and legal services

    To calculate the overhead allocable to a service, the IRS first calculates the Corporate Overhead rate and then multiplies the Corporate Overhead rate by the direct labor and benefits costs determined as discussed above. The IRS calculates the Corporate Overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the Statement of Net Cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office. The Corporate Overhead rate is the ratio of the sum of the IRS's indirect labor and benefits costs from the supporting and sustaining organizational units—those that do not interact directly with taxpayers—and all non-labor costs to the IRS's labor and benefits costs of its organizational units that interact directly with taxpayers.

    The Corporate Overhead rate of 65.85 percent for costs reviewed during FY 2015 was calculated based on FY 2014 costs as follows:

    Indirect Labor and Benefits Costs $1,693,339,843.

    Non-Labor Costs + $2,832,262,970.

    Total Indirect Costs $4,525,602,813.

    Direct Labor and Benefits Costs ÷ $6,872,934,473.

    Corporate Overhead Rate 65.85%.

    F. Calculation of the EA-SEE User Fee 1. Cost Estimate

    The RPO is the only organization involved in overseeing the administration of the EA-SEE. The cost centers within the RPO support multiple programs and are not solely dedicated to the EA-SEE. The RPO, however, has a staff of only ten people who devote time to oversee the administration of the EA-SEE program. Because there are only a few individuals who directly handle oversight of the EA-SEE, the IRS projected the estimated costs of direct labor and benefits based on the actual labor and benefits of these specific individuals reduced to reflect the percentage of time each individual spends overseeing the EA-SEE program. The RPO's managers are able to estimate the percentage of time these employees devote to overseeing the EA-SEE program based on their knowledge of actual program assignments. Of the ten people, eight devote seventy-five percent or more of their time to EA-SEE-related activities, and two devote approximately ten percent of their time to EA-SEE-related activities.

    The baseline for the labor and benefits estimate was the actual labor and benefits for the ten personnel for Fiscal Year 2015. From this baseline, the IRS estimated the direct labor and benefits costs over the next three years using an inflation factor for Fiscal Years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The IRS used a three year projection because the increase in future labor and benefits costs are reliably predictable representations of the actual costs that will be incurred by the RPO. These estimated direct labor and benefits costs were then reduced by the percentage of time each of the ten individuals devoted to the EA-SEE program and are set out in the following table:

    Year Estimated
  • direct labor
  • and benefits
  • costs
  • 2016 $912,180 2017 921,302 2018 930,515 Total 2,763,997

    The total estimated direct labor and benefits costs for the three years is $2,763,997. After estimating the direct total labor and benefits, the IRS applied the Fiscal Year 2015 Corporate Overhead rate of 65.85 percent to the estimated direct labor and benefits to calculate indirect costs of $1,820,092, for a total labor and benefits costs for the three year period of $4,584,089.

    The EA-SEE program incurs a cost for required background investigations performed on the employees of the contractor that administers the EA-SEE. The background investigations are not performed by the RPO, so the cost of the background investigations is not included in the direct labor and benefits costs calculated above for the ten RPO employees. The contractor administers the EA-SEE at approximately 260 domestic locations, and each employee at these locations must undergo a background investigation in order to administer the EA-SEE. The contractor's employees are typically short-term or seasonal workers, so the IRS must perform background investigations on new employees on a continuing basis. Where permissible, the IRS will piggyback on previously completed background investigations. Typically, the IRS may rely on another government agency's background investigation for up to two years from the date the prior investigation was completed. However, investigations performed by other organizations for the contractor's employees generally cannot supplant the need for the IRS to perform its own investigations because the IRS's background investigations include, among other elements, federal tax compliance checks, which are not necessarily part of investigations performed by other organizations. The EA-SEE is the only exam that the contractor administers on behalf of the IRS, so the contractor's new hires typically have not undergone a background investigation performed by the IRS prior to being hired.

    The IRS estimated the cost for background investigations using historical costs from the years 2012 through 2014. The IRS cannot forecast the future costs of background investigations with the same certainty as it can forecast labor and benefits, and it therefore used a historical three year average to estimate the background investigation costs. The IRS did not include the historical background investigation cost from 2015 in the historical average because 2014 was the most recent year for which information was available at the time the IRS initiated this project to update the user fee.

    The cost for background investigations for the contractor was an average of $289,000 per year for the years 2012 through 2014, calculated as follows: The costs of all background investigations incurred on behalf of the RPO were $294,000, $259,000, and $409,000 in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively, for a $321,000 yearly average. Ninety percent of these background investigations were for the contractor who administers the EA-SEE. The other ten percent of these background investigations did not relate to the EA-SEE, so the IRS multiplied the $321,000 yearly average cost of background investigations by the ninety percent allocable to the contractor. The resulting average annual cost for EA-SEE background investigations for each year of the three year period was $289,000, with a total cost of $867,000. The IRS used the historical cost totals as the estimate of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 background investigations costs. Because background investigation costs may not increase as predictably as labor and benefits costs, the IRS did not apply an inflation factor.

    The calculation of the total cost of the EA-SEE program for 2016 through 2018 is below:

    Direct Labor and Benefits $2,763,997.

    Corporate Overhead at 65.85% $1,820,092.

    Subtotal $4,584,089.

    Background Checks $867,000.

    Total EA-SEE Cost $5,451,089.

    2. Volume of Examinations

    The number of examinations provided during Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 23,985, 23,110, and 20,180, respectively. As with the cost of background investigations, the number of examinations administered in 2015 was not available at the time this project was initiated, and the IRS therefore did not include it in the calculation. The total number of examinations for the three years was 67,275. The IRS used this historical three-year volume to estimate the number of examinations it expects to provide in 2016, 2017, and 2018.

    3. Unit Cost Per Examination

    The IRS divided the three year total EA-SEE program costs by the total volume of examinations expected over the same three year period to determine a unit cost per examination of $81.

    Total EA-SEE Cost $5,450,089.

    Volume ÷ 67,275.

    Unit Cost $81.

    Special Analyses

    Certain Treasury regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the information that follows. The user fee primarily affects individuals who take the enrolled agent examination, many of whom may not be classified as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Therefore, a substantial number of small entities is not likely to be affected. Further, the economic impact on any small entities affected would be limited to paying the $70 difference in cost per part between the proposed $81 user fee and the existing $11 user fee, which is unlikely to present a significant economic impact. Moreover, the total economic impact of this proposed regulation would be approximately $1.57 million, which is the product of the approximately 22,425 parts of the EA-SEE administered annually and the $70 increase in the fee. Accordingly, the proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Public Hearing

    Before this proposed regulation is adopted as a final regulation, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in the preamble under the ADDRESSES section. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulation. All comments submitted will be made available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing has been scheduled for December 29, 2016, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. All visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or electronic comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by December 27, 2016. A period of 10 minutes will be allocated to each person for making comments.

    An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of this regulation is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.

    Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-134122-15) that was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016, (81 FR 4221) is withdrawn.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—USER FEES

    Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 9701.

    Par. 2. Section 300.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:

    § 300.4 Enrolled agent special enrollment examination fee.

    (b) Fee. The fee for taking the enrolled agent special enrollment examination is $81 per part, which is the cost to the government for overseeing the development and administration of the examination and does not include any fees charged by the administrator of the examination.

    (d) Applicability date. This section applies on and after the date of publication of a Treasury decision adopting this rule as a final regulation in the Federal Register.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25776 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 272 [EPA-R06-RCRA-2014-0791; FRL-9951-73-Region 6] Oklahoma: Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to codify in the regulations entitled “Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs”, Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that the EPA will enforce under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, commonly referred to as the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

    DATES:

    Send written comments by November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit any comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2014-0791, by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected] or [email protected].

    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, Permit Section (RPM), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, Permit Section RPM), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2014-0791. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this authorization and codification and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, phone number: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator, Permit Section (RPM), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Phone number: (214) 665-8533 or (214) 665-8178, and Email address: [email protected] or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register (FR), the EPA is codifying and incorporating by reference the State's hazardous waste program as direct final rule. The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this codification and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the direct final rule. Therefore, the purpose of this FR document is to codify Oklahoma's base hazardous waste management program and its program revisions through RCRA Cluster XXI (see 78 FR 32161) May 29, 2013. The EPA provided notices and opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to authorize the Oklahoma program, and the EPA is not now reopening the decisions, nor requesting comments, on the Oklahoma authorizations as published in the FR notices specified in Section B of the direct final rule FR document.

    This document incorporates by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and federally enforceable program. By codifying Oklahoma's authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of federally approved requirements of the Oklahoma hazardous waste management program.

    Dated: August 1, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25303 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 16-41; FCC 16-129] Promoting the Availability of Diverse and Independent Sources of Video Programming AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to adopt rules that prohibit certain practices some multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) use in their negotiations for carriage of video programming that may impede competition, diversity, and innovation in the video marketplace. Specifically, the document proposes to prohibit the inclusion of “unconditional” most favored nation (MFN) provisions and unreasonable alternative distribution method (ADM) provisions in program carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before December 27, 2016; reply comments are due on or before January 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 16-41, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy or Calisha Myers of the Policy Division, Media Bureau at [email protected], [email protected], or (202) 418-2120.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-129, adopted and released on September 29, 2016. The full text is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0929819517733/FCC-16-129A1.pdf. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    1. We propose to adopt rules that prohibit the inclusion of unconditional most favored nation and unreasonable alternative distribution method provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors.1 We seek comment below on our authority to adopt these rules pursuant to Section 616(a) of the Act, which directs the Commission to “establish regulations governing program carriage agreements and related practices between [MVPDs] and video programming vendors.” 2 We believe that our proposed rules will serve the objectives of Section 616 and the public interest by removing obstacles to enhanced competition, programming diversity, and innovation in the marketplace.

    1 The prohibitions we propose herein are targeted only at contract clauses that harm competition, diversity and innovation while providing no apparent public interest benefits. If these proposals are adopted, independent programmers and MVPDs would have latitude to include conditional MFN and reasonable ADM provisions in their carriage agreements.

    2 47 U.S.C. 536(a).

    2. Application to “Independent Video Programming Vendors.” We propose to apply the following rules to program carriage agreements between MVPDs 3 and “independent video programming vendors.” 4 In the NOI, we defined “independent programmer” as a programmer that is not vertically integrated with an MVPD.5 Several commenters pointed out, however, that for purposes of this proceeding, we should define that term more narrowly to exclude established programmers that control a significant share of the video programming marketplace and therefore have bargaining leverage in carriage negotiations. Given this, we seek comment on whether, for purposes of the proposed rules, the term “independent video programming vendor” should be defined more narrowly to reflect that certain large programmers that are not vertically integrated with an MVPD do not confront the same obstacles in securing carriage for their content as smaller or niche programmers.

    3Id. 522(13) (defining the term “multichannel video programming distributor” to mean “a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming”); 47 CFR 76.1000(e) (defining MVPD as “an entity engaged in the business of making available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming. Such entities include, but are not limited to, a cable operator, a BRS/EBS provider, a direct broadcast satellite service, a television receive-only satellite program distributor, and a satellite master antenna television system operator, as well as buying groups or agents of all such entities.”).

    4 Under this proposal, an “independent video programming vendor” would be a subset of the “video programming vendors” covered by Section 616 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 536. See also Liberman Broadcasting, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, MB Docket No. 16-121, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2016 WL 4494601, at *1. As noted in the NOI, we do not address in this proceeding issues relating to retransmission consent negotiations between MVPDs and broadcast stations. NOI, 81 FR at 10243, n.3.

    5Id. at 10243, n.4.

    3. For example, as suggested by ITTA, should we define an independent video programming vendor as a video programming vendor that is not affiliated with a broadcast network, movie studio or MVPD? Alternatively, or in combination with this approach, should we define an independent video programming vendor based on whether such vendor earns less than a threshold amount of annual gross revenue? If we were to define an independent programmer based on its annual gross revenue, what is the appropriate revenue threshold? Should we consider adopting a revenue threshold that is based solely on programming license fees and/or advertising revenue? Or are there other sources of revenue that we should consider? An alternative to using a threshold based on revenue is to define an independent programmer based on a programmer's total assets or a combination of revenue and total assets.6 Under this approach, what is the appropriate threshold for determining that a programming vendor is “independent,” and how should that threshold be calculated? If we were to define independent programmer based on its revenue and/or assets, should a programmer that is affiliated with a MVPD, a broadcaster, or another video programming vendor be attributed with the revenue and/or assets of such affiliated entities? 7 Or, instead, should we exclude from the definition any programmer that is affiliated with an MVPD, a broadcaster, or another video programming vendor, regardless of its annual revenue or total assets? We also seek comment on how a programmer could establish that it satisfies whatever definition of independent video programming vendor we adopt. In addition, we seek input on whether excluding larger programmers from the protections that would be afforded by our proposed rules would have any adverse impact on the video marketplace or consumers. To what extent are larger programmers subject to the types of contract provisions we are proposing to prohibit? Given the costs involved in bringing a complaint to the Commission, would larger programmers be more likely than smaller programmers to pursue relief through the filing of a complaint? We seek comment on any other potential way to define “independent video programing vendor” and on how any such definition would further the objectives of this proceeding. Finally, we seek comment on whether certain of the possible definitions of independent programmer would raise First Amendment concerns.

    6See 47 CFR 24.709(a)(1) (1994) (setting the threshold for small entities at an annual gross revenue of less than $125 million and total assets of less than $500 million).

    7 The Commission has stated that, for the purpose of determining whether a video programming vendor is affiliated with an MVPD under Section 616, it would apply the attribution standards applicable to its program access rules. Implementation of Sections 12 and 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming and Distribution, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2642, 2650, para. 19 (1993) (Program Carriage Second Report and Order).

    4. Prohibition on “Unconditional” MFN Provisions. We propose to adopt a rule that prohibits the inclusion of unconditional MFN provisions in carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors. For the purpose of applying this rule, we propose to define an unconditional MFN provision as “a provision that entitles an MVPD to contractual rights or benefits that an independent video programming vendor has offered or granted to another video programming distributor,8 without obligating the MVPD to accept any terms and conditions that are integrally related, logically linked, or directly tied 9 to the grant of such rights or benefits in the other video programming distributor's agreement, and with which the MVPD can reasonably comply technologically and legally.” 10

    8 The term “video programming distributor” as used herein includes both traditional MVPDs and alternative distributors of video programming, such as OVDs. See ACA August 26 Ex Parte Letter at 1, 8.

    9 The phrase “integrally related, logically linked, or directly tied” derives from DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in its review of the Charter Communications-Time Warner Cable (Charter-TWC) transaction. U.S. v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al., Proposed Final Judgment, Civil Action No. 16-cv-00759 at 5, Section IV.B.2.i. (2016) (DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment). The relevant merger condition, among other things, bars Charter-TWC from entering into any agreement with a video programmer that creates incentives to limit such programmer's provision of programming to OVDs, including agreements that entitle Charter-TWC to receive contractual benefits granted to an OVD “without requiring [Charter-TWC] to also accept any obligations, limitations, or conditions . . . that are integrally related, logically linked, or directly tied to the . . . grant of such . . . benefits.” Id. (emphasis added). DOJ used this phrase in crafting this condition because it found that such language is consistent with that contained in conditional MFN provisions industrywide. DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 17, n.8.

    10 The phrase “reasonably comply technologically and legally” also derives from DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in the Charter-TWC transaction. DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 6, Section IV.B.2.ii. The relevant provision, which DOJ also found to be consistent with conditional MFN provisions throughout the industry, generally relieves Charter-TWC from having to comply with related terms and conditions if it is unable to do so for technological or regulatory reasons. DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 17, n.8. See also DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 6.

    5. In proposing this rule, we acknowledge that MFN provisions, which have long been common in the industry, may have legitimate public interest justifications, such as facilitating efficient negotiations by enabling well-informed positions, encouraging investment in programming by enabling MVPDs to adjust contract terms after an initial agreement is executed, and broadening MVPD subscribers' access to video content by allowing MVPDs to secure additional rights to programming. However, we are not persuaded based on the record that such justifications exist for MFN provisions that are unconditional and thus permit “cherry picking” of the best contract terms. Because, as noted above, unconditional MFN provisions entitle an MVPD to the most favorable terms granted to other distributors without obligating the MVPD to provide the same or equivalent consideration in exchange for those terms, such provisions appear designed to discourage or foreclose the wider distribution of video content, including on online platforms.

    6. The record reflects, moreover, that this category of MFN provisions can apply upward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices for program content by reducing a programmer's incentive to cut its carriage rates to any one distributor out of fear that doing so would require it to reduce the rates charged to distributors with unconditional MFN status without receiving any reciprocal benefits. As a consequence, unconditional MFN provisions effectively limit the flexibility of content providers to enter into unique deals with new and emerging distributors, thereby impeding entry into program production and distribution marketplaces and reducing consumer choice.11 We also note that agreements resulting from the exercise of unconditional MFN rights may not reflect marketplace conditions because they disregard the balance struck in bilateral negotiations between the programmer and rival distributor. While some MVPDs generally defend MFN clauses on the basis that they provide certain pro-consumer benefits, no party has identified any public interest benefits that accrue from making such provisions unconditional. For these reasons, and consistent with conditions imposed by the Department of Justice in approving the Charter-TWC transaction,12 we tentatively conclude that the potential harms to competition, diversity and innovation resulting from unconditional MFN provisions outweigh any potential public interest benefits.13

    11See, e.g., Milunovich Remarks at 62:03; Newton Remarks at 130:30. See also Charter-TWC Order, 2016 WL 2858801, at *63, para. 221. The Commission has rejected the argument that MFN provisions included in agreements between cable operators and local franchising authorities reduce the incentives of a local franchising authority to agree to a more favorable deal with overbuilders new to the market. See, e.g., Implementation of Section 621(A)(1) of The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Order on Reconsideration, 30 FCC Rcd 810, 814 n.39 (2015). We note the distinction between the incentives and interests of government entities such as local franchising authorities (among them, public interest concerns such as consumer costs) and those of commercial programmers (for example, profit maximization). In the context of wireline competition, the Commission has concluded that allowing competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to cherry-pick terms and conditions of service from incumbent local exchange carriers' (ILECs) interconnection agreements with other ILECs impeded give-and-take negotiations between ILECs and resulted in “largely standardized agreements with little creative bargaining,” whereas requiring CLECs to accept all terms of an agreement between an ILEC and another party (“all-or-nothing” approach) would encourage ILECs to make trade-offs in negotiations that they were reluctant to make under the “pick and choose” approach. Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, Second Report and Order, 69 FR 43762, 43764, paras. 10-12 (July 22, 2004), aff'd, New Edge Network, Inc. v. FCC, 461 F.3d 1105, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2006).

    12See, e.g., DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 5, Section IV.B.2. But see AT&T-DIRECTV Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 9222, para. 237. Although the Commission, in the AT&T-DIRECTV merger proceeding, declined to adopt a transaction-specific condition due to the absence of a supporting record, we have since developed through the instant proceeding a record that demonstrates the competitive harms resulting from unconditional MFN provisions.

    13 As noted above, the record reveals no public interest benefits that result from unconditional MFN provisions.

    7. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on whether the purposes of Section 616 and the public interest would be served by adopting the proposed rule. In addition, we seek comment on our proposed definition of unconditional MFN provision and on any alternative definitions. Should we be concerned that the proposed definition is too narrow and thus would permit MVPDs to draft contract language that avoids application of the prohibition? If so, how should we address such concerns? Should any rules we adopt address MFN provisions that are partially unconditional or effectively discourage or foreclose wider distribution of content? We also seek input on our proposal to ban unconditional MFN provisions that entitle an MVPD to contractual rights that an independent programmer has negotiated with any other video programming distributor. Should we be uniquely concerned about the use of unconditional MFN provisions to harm competition from nascent OVDs? Accordingly, should we prohibit only unconditional MFN provisions that apply to terms an independent programmer has negotiated with an OVD? Recent merger conditions adopted in DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in the Charter-TWC merger have precluded only unconditional MFN provisions that apply to terms negotiated with OVDs.14 Should we take a similar approach in this proceeding, or is it in the public interest to prohibit unconditional MFN provisions that apply to a broader range of video programming distributors? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of the rules proposed above and any other rules that commenters assert would better serve the public interest. To the extent possible, commenters should quantify any identified costs and benefits. Are there any circumstances in which unconditional MFN provisions may be beneficial to competition or programming diversity? If so, are the potential public interest benefits of allowing such provisions outweighed by the benefits of our proposed prohibition?

    14 DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 5-6, Section IV.A-C.

    8. We also seek comment on which, if any, of the Commission's program carriage rules would need to be amended if we adopted the proposed rule.15 What remedies and penalties should we impose on an MVPD that violates the proposed prohibition on unconditional MFN provisions? 16 For example, would it be appropriate to order that the unconditional MFN provision would be unenforceable starting on the effective date of any new rule, or that it be replaced with a conditional MFN provision? 17 If we preclude MVPDs from enforcing unconditional MFN provisions in existing contracts, should we also afford parties some period of time to reform their contracts before the Commission will take enforcement action? To what extent, if at all, would costs, or other concerns, associated with pursuing a program carriage complaint affect the ability of independent programmers to obtain relief? Finally, we seek comment on what types of circumstances could justify waiver of a rule precluding the use of unconditional MFN provisions. Given the potential detrimental impact that such provisions have on competition, programming diversity and innovation in the marketplace, what, if any, situations would constitute “good cause” for permitting MFN provisions that otherwise would be precluded under our proposed rules? 18

    15 47 CFR 76.1300-1302. In particular, we seek comment on whether any rule revisions would be needed in addition to, or instead of, those set forth herein.

    16 We note that Section 616 of the Act and its implementing rules authorize the Commission to prescribe appropriate penalties and remedies, including carriage, for a violation of the program carriage provisions. See 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(5); 47 CFR 76.1302(j).

    17See DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 5, Section IV.A.

    18See 47 CFR 1.3.

    9. Prohibition on “Unreasonable” ADM Provisions. We also propose to adopt a rule that prohibits the inclusion of an unreasonable ADM provision in a carriage agreement between an MVPD and an independent video programming vendor. As with MFN clauses, we recognize that ADM provisions, which are a form of exclusivity, can have valid public interest justifications. For example, they may incentivize MVPDs to invest in new or emerging programming sources, including independent or niche content and/or content targeted to underserved audiences. We also recognize that, as with MFN provisions, the use of ADM clauses is a longstanding industry practice, and that there is a broad variety of ADM restrictions in programming contracts today. Based on the record, however, it appears that certain restrictive ADM provisions have no discernibly pro-competitive justifications and have an adverse impact on the provision of diverse programming sources to consumers. As DOJ has found, such provisions also “negatively affect OVDs' business models and undermine their ability to provide robust video offerings that compete with the offerings of traditional MVPDs,” 19 which can lead to “lower-quality services, fewer consumer choices, and higher prices.” 20

    19 DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 14.

    20Id.

    10. We tentatively conclude that in determining whether a particular ADM provision is “unreasonable,” we will consider, among other factors, the extent to which an ADM provision prohibits an independent programmer from licensing content to other distributors, including OVDs. Although the issue of whether a particular ADM clause is “unreasonable” would be fact-specific and determined in the context of a complaint proceeding brought under Section 616 of the Act under our proposal,21 certain ADM provisions appear unlikely to yield any procompetitive benefits that would outweigh the attendant public interest harms. Such ADM provisions include those that: (i) Bar an independent programmer from licensing content, for an extended time period or indefinitely, to an OVD that distributes content for free to consumers; 22 (ii) bar an independent programmer from licensing content, for any period of time, to an OVD that distributes content to paying subscribers; 23 (iii) bar an independent programmer from licensing content to an OVD unless or until the OVD meets conditions that are difficult to satisfy in a timely manner or are designed to undermine the OVD's ability to compete; 24 or (iv) provide for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary penalty or adverse impact on an independent programmer for the provision of its video programming to an OVD.25 We tentatively conclude that ADM provisions that include any of these factors should be deemed presumptively unreasonable.

    21 47 CFR 76.1302.

    22See DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 12.

    23 The only type of ADM provisions permissible under DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in Charter-TWC are those that restrict the free distribution of programming online. The Proposed Final Judgment therefore restricts all ADM provisions that apply to paid distribution online. DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 5-6, Section IV.B-C.

    24 DOJ cited this as another example of a problematic ADM provision in its review of the Charter-TWC transaction. For example, DOJ noted one instance in which an ADM clause in one MVPD's contract with a video programmer prohibited the programmer from licensing its content to any OVD unless the OVD offered a package that included 35 channels, including at least two channels each from three out of a list of six large programmers. DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 12, n.5. See also Richard Greenfield Remarks, Media Bureau Workshop on the State of the Video Marketplace, at 71:58 (Mar. 21, 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/03/media-bureau-workshop-state-video-marketplace#acc2.

    25 For example, such penalties could include rate reductions, re-tiering or repositioning penalties, termination rights for the MVPD, or loss or waiver of any rights or benefits otherwise available to the video programmer. DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 5, Section IV.B.1.

    11. We believe that our proposed rule, which proscribes only “unreasonable” ADM provisions, would ensure that MVPDs cannot use ADM provisions to harm the development of nascent competition, while preserving independent programmers' and distributors' respective incentives to develop quality program content and invest in independent and diverse programming sources. Or would prohibiting such ADM provisions make it less likely that MVPDs would agree to carry independent programmers or would seek to enter into exclusive programming agreements with them that would limit rather than expand their carriage opportunities? We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and proposed framework for determining whether an ADM clause is unreasonable. How should we define an “extended time period” for the purpose of our first proposal in the preceding paragraph? In addition, we seek comment on how an MVPD could rebut an independent programmer's showing that the ADM provisions noted above are unreasonable.

    12. In addition, we tentatively conclude that an ADM provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from distributing programming, for which the MVPD has agreed to pay, to consumers for free over the Internet for a limited period after the programming's initial airing on a linear MVPD service should be deemed presumptively reasonable. Establishing such a presumption would be consistent with conditions imposed in the Comcast-NBCU and Charter-TWC merger proceedings that permit the respective combined entities to prevent a programmer from making its content available on the Internet for free for 30 days after its initial airing, if such entities paid a fee for that content.26 We seek comment on this proposed presumption and on the time frame that should apply if we adopt it. Should it be presumptively reasonable for a carriage agreement to include an exclusivity window of 30 days vis-à-vis the free provision of programming online, or should the window be shorter or longer? Is allowing an MVPD to restrict free online distribution for 30 days generally consistent with industry practice? In addition, does a 30-day limit adequately balance our interest in ensuring ADM provisions do not inhibit the development of OVDs, while at the same time affording MVPDs a reasonable opportunity to protect their investment in high quality programming? Should the specified window (e.g., 30 days) apply only to certain types of programming (e.g., scripted programming)? Would a different time period be more reasonable in the case of “time sensitive” programming (e.g., live sports or news) that may lose its value to the public before thirty days after its initial airing?

    26Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company and NBC Universal, Inc. for Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4238, 4361, App. A, Condition IV.B.3.a. (Comcast-NBCU Order); DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 6, Section IV.C.1. In its review of the Charter-TWC transaction, DOJ explained that such limitations on free distribution were “ubiquitous in the industry” and that there was “no evidence that such provisions are harmful to competition.” DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 17. See also Comcast-NBCU Comments at 31.

    13. We also seek input on the type of evidence that would be needed to rebut a positive presumption. What type of showing should be sufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness? As an alternative to establishing rules based on presumptions, should we adopt a bright line rule that defines and expressly prohibits certain types of ADM provisions?

    14. We also tentatively conclude that an ADM provision that grants an MVPD the universally exclusive right to distribute an independent video programming vendor's content should be deemed presumptively reasonable. We recognize that this type of blanket exclusivity long has been common in the video programming industry and does not appear to raise the same competitive concerns as ADMs targeted at OVDs.27 This type of presumption also would be consistent with the conditions imposed by DOJ in the Charter-TWC merger proceeding.28 We seek input on this proposed presumption. What type of showing would be sufficient to overcome this presumption of reasonableness? As an alternative to establishing this presumption, should we deem an ADM provision that grants an MVPD the universally exclusive right to distribute independent programming content to be outside the scope of the proposed rule, and thus permissible?

    27AT&T-DIRECTV Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 9198, para. 179.

    28 DOJ Charter-TWC Proposed Final Judgment at 6, Section IV.C.2.

    15. We also seek comment on whether adoption of a rule prohibiting unreasonable ADM provisions and our proposed framework for the rule would warrant any rule revisions besides those set forth herein. In particular, which, if any, of the Commission's program carriage rules would need to be amended if we adopted the proposed rule? What remedies and penalties should we impose on an MVPD that violates the proposed prohibition on unreasonable ADM provisions? 29 For example, would it be appropriate for the Media Bureau to order that an unreasonable ADM provision not be enforced or be replaced with an ADM provision with reasonable terms? If we adopt rules prohibiting the use of certain types of ADM clauses, should we preclude MVPDs from enforcing existing contracts that include such a clause? If we preclude MVPDs from enforcing unreasonable ADM provisions in existing contracts, would it be necessary to require them to amend their contracts? If so, how much time should be afforded for these amendments?

    29 In implementing Section 616, the Commission stated that if it were to find that a carriage agreement “includes a coerced . . . exclusivity requirement in violation of Section 616, the appropriate remedy may simply be to determine that such terms are unenforceable by the [MVPD], and to revise the existing agreement, ordering carriage on the same terms negotiated in that agreement without the . . . coerced promise of exclusivity.” Program Carriage Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2653, n.47.

    16. To what extent, if at all, would the costs associated with pursuing a program carriage complaint affect the ability of independent programmers to obtain relief? We seek comment on the costs and benefits of the proposals above and any others that commenters assert would better serve the public interest. To the extent possible, commenters should quantify any identified costs and benefits. We also seek comment on whether there are any circumstances in which the kinds of ADM provisions we propose to prohibit are beneficial to competition or programming diversity. If so, are the potential public interest benefits of allowing such provisions outweighed by the benefits of a prohibition?

    17. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are other kinds of ADM provisions that we should deem to be presumptively reasonable or presumptively unreasonable. We also invite comment on what circumstances could justify waiver of a rule prohibiting the use of unreasonable ADM provisions in agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors. In light of the potential detrimental impact that unreasonable ADM provisions have on competition, diversity, and innovation in the marketplace, what, if any, situations would constitute “good cause” for permitting an MVPD to include in a carriage contract an ADM provision that otherwise would be precluded under our proposed rules?

    18. Additional Rules. We also seek comment on whether, if we were to adopt the rules proposed above, we should adopt additional provisions that protect against retaliation by MVPDs if independent programmers bring complaints with regard to unconditional MFN or unreasonable ADM provisions.30 Alternatively, should we consider adopting a rule that prohibits a broader range of retaliatory conduct by MVPDs, including retaliation against programmers that refuse to agree to unconditional MFN clauses, unreasonable ADM clauses, or other carriage-related demands? We note, for example, that conditions imposed in the Comcast-NBCU and Charter-TWC transaction proceedings include provisions that bar retaliatory conduct by the combined entities.31 Such rules also would be harmonious with Section 616(a)(2) and its implementing rules, which prohibit MVPDs from, among other things, retaliating against video programming vendors for failing to provide exclusive rights against other MVPDs as a condition of carriage.32 Parties urging the adoption of rules to address retaliatory conduct should specify the kinds of actions that should be restricted or prohibited. Should we adopt other rules designed to protect independent programmers from retaliation, such as rules that provide for a heightened level of confidentiality when a programmer brings a complaint to the Commission?

    30 We note that the Commission in 2011 proposed to amend its rules to prohibit an MVPD from, among other things, retaliating against a video programming vendor for filing a program carriage complaint if the effect of such conduct is to unreasonably restrain the ability of the video programming vendor to compete fairly. Revision of the Commission's Program Carriage Rules, MB Docket Nos. 07-42, 11-131, Second Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR 60675, 60692-94, paras. 60-67 (Sept. 29, 2011) (Program Carriage NPRM).

    31See Comcast-NBCU Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 4363-64, App. A, Condition IV.G.1.d.; id. at 4287, para. 121; DOJ Charter-TWC Competitive Impact Statement at 18-19.

    32 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(2); 47 CFR 76.1301(b). See also H.R. Rep. No. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 110 (1992) (House Report) (stating that “[t]he regulations [to implement Section 616(a)(2)] should be designed to prevent a cable operator from taking any kind of retaliatory action against a programmer for refusing to grant exclusivity to the operator”); H.R. Rep. No. 102-862, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 83 (1992) (Conference Report).

    19. We also seek comment on what, if any, additional rules we should consider to advance competition, diversity, and innovation in the marketplace. In particular, are there other specific actions we can take to provide greater opportunities for distribution of programming from new video programming vendors, including minorities and women, or programming directed at minority, underserved, or female viewers? Are there any actions we can take to protect consumers from programming disruptions resulting from an MVPD's decision to drop an independent video programmer from its lineup? For example, would the public interest be served, as RFD-TV suggests, by adopting a rule that permits MVPD subscribers to cancel, without penalty, a subscription television package within a specified time period, e.g., 90 days, after the MVPD has dropped such programmer from its lineup? 33 In addition, we seek comment on whether MVPDs engage in other negotiating practices that hamper the ability of independent programmers to secure distribution of their content. To the extent MVPDs engage in such practices, we seek comment on whether the public interest would be served by requiring MVPDs to negotiate carriage agreements with independent video programming vendors in good faith.34 We also seek further comment on bundling practices by video programming vendors.35 Specifically, how, if at all, do bundling practices affect MVPDs' ability to carry independent programmers? Is bundling by large programmers as widespread as some in the record suggest? Do small MVPDs face greater demands to accept bundles than large MVPDs? Do programmers act differently in their negotiations with buying groups, such as the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC), than they do in negotiations with MVPDs that negotiate on their own behalf? Do programmers insist on bundling even with respect to capacity constrained MVPDs, or do they provide relief for such systems? What is the impact of bundling on small MVPDs relative to large MVPDs? How does bundling impact consumer costs, choice, and access to diverse programming? Are there other marketplace conditions that magnify the effects (harmful or beneficial) of bundling?

    33 We note that the rules currently require customers to be notified of any changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions as soon as possible in writing, and with an advanced notice of 30 days or more if the change is within the operator's control. 47 CFR 76.1603(b).

    34 We note that in the 2011 Program Carriage NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a good faith negotiation requirement under Section 616 of the Act that would apply to vertically integrated MVPDs. Program Carriage NPRM, 76 FR at 60694-95, paras. 68-71.

    35NOI, 81 FR at 10244-45.

    20. Legal Authority. We seek comment on the Commission's legal authority under Section 616 of the Act 36 to adopt rules prohibiting the use of unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM provisions in program carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors, as proposed above. Section 616(a) provides, in relevant part, that “the Commission shall establish regulations governing program carriage agreements and related practices between cable operators or other [MVPDs] and video programming vendors.” 37 We believe this provision reasonably can be read to grant general rulemaking authority to the Commission to adopt a prohibition on unfair, unreasonable, and/or anticompetitive practices employed by MVPDs when negotiating carriage agreements, including the use of certain contract provisions in agreements with independent programmers.

    36 47 U.S.C. 536.

    37Id. 536(a). In addition, Section 616(b) defines the term “video programming vendor” as “a person engaged in the production, creation, or wholesale distribution of video programming for sale.” Id. 536(b).

    21. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the Commission's grant of authority under Section 616(a) to adopt rules “governing program carriage agreements and related practices between [MVPDs] and video programming vendors” is sufficiently broad to enable us to prohibit the use of unconditional MFN or unreasonable ADM provisions. As noted above, the rules we propose will apply to agreements between MVPDs and “independent video programming vendors,” which are encompassed within the term “video programming vendor.” 38 We believe these rules will advance Congress's intent in enacting Section 616 “to stem and reduce the potential for abusive or anticompetitive actions [by MVPDs] against programming entities.” 39 Congress expressed concern that MVPDs may be able “to extract concessions from programmers” which “could discourage entry of new programming services, restrict competition, impact adversely on diversity, and have other undesirable effects on program quality and viewer satisfaction.” 40 Consistent with the intent of Section 616, our proposals are designed to enhance competition in the video programming marketplace and are predicated on the belief that “competition is essential both for ensuring diversity in programming and for protecting consumers from potential abuses by cable operators possessing market power” and other MVPDs.41

    38 47 U.S.C. 536(b).

    39 House Report at 27.

    40Id. at 42-43.

    41Id. at 43.

    22. Some commenters argue that Section 616 is only a limited grant of authority to the Commission. For example, AT&T contends that the Commission has authority under Section 616 only to address conduct that violates one of three proscriptions set forth in the subsections of Section 616(a). Consistent with our previous determination that “[Section 616] does not preclude the Commission from adopting additional requirements beyond the six listed in the statute,” we are not persuaded that Congress intended to limit the Commission's regulatory authority to only those practices specifically listed in Section 616(a).42 The introductory language in Section 616(a) grants the Commission broad authority to “establish regulations governing program carriage agreements and related practices between cable operators and multichannel video programming distributors and video programming vendors,” and nothing in the statute expressly precludes the Commission from establishing rules besides those specifically listed.43 Furthermore, the subsections relating to substantive requirements, subsections 616(a)(1)-(a)(3), are introduced by the verbs “include” or “contain,” which suggests that such requirements are not exhaustive. Where Congress intends to limit the Commission's rulemaking authority to specified areas, it has done so expressly.44

    42Program Carriage NPRM, 76 FR at 60693, para. 65.

    43See generally 47 U.S.C. 536.

    44See, e.g., id. 613(f)(1), (2) (directing the Commission to reinstate its video description regulations adopted in Report and Order, 65 FR 54805 (Sept. 11, 2000), and to modify those rules “only as follows”).

    23. Although the first sentence of Section 616(a) directs the Commission to adopt implementing rules “[w]ithin one year after October 5, 1992,” 45 we do not believe that the timing requirement in Section 616(a) means that the Commission's rulemaking authority under that Section expired more than 20 years ago. As we have explained previously, the Commission's authority under a statutory provision does not expire when a statutory deadline for implementation passes.46 Indeed, the view that the Commission's authority expires with passage of a deadline would be at odds with judicial precedent regarding statutory deadlines, which are generally considered directory rather than mandatory.47

    45Id. 536(a).

    46Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules, First Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 746, 752, n.23 (2010), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, Cablevision v. FCC, 649 F.3d 695 (2011). See also Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17918, para. 767, n.1381 (2011); Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 260, 262 (1986); Gottlieb v. Peña, 41 F.3d 730, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

    47 We note that, although the Commission amended its program carriage rules several times after October 5, 1993, no party has challenged those actions on the grounds that the Commission lacked authority to adopt or revise such rules after that date.

    24. We also believe that our proposed rules are consistent with the overall structure and intent of Section 616(a). Although Sections 616(a)(1) and 616(a)(2) prohibit an MVPD from “requiring” or “coercing” programmers to accept certain terms as a condition of carriage on its systems,48 we do not believe that our rulemaking authority under Section 616(a) is limited to those practices delineated in the subsections. In any case, based on the record, we find that independent programmers generally do not agree to unconditional MFN or unreasonable ADM provisions voluntarily, but rather, are forced to accept such provisions because they lack sufficient bargaining leverage to resist MVPDs' demands for such provisions. Thus, we find it reasonable to conclude that independent programmers agree to unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM provisions only because MVPDs require them as a condition of carriage. We seek comment on this analysis. Does the use of the terms “requiring” and “coercing” in the subsections of 616(a) affect the scope of our rulemaking authority under this provision? We also seek comment on whether or to what extent Congress's particular concerns about vertical integration as expressed in Section 616's legislative history should factor into our determination about the scope of our authority to prohibit the use of unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM provisions under Section 616.49 In addition, we seek comment on any constitutional issues that we should consider in determining whether to adopt the proposed rules.

    48 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(1) through (a)(2).

    49See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 102-92, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., at 24-29 (1991) (Senate Report); House Report at 41.

    25. We seek comment on whether other provisions of the Act provide an alternative or an additional basis for the adoption of rules addressing restrictive MFN and ADM provisions. For example, does Section 616(a)(3) of the Act provide a basis for proscribing restrictive MFN and ADM provisions? Section 616(a)(3) directs the Commission to adopt rules “designed to prevent [an MVPD] from engaging in conduct the effect of which is to unreasonably restrain the ability of an unaffiliated video programming vendor to compete fairly by discriminating in video programming distribution on the basis of affiliation or nonaffiliation of vendors in the selection, terms, or conditions for carriage of video programming provided by such vendors.” 50 Is the Commission authorized under that provision, for example, to adopt rules that prohibit vertically integrated MVPDs from including unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM clauses in carriage agreements with independent video programming vendors, where such MVPDs do not include the same clauses in carriage agreements with affiliated programming networks? If so, would the application of such rules only to vertically integrated MVPDs adequately address the competition and diversity concerns raised by restrictive MFN and ADM clauses? Would a nondiscrimination requirement be effective given that an MVPD could enter into the same restrictive MFN and/or ADM provision with both the affiliated and unaffiliated programming network but simply not exercise its rights with respect to the affiliated network? To the extent that parties assert that Section 616(a)(3) authorizes adoption of the proposed rules, we seek comment on whether an independent video programming vendor would have ready access to the kind of information needed to prove unlawful program carriage discrimination under Section 616(a)(3), given that such clauses are contained in carriage contracts that are not generally subject to public disclosure.

    50 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(3).

    26. We also seek input on whether any provisions of Section 628 serve as a valid basis for establishing rules to address restrictive MFN and ADM provisions. Consistent with the goal of our proposed rules, we note that the purpose of Section 628 is to “increase[e] competition and diversity in the [MVPD] market . . . and to spur the development of communications technologies.” 51 In addition, Section 628(b) prohibits “a cable operator . . . or a satellite broadcast programming vendor [from engaging] in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the purpose or effect of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any [MVPD] from providing . . . programming to subscribers or consumers.” 52 And Section 628(c)(1) directs the Commission to “prescribe regulations to specify particular conduct that is prohibited by [Section 628(b)]” in order to “increase[e] competition and diversity in the [MVPD] market and the continuing development of communications technologies.” 53 Given that Section 628(b) appears to target only methods, acts, and practices that adversely affect MVPDs, can the Commission lawfully invoke this provision to proscribe, as an “unfair” method, act or practice, the use of certain MFN and ADM provisions in agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors? For example, could Section 628(b) be invoked based on evidence that such MFN and ADM provisions adversely affect small MVPDs? Given that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) carriers are not subject to the provisions of Section 628, would reliance on that provision to limit the use of restrictive MFN and ADM provisions lead to a disparity in regulatory treatment among MVPDs? Finally, we seek comment on whether there are other provisions of the Act that potentially vest the Commission with authority to adopt rules addressing restrictive MFN and ADM provisions.54

    51Id. 548(a).

    52Id. 548(b). The term “satellite broadcast programming vendor” means “a fixed service satellite carrier that provides service pursuant to Section 119 of title 17, United States Code, with respect to satellite broadcast programming.” Id. 548(i)(4); 47 CFR 76.1000(g).

    53 47 U.S.C. 548(c)(1).

    54 Although we suggested in the NOI that Section 257 of the Act could provide a basis for adopting such rules, we note that section 257(a) directs the Commission, among other things, to “complete a proceeding for the purpose of identifying and eliminating, by regulations pursuant to its authority under this Act (other than [Section 257]), market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services.” 47 U.S.C. 257(a) (emphasis added). We read this provision, therefore, to authorize the adoption of rules to eliminate the specified entry barriers only if such rules are expressly authorized by provisions of the Act other than Section 257. But see TheBlaze Comments at 10. We seek comment on our interpretation.

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    27. This document does not contain proposed new or revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified “information burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    A. Ex Parte Rules

    28. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.55 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (i) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (ii) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    55 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.

    B. Filing Requirements

    29. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    30. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.

    31. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    C. Additional Information

    32. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Raelynn Remy or Calisha Myers of the Policy Division, Media Bureau, at [email protected], [email protected], or (202) 418-2120.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    33. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),56 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).57 In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.58

    56 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 through 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA).

    57 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    58Id.

    A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    34. In the NPRM, we propose to adopt rules that prohibit certain practices used by some multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) in their negotiations for carriage of video programming that impede competition, diversity and innovation in the video marketplace. Specifically, we propose to prohibit the inclusion of:

    (i) “unconditional” most favored nation (MFN) provisions; and (ii) unreasonable alternative distribution method (ADM) provisions in program. B. Legal Basis

    35. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 616 and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 536, and 548.

    C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    36. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.59 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 60 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.61 A small business concern is one which: (i) Is independently owned and operated; (ii) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (iii) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.62 Below, we provide a list of such small entities.

    59 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

    60Id. 601(6).

    61Id. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” Id.

    62Id. 632.

    • Wired Telecommunications Carriers • Cable Television Distribution Services • Cable Companies and Systems • Cable System Operators • Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) • ServiceSatellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs) • Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service • Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service • Fixed Microwave Services • Open Video Systems • Cable and Other Subscription Programming • Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers • Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) • Competitive Local Exchange Carriers • Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) • Shared-Tenant Service Providers • Other Local Service Providers • Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals • Television Broadcasting D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    37. Reporting Requirements. The NPRM does not propose to adopt reporting requirements.

    38. Recordkeeping Requirements. The NPRM does not propose to adopt recordkeeping requirements.

    39. Other Compliance Requirements. The NPRM proposes to prohibit use of the following contract provisions in program carriage agreements between MVPDs and independent video programming vendors:

    • Unconditional MFN provisions; and

    • unreasonable ADM provisions.

    E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    40. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(i) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (iii) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (iv) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 63

    63 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (c)(4).

    41. Although the rules proposed in the NPRM would apply to all MVPDs, including those that are small, we do not believe such rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small MVPDs. The record indicates that small MVPDs do not appear to obtain the kinds of contractual restrictions the proposed rules would proscribe. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on what circumstances could justify waiver of the proposed rules. We note further that to the extent small MVPDs are aggrieved by contractual restrictions imposed by larger MVPDs, small MVPDs would have standing to seek relief by filing a program carriage complaint under our existing rules.64

    64 47 CFR 76.1302(a).

    42. With regard to the impact on other small video programming distributors (such as online video distributors), and small video programming vendors (including independent content creators), based on the record, such small entities generally would benefit from Commission action addressing unconditional MFN and unreasonable ADM provisions. Because such entities likely would support the rules proposed in the NPRM, we find that no further analysis of alternatives on their behalf is necessary.

    F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    43. None.

    44. We adopt this NPRM pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 616 and 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 257, 303(r), 536 and 548.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 76 as follows:

    PART 76 — MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 339, 340, 341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572 and 573.

    2. Section 76.1300 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g), and adding new paragraph (b) and paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 76.1300 Definitions.

    (b) Alternative distribution method provision. The term “alternative distribution method provision” means a provision that prohibits or restricts a video programming vendor from exhibiting its programming on alternative, non-traditional video distribution platforms for a specified period of time following the programming's original linear airing, or until certain conditions are met.

    (f) Unconditional most favored nation provision. The term “unconditional most favored nation provision” means a provision that entitles a multichannel video programming distributor to contractual rights or benefits that an independent video programming vendor has offered or granted to another video programming distributor, without obligating the multichannel video programming distributor to accept any terms and conditions that are integrally related, logically linked, or directly tied to the grant of such rights or benefits in the other video programming distributor's agreement, and with which the multichannel video programming distributor can reasonably comply technologically and legally.

    3. Section 76.1301 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
    § 76.1301 Prohibited Practices.

    (d) Unconditional Most Favored Nation Provisions. No multichannel video programming distributor shall enter into an agreement with an independent video programming vendor that contains an unconditional most favored nation provision.

    (e) Unreasonable Alternative Distribution Method Provisions. No multichannel video programming distributor shall enter into an agreement with an independent video programming vendor that contains an unreasonable alternative distribution method provision.

    (1) The following alternative distribution method provisions shall be deemed to be presumptively unreasonable:

    (i) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content, for an extended time period or indefinitely, to an online video distributor that distributes content for free to consumers;

    (ii) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content, for any period of time, to an online video distributor that distributes content to paying subscribers;

    (iii) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from licensing content to an online video distributor unless or until such distributor meets conditions that are difficult to satisfy in a timely manner or are designed to undermine such distributor's ability to compete; or

    (iv) A provision that imposes any pecuniary or non-pecuniary penalty or adverse impact on an independent video programming vendor for the provision of its video programming to an online video distributor.

    (2) The following alternative distribution method provisions shall be deemed to be presumptively reasonable:

    (i) A provision that prohibits an independent video programming vendor from distributing programming, for which the multichannel video programming distributor has agreed to pay, to consumers for free over the Internet for a limited period after the programming's initial linear airing; and

    (ii) A provision that grants a multichannel video programming distributor the universally exclusive right to distribute an independent video programming vendor's content.

    [FR Doc. 2016-25568 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 206 Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request October 20, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by November 25, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725-17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Title: Importation of Papaya from Colombia and Ecuador.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0358.

    Summary of Collection: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests new to the United States or not known to be widely distributed throughout the United States. The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56), prohibits or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations allow, under certain conditions, the importation of commercial shipments of fresh papaya from Colombia and Ecuador into the continental United States. These conditions for importation of papaya from Colombia and Ecuador include, but are not limited to, phytosanitary certificates, fruit fly trapping, trapping recordkeeping, grower registration and reinstatement of growers. Falling to collect this information would cripple APHIS' ability to ensure that papaya from Colombia and Ecuador are not carrying fruit flies.

    Description of Respondents: Federal Government; Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 158.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 371.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25740 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-831] Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Final Rescission of the Semiannual Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has conducted a new shipper review (“NSR”) of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. (“Huameng”) regarding the antidumping duty order on fresh garlic from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”). Based on our analysis of the comments received, we continue to find Huameng's sale is not bona fide. Consequently, the Department is rescinding this NSR.

    DATES:

    Effective October 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Carey, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3964.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On May 25, 2016, the Department published the preliminary results of this new shipper review.1 The Department conducted a verification of Huameng's questionnaire responses from September 19 to September 23, 2016, and issued a verification report on September 28, 2016.2 The review covers Huameng. The period of review (POR) is November 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Results, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, are found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.3

    1See Fresh Garlic From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Intent To Rescind the New Shipper Review of Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., 81 FR 33209 (May 25, 2016) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum to the File, “Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Jinxiang Huameng Import & Export Co., Ltd. in the New Shipper Review of Garlic from the People's Republic of China,” dated September 28, 2016 (Huameng Verification Report), at 6-7.

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, regarding “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Semiannual New Shipper Review on Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.” issued concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Department's Central Records Unit, located in room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is all grades of garlic, whether whole or separated into constituent cloves. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 0703.20.0000, 0703.20.0005, 0703.20.0010, 0703.20.0015, 0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 0711.90.6000, 0711.90.6500, 2005.90.9500, 2005.90.9700, and 2005.99.9700. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description is dispositive.

    4See the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Rescission of New Shipper Review

    As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and in the proprietary Huameng Bona Fides Memorandum 5 issued with the Preliminary Results, due to the totality of circumstances, including the atypical nature of the product that was sold, i.e., single-clove garlic, the lack of proof of payment by Huameng's U.S. customer for payment of all its contractual expenses per the sales terms and for its subsequent purchase of non-subject merchandise, and, other circumstances indicating that Huameng's business operations were not profitable, we continue to find that Huameng's sale is not bona fide within the meaning of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). As a result, we are rescinding the new shipper review of Huameng.

    5See Memorandum to Edward Yang, Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, “Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.,” dated May 17, 2016 (Bona Fide Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that are raised in the briefs and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is in the Appendix of this notice.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission of the NSR of Huameng, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise by Huameng. Cash deposits will be required for exports of subject merchandise by Huameng entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, at the PRC-wide rate.

    Assessment Instructions

    As the result of this rescission of the NSR of Huameng, the entries of Huameng covered by this NSR will be assessed at the cash deposit rate required at the time of entry, which is the PRC-wide rate.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary of Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Return or Destruction of Proprietary Information

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of business proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). We request timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: October 14, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1a: Whether the Price of Huameng's Garlic Was Indicative of a Bona Fide Sale Comment 1b: Evidence of Payment of Expenses Arising from the Transaction by Huameng's U.S. Customer Comment 1c: Whether the Transaction Was Made on an Arm's Length Basis Comment 1d: Whether Huameng's Business Operations Are Profitable Comment 1e: Whether the Sale of Single-Clove Garlic is Typical Comment 2: Whether Harmoni Qualifies as an Interested Party Comment 3: Whether Huameng is Entitled to a Separate Rate Comment 4: Whether Huameng Should Receive the PRC-Wide Cash Deposit Rate Comment 5: Whether Huameng is Eligible to Participate in the New Shipper Review 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-25675 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Executive Council Meeting AGENCY:

    Climate Program Office (CPO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) Program Office will hold an organizational meeting on October 27, 2016, to reconstitute the Executive Council.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Thursday, October 27, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. EST to 3:00 p.m. EST. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hall of States, Room 383/385, 444 North Capitol St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305. Email: [email protected]; or visit the NIDIS Web site at www.drought.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) was established by Public Law 109-430 on December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by Public Law 113-86 on March 6, 2014, with a mandate to provide an effective drought early warning system for the United States; coordinate, and integrate as practicable, Federal research in support of a drought early warning system; and build upon existing forecasting and assessment programs and partnerships. See 15 U.S.C. 313d. The Public Law also calls for consultation with “relevant Federal, regional, State, tribal, and local government agencies, research institutions, and the private sector” in the development of NIDIS. 15 U.S.C. 313d(c). As such, the NIDIS Program Office is working to reconstitute a NIDIS Executive Council.

    Status: This meeting will be open to public participation. Individuals interested in attending should register at https://joss.ucar.edu/meetings/2016/nidis-executive-council. Please refer to this Web page for the most up-to-date meeting times and agenda. Seating at the meeting will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Special Accommodations: This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations may be directed no later than 12:00 p.m. on October 24, 2016, to Elizabeth Ossowski, Program Coordinator, David Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305; Email: [email protected]

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will include the following topics: (1) an orientation around NIDIS, including its history and evolution, (2) connections between the NIDIS program and the aims of individual organizations/agencies represented on the Council, (3) updates to the implementation of the 2006 and 2014 NIDIS Public Laws, including the role of consultation in the development of NIDIS, (4) opportunities to strengthen the integration of information and activities that address drought and water scarcity, and (5) defining how the Executive Council will function.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Jason Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25676 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Amendment 14 Data Collection 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 27, 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 Daniel Luers, Greater Atlantic Region, Sustainable Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 282-8457, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resources.

    This collection requires vessel trip reports (VTRs) to be submitted weekly for all mackerel, squid, and butterfish permit holders. In addition, all limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders must maintain a VMS unit on their vessels and declare intent to target Atlantic mackerel or longfin squid and submit daily catch reports via VMS. They must also submit daily catch reports via VMS. Vessels that land over 20,000 lb of mackerel must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) via VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hours prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on their return trip to port, or if the vessel does not fish seaward of the VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hours prior to landing.

    This collection also requires limited access mackerel and longfin squid/butterfish moratorium permit holders to bring all catch aboard the vessel and make it available for sampling by an observer. If catch is not made available to an observer before discard, that catch is defined as slippage, and the vessel operator must complete a “Released Catch Affidavit” form within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip which details why catch was slipped, estimates the quantity and species composition of the slipped catch, and records the time and location of the slipped catch.

    Finally, this collection requires any vessel with a limited access mackerel permit intending to land over 20,000 lbs of mackerel to contact NMFS at least 48 hours in advance of a fishing trip to request an observer. Vessels currently contact NMFS via phone, and selection notices or waivers are issued by NMFS via VMS. If service providers are unable to provide coverage, an owner, operator, or vessel manager may request a waiver by calling the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information is submitted on paper, electronically or by telephone.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0679.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individual or households, state, local, or tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 426.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,751.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $642,311 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    Estimated Time per Response: Vessel trip reports, 5 minutes; VMS activity declarations, 5 minutes; released catch affidavit form, 5 minutes observer pre-trip notification of trip, 5 minutes; trip cancellation, 1 minute.

    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 20, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25734 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE938 Marine Mammals; File No. 20430 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that James Harvey, Ph.D., Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, California 95039, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct research on blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray (Eschrichtius robustus), and sperm (Physeter microcephalus) whales, and Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting File No. 20430 from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shasta McClenahan or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

    The applicant is requesting a five-year permit to conduct research on large whales and dolphins in California waters. The primary objectives of this research project are to: (1) Relate distribution and abundance of cetaceans with environmental factors, (2) determine diet and foraging behaviors as they exploit prey resources, (3) determine types of acoustic behavior of marine mammals and how acoustic signals are affected by anthropogenic factors, and (4) determine the movements of individuals or pods during migrations or within their home range. Research activities for large whales will include passive acoustics, behavioral observations, photography, video recording, biopsy sampling, collection of sloughed skin, attachment of suction cup or dart/barb tags, and tracking during vessel surveys. Research for Risso's dolphins will include passive acoustics, behavioral observations, and photo-identification. The number of species to be taken annually via tagging/biopsy/photo-identification are: 50/100/150 blue whales, 40/90/140 fin whales, 50/100/150 humpback whales, 160/210/260 gray whales, and 0/0/2,000 Risso's dolphins. Up to five sperm whales may be incidentally harassed and opportunistically photographed, annually. Up to 200 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), 20 harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii), 50 Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), 20 northern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis borealis), 10 harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), and 20 short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) may be harassed incidental to research activities.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25756 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE763 Marine Mammals; File No. 18879 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; withdrawal of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that Heather E. Liwanag, Ph.D. (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0401) has withdrawn an application for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) near McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Young or Amy Sloan, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 3, 2016, notice was published in the Federal Register (81 FR 51189) that a request for a permit to conduct research on Weddell seals had been submitted by the above-named applicant.

    The applicant has withdrawn the application from further consideration.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25764 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Herring Amendment 5 Data Collection 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 27, 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 Daniel Luers, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 282-8457, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a current information collection. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect information from users of the resources.

    Data collection for Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan requires renewal of Category E permits for limited access herring permit holders. This collection also requires herring carrier vessels that sell herring (rather than deliver those fish on behalf of a dealer for purchase) to obtain or maintain an At-Sea Atlantic Herring Dealer Permit. Vessels that have both an At-Sea Atlantic Herring Dealer Permit and a Federal fishing permit are required to fulfill the reporting requirements of both permits as appropriate.

    This collection has several vessel monitoring system (VMS) and vessel trip reporting (VTR) components. Category E vessels must submit daily VMS reports, weekly VTRs, and maintain a VMS unit on their vessels and declare intent to target Atlantic herring via VMS. This collection allows a vessel that opts to enroll as a herring carrier to do so via VMS rather than obtaining a letter of authorization (LOA). By declaring a herring trip via VMS, a vessel is exempt from daily VMS catch reporting, and is not bound by the 7-day enrollment period required by the herring carrier LOA. Vessels with limited access herring permits, Category E permits, and vessels declaring herring carrier trips via VMS also must give a pre-landing notification to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement via VMS. In addition, vessels are prohibited from turning off VMS units while in port. A vessel representative must request a letter of exemption (LOE) from NMFS to turn off its VMS if that vessel will be out of the water for more than 72 hours. A vessel owner is able to sign a herring vessel out of the VMS program for a minimum of 30 days by requesting and obtaining an LOE from NMFS. A vessel is not able to leave the dock unless the VMS unit is turned back on.

    This collection also requires that vessels with limited access herring permits, vessels with open access Category D permits that are fishing with midwater trawl gear in Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, vessels with open access category E permits, and herring carrier vessels contact NMFS at least 48 hours in advance of fishing to request an observer. Vessels currently contact NMFS via phone, and selection notices or waivers are issued by NMFS via VMS. Vessels with limited access herring permits, Category E permits, and vessels declaring herring carrier trips via VMS must notify NMFS via VMS of their intent to participate in the herring fishery prior to leaving port on each trip by entering the appropriate activity and gear codes in order to harvest, possess, or land herring on that trip.

    Additionally, this collection requires vessels issued limited access permits working cooperatively in the herring fishery to provide NMFS-approved observers with the estimated weight of each species brought on board or released on each tow.

    Finally, this collection requires that all herring vessels (i.e. any area throughout the EEZ, any gear type) bring all catch aboard the vessel and make it available for sampling by an observer. If catch is not made available to an observer before discard, that catch is defined as slippage, and the vessel operator must complete a “Released Catch Affidavit” form within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip which details why catch was slipped, estimates the quantity and species composition of the slipped catch, and records the time and location of the slipped catch.

    II. Method of Collection

    Information is collection on paper forms, by telephone, or electronically.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0674.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (extension of a current information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individual or households, state, local, or tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,065.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,231.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $46,877 in recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    Estimated Time per Response: Category E permit renewal, 1 minute; At-Sea Herring Dealer Permit renewal, 5 minutes; weekly dealer reports, 15 minutes; VMS activity declarations, 5 minutes; VMS power-down exemption letter, 5 minutes; VMS pre-landing notification and gear declaration, 5 minutes; catch reports and vessel trip reports, 5 minutes; request for an observer prior to a trip, 5 minutes; cancellation of trip, 1 minute; estimate of catch/discard provision, 1 minute; documentation of slippage, 5 minutes.

    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 20, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25733 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2016-0040] Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) is soliciting public feedback as part of an effort to reevaluate its examination time goals. Examination time goals vary by technology and represent the average amount of time that a patent examiner is expected to spend examining a patent application in a particular technology. The Office plans to use the public feedback as an input to help ensure that the Office's examination time goals accurately reflect the amount of time needed by examiners to conduct quality examination in a manner that responds to stakeholders' interests. In addition to accepting public feedback through the submission of written comments, the Office will provide the following avenues for increased interactive participation: IdeaScale®, a Web-based collaboration tool that allows users to post comments and interact with the posted comments of others; and five roundtables that the Office will be conducting in: Alexandria, Virginia; Detroit, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; and San Jose, California.

    DATES:

    Written Comments Deadline: To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent by electronic mail addressed to [email protected] Comments also may be submitted by postal mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

    Although comments may be submitted by postal mail, the Office prefers to receive comments by electronic mail in order to facilitate posting on the USPTO's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). Electronic comments may be submitted in plain text, ADOBE® portable document format, or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format.

    The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's Internet Web site (http://www.uspto.gov). The comments also will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Commissioner for Patents, currently located in Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Because the comments will be made publicly available, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roundtable information, including roundtable registration information: Elizabeth Magargel, Strategic Planning Project Manager, Office of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, by telephone at (571) 270-7248.

    Written comments: Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7728.

    Examination time goals: Daniel Sullivan, Director Technology Center 1600, by telephone at (571) 272-0900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office has a staff of approximately 8,400 patent examiners who examine patent applications in hundreds of technology areas. Each technology area is assigned an examination time goal. The goals are used by the Office for a variety of purposes, including forecasting pendency and staffing needs and evaluating individual examiner performance. The goals originally were assigned over 40 years ago and have been adjusted twice.

    Since the examination time goals were originally assigned, significant changes to the examination process have occurred, including increased use of electronic tools, changes in law due to court decisions, a growing volume of prior art, and progress in technology, which results in increasingly complex subject matter in applications. In addition, the Office recently transitioned from the United States Patent Classification (USPC) system to the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. Because the current examination time goals were assigned based on the USPC system, implementation of the CPC system has caused the Office to reconsider and reassess the assignments of examination time goals. Furthermore, the Office is (i) implementing the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiatives in order to provide a higher quality examination to our stakeholders and (ii) assessing the relationship between examination time and value-added examination activities, such as best practices for enhancing the clarity of the record with respect to claim interpretation, interview summaries, and reasons for allowance. All of these factors warrant a reevaluation of the Office's examination time goals.

    To help inform public comments responsive to this request for comments (RFC), the Office has prepared background material illustrating the use of examination time goals in the context of individual examiner evaluation, and as an input into the model used to forecast pendency and hiring needs. These materials can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/eta-external-outreach.

    The Office has generated the following list of questions concerning examination time goals to further inform comments responsive to this RFC. Responders to this RFC can choose to address as many of these questions as desired. Responders are not limited to submitting information addressing the questions below. The Office welcomes any other comments on the topic of this RFC that may be informative, for example those that facilitate an understanding of the interests of stakeholders with respect to quality, pendency, and cost for services. A further area of inquiry seeks to shed light on other characteristics of patent applications, besides technological complexity, which lead to a more time-consuming examination.

    (1) Do you perceive a difference in the quality of examination performed in complex technologies compared to less complex technologies? If yes, which do you perceive as higher quality and why? In what aspect(s) is the quality of examination higher?

    (2) What factors do you consider when estimating the amount of time needed to take various steps in prosecution, such as preparing responses to Office actions or preparing for interviews? In particular, if you prosecute applications in a variety of technology areas, how do those factors vary among the technologies?

    (3) Are the applications you prosecute more or less complex than in the past, e.g., 10 years ago? What factors contribute to the increase or decrease in complexity? Do you believe the increase or decrease in complexity has affected the amount of time it takes to prosecute the applications? If so, by how much? Do you believe the increase or decrease in complexity has affected the quality of examination? If so, how?

    (4) In order to increase the quality of examination, do you believe that an increase in the time allotted for examination should be designated for specific activities, such as interviews, or left to the discretion of the examiner? What activities would you prioritize and allocate more time to?

    (5) Are there any portions of Office actions which you feel do not add value or quality to the examination? If yes, what are they?

    (6) What other activities beyond examining, such as research or training, could examiners spend time on that would add value? Why do you believe these activities could add value?

    (7) While the focus of this request for comments and the roundtables is to find the appropriate amount of time for examination, cost and pendency are also contributing factors. Do these factors raise a concern that should be considered?

    In addition to accepting public feedback through the submission of written comments, the Office will provide an avenue for interactive participation using IdeaScale®. IdeaScale® allows users to post comments on a topic, and view and respond to others' comments. Users also may vote to indicate agreement or disagreement with a particular comment. Information on how to use IdeaScale® to comment on examination time goals is available at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/eta-external-outreach.

    The Office also will provide an avenue for interactive participation by conducting five public roundtables. Information on the first two roundtables to be conducted, in Alexandria, Virginia, and Dallas, Texas, including locations, dates, and how to participate, is set forth below.

    Alexandria and Dallas Roundtable Registration Information: Roundtables will be conducted in Alexandria, Virginia, and Dallas, Texas, as detailed below. Registration is required, and early registration is recommended because seating is limited. There is no fee to register for either roundtable, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration on the day of either roundtable will be permitted on a space-available basis beginning 30 minutes before the roundtable.

    To register, please send an email message to [email protected] and provide the following information: (1) Your name, title, and if applicable, company or organization, address, phone number, and email address; and (2) which roundtable you wish to attend. Each attendee, even if from the same organization, must register separately. If you need special accommodations, e.g., due to a disability, please inform a contact person identified below.

    For more information on the Alexandria and Dallas roundtables, including the agenda for each roundtable and webcast access instructions for the Alexandria roundtable, please visit http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/eta-external-outreach.

    Alexandria Roundtable

    Alexandria Dates: Roundtable Date: The Alexandria roundtable will be held on Monday, November 14, 2016, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and ending at 11:00 a.m. EST.

    Registration Deadline: Registration to attend the Alexandria roundtable in person or via webcast is requested by November 7, 2016. See the “Roundtable Registration Information” section of this notice for additional details on how to register.

    Address of Alexandria Roundtable: The Alexandria roundtable will be held at USPTO Headquarters in the Madison Building, Madison Auditorium, Concourse Level, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

    Dallas Roundtable

    Dallas Dates: Roundtable Date: The Dallas roundtable will be held on Tuesday, November 29, 2016, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST) and ending at 12:00 p.m. CST.

    Registration Deadline: Registration to attend the Dallas roundtable is requested by November 22, 2016. See the “Roundtable Registration Information” section of this notice for additional details on how to register.

    Address of Dallas Roundtable: The Dallas roundtable will be held at the USPTO's Texas Regional Office in the Terminal Annex Federal Building, 207 S. Houston Street, Suite 159, Dallas, TX 75202.

    Detroit, Denver, and San Jose Roundtables

    Information on the roundtables to be conducted in Detroit, Michigan, Denver, Colorado, and San Jose, California will be provided at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/eta-external-outreach as soon as it becomes available.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Russell Slifer, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25758 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0093] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study: (BPS: 12/17) AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 25, 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-0093. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study: (BPS:12/17).

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0631.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 39,399.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 55,002.

    Abstract: The 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:12/17) is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED). BPS is designed to follow a cohort of students who enroll in postsecondary education for the first time during the same academic year, irrespective of the date of high school completion. The study collects data on students' persistence in and completion of postsecondary education programs; their transition to employment; demographic characteristics; and changes over time in their goals, marital status, income, and debt, among other indicators. Data from BPS are used to help researchers and policymakers better understand how financial aid influences persistence and completion, what percentages of students complete various degree programs, what are the early employment and wage outcomes for certificate and degree attainers, and why students leave school. This request is to conduct the BPS:12/17 full-scale data collection, including a student interview, file matching to various administrative data sources, and collection of corresponding postsecondary education transcripts and student records.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25732 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2016-ICCD-0079] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cash Management Contract URL Collection AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 25, 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-0079. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Cash Management Contract URL Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 914.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 73.

    Abstract: The Department of Education (the Department) is seeking a new OMB control number for the collection of URLs hosting institutional contracts and contract data relating to campus banking agreements. This is a new requirement of the final Program Integrity and Improvement regulations published on October 30, 2015. When the Department added the requirement for institutions to post campus banking agreement contracts and contract data to their Web sites, consumer advocates requested that a central repository for these web addresses be made publicly available for research and comparison purposes. This database will allow interested parties, such as students, families, press, institutions, and researchers to easily access and compare banking agreements available at different institutions.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25737 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair designee for the Department of Energy.

    This listing supersedes all previously published lists of Performance Review Board Chair.

    DATES:

    This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2016: Dennis M. Miotla.

    Issued in Washington, DC, October 18, 2016. Erin S. Moore, Director, Office of Corporate Executive Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25759 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Designation of Performance Review Board Standing Register.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice provides the Performance Review Board Standing Register for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of PRB members.

    DATES:

    This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2016.

    Beausoleil, Geoffrey Bremer, John Durant, Charles Dixon, Robert Furrer, Robin Grose, Amy Kaplan, Stan Lee, Terri Mays, Cyndi Moore, Johnny O'Konski, Peter Picha, Kenneth Purucker, Roxanne Robbins, Teresa Schreiber, Berta Smith, Kevin Snyder, Roger Tyner, Teresa Issued in Washington, DC, October 18, 2016. Erin S. Moore, Director, Office of Corporate Executive Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25760 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Supporting Clean Energy Startups—Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling Innovation AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Request for Information.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Technology-to-Market (T2M) team is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) on Supporting Clean Energy Startups—Industry and Investment Partnerships for Scaling Innovation. The purpose of this RFI is to gain public input on how T2M can best facilitate a more efficient clean energy innovation ecosystem in the U.S. T2M is looking to understand unaddressed challenges faced by early-stage clean energy start-ups and by the investors and industry partners that can help facilitate the transition of new technologies into the marketplace. The information being sought under this RFI is intended to assist EERE in further defining the scope and priorities of its initiatives.

    DATES:

    Written comments and information are requested on or before November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, which must be submitted electronically to [email protected] The complete RFI, including the list of specific questions and submission instructions, can be found at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be directed to Johanna Wolfson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-61, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-1040. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    None.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2016. Robert Dixon, Director, Office of Strategic Programs, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25763 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612; FRL-9954-48-OGC] Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“CAA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Air Alliance Houston, Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., Louisiana Bucket Brigade and Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (“Plaintiffs”), in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 1:16-cv-01998 (D.D.C.). On October 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint that EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under Clean Air Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that EPA failed to review and, if necessary, revise the emissions factor for volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) from flares at natural gas production facilities at least once every three years. The consent decree would require EPA to propose action by June 5, 2017, and take final action by February 5, 2018.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-1272; fax number (202) 564-5603; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would settle Plaintiffs' claims in a deadline suit alleging EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties pursuant to CAA section 130 to review, and, if necessary, revise the VOC emission factor for elevated flares and enclosed ground flares at natural gas production sites in the source category entitled “Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission and Distribution” (ONG source category) at least once every three years (“Natural Gas VOC emissions factor”). The proposed consent decree would require EPA, by June 5, 2017, to review and either propose revisions to the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or propose a determination under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor is not necessary. The proposed consent decree would also require EPA, by February 5, 2018, to issue final revisions to the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor under CAA section 130, or issue a final determination under CAA section 130 that revision of the Natural Gas VOC emissions factor is not necessary. EPA will post each proposed revision or determination (or combination thereof), and each final revision or determination (or combination thereof), on its AP-42 Web site (located at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors) on the dates indicated above. In addition, EPA will provide a copy of each such action to Plaintiffs' counsel within seven days of posting. Under the proposed consent decree, once EPA has met these obligations, and any claims by Plaintiffs for costs of litigation have been resolved pursuant to the process provided in the proposed consent decree, the court would dismiss the suit with prejudice.

    For a period of 30 days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines that consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

    II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0612 contains a copy of the consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select “search”.

    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

    B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (email) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an email comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 17, 2016. Gautam Srinivasan, Acting Associate General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25771 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9954-44-OLEM] Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 128(a); Notice of Grant Funding Guidance for State and Tribal Response Programs for FY2017 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will accept requests, from November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, for grants to establish and enhance State and Tribal Response Programs. This notice provides guidance on eligibility for funding, use of funding, grant mechanisms and process for awarding funding, the allocation system for distribution of funding, and terms and reporting under these grants. EPA has consulted with state and tribal officials in developing this guidance.

    The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of a response program and establishing a public record. Another goal is to provide funding for other activities that increase the number of response actions conducted or overseen by a state or tribal response program. This funding is not intended to supplant current state or tribal funding for their response programs. Instead, it is to supplement their funding to increase their response capacity.

    For fiscal year 2017, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will be available to provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out these grants.

    DATES:

    This action is effective as of November 1, 2016. EPA expects to make non-competitive grant awards to states and tribes which apply during fiscal year 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mailing addresses for EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters can be found at www.epa.gov/brownfields and at the end of this Notice. Funding requests may be submitted electronically to the EPA Regional Offices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, (202) 566-2745 or the applicable EPA Regional Office listed at the end this Notice.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information

    Section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, authorizes a noncompetitive $50 million grant program to establish and enhance state 1 and tribal 2 response programs. CERCLA section 128(a) response program grants are funded with categorical 3 State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) appropriations. Section 128(a) cooperative agreements are awarded and administered by the EPA regional offices. Generally, these response programs address the assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment of brownfields sites and other sites with actual or perceived contamination. This document provides guidance that will enable states and tribes to apply for and use Fiscal Year 2016 section 128(a) funds.4

    1 The term “state” is defined in this document as defined in CERCLA section 101(27).

    2 The term “Indian tribe” is defined in this document as it is defined in CERCLA section 101(36). Intertribal consortia, as defined in the Federal Register Notice at 67 FR 67181, Nov. 4, 2002, are also eligible for funding under CERCLA section 128(a).

    3 Categorical grants are issued by the U.S. Congress to fund state and local governments for narrowly defined purposes.

    4 The Agency may waive any provision of this guidance that is not required by statute, regulation, Executive Order or overriding Agency policies.

    The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance entry for the section 128(a) State and Tribal Response Program cooperative agreements is 66.817. This grant program is eligible to be included in state and tribal Performance Partnership Grants under 40 CFR part 35 Subparts A and B, with the exception of funds used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for brownfield remediation under section 104(k)(3); or purchase environmental insurance or developing a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a State or Tribal response program.

    Requests for funding will be accepted from November 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Requests EPA receives after December 31, 2016 will not be considered for FY2017 funding. Information that must be submitted with the funding request is listed in Section IX of this guidance. States or tribes that do not submit the request in the appropriate manner may forfeit their ability to receive funds. First time requestors are strongly encouraged to contact their Regional EPA Brownfields contacts, listed at the end of this guidance, prior to submitting their funding request. EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe for FY2017.

    Requests submitted by the December 31, 2016 request deadline are preliminary; final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional offices once final funding allocation determinations are made. As in previous years, EPA will place special emphasis on reviewing a cooperative agreement recipient's use of prior section 128(a) funding in making allocation decisions and unexpended balances are subject to 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518 to the extent consistent with this guidance. Also, EPA will prioritize funding for recipients establishing their response programs.

    States and tribes requesting funds are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their cooperative agreement's final package. For more information, please go to www.grants.gov.

    II. Background

    State and tribal response programs oversee assessment and cleanup activities at brownfield sites across the country. The depth and breadth of these programs vary. Some focus on CERCLA related activities, while others are multi-faceted, addressing sites regulated by both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Many states also offer accompanying financial incentive programs to spur cleanup and redevelopment. In enacting CERCLA section 128(a),5 Congress recognized the value of state and tribal response programs in cleaning up and redeveloping brownfield sites. Section 128(a) strengthens EPA's partnerships with states and tribes, and recognizes the response programs' critical role in overseeing cleanups.

    5 Section 128(a) was added to CERCLA in 2002 by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Brownfield Amendments).

    This funding is intended for those states and tribes that have the management and administrative capacity within their government required to administer a federal grant. The primary goal of this funding is to ensure that state and tribal response programs include, or are taking reasonable steps to include, certain elements of an environmental response program and that the program establishes and maintains a public record of sites addressed.

    Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional personnel will provide technical assistance to states and tribes as they apply for and carry out section 128(a) cooperative agreements.

    III. Eligibility for Funding

    To be eligible for funding under CERCLA section 128(a), a state or tribe must:

    1. Demonstrate that its response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements of a response program described in Section V of this guidance; or be a party to a voluntary response program Memorandum of Agreement (VRP MOA) 6 with EPA; AND

    6 States or tribes that are parties to VRP MOAs and that maintain and make available a public record are automatically eligible for section 128(a) funding.

    2. maintain and make available to the public a record of sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year and are planned to be addressed in the upcoming year (see CERCLA section 128(b)(1)(C)).

    IV. Matching Funds/Cost-Share

    States and tribes are not required to provide matching funds for cooperative agreements awarded under section 128(a), with the exception of section 128(a) funds a state or tribe uses to capitalize a Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF), for which there is a 20% cost share requirement. Section 128(a) funds uses to capitalize a RLF must be operated in accordance with CERCLA section 104(k)(3).

    V. The Four Elements—Section 128(a)(2)

    Section 128(a) recipients that do not have a VRP MOA with EPA must demonstrate that their response program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described below. Achievement of the four elements should be viewed as a priority. Section 128(a) authorizes funding for activities necessary to establish and enhance the four elements, and to establish and maintain the public record requirement.

    The four elements of a response program are described below:

    1. Timely survey and inventory of brownfield sites in state or tribal land. The goal for this element is to enable the state or tribe to establish or enhance a system or process that will provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely locations, and the general characteristics of brownfields sites in their state or tribal lands.

    EPA recognizes the varied scope of state and tribal response programs and will not require states and tribes to develop a “list” of brownfield sites. However, at a minimum, the state or tribe should develop and/or maintain a system or process that can provide a reasonable estimate of the number, likely location, and general characteristics of brownfield sites within their state or tribal lands. Inventories should evolve to a prioritization of sites based on community needs, planning priorities, and protection of human health and the environment. Inventories should be developed in direct coordination with communities, and particular attention should focus on communities with limited capacity to compete for and manage a competitive brownfield assessment, revolving loan, or cleanup cooperative agreement.

    Given funding limitations, EPA will negotiate work plans with states and tribes to achieve this goal efficiently and effectively, and within a realistic time frame. For example, many of EPA's Brownfields Assessment cooperative agreement recipients conduct inventories of brownfields sites in their communities or jurisdictions. EPA encourages states and tribes to work with these cooperative agreement recipients to obtain the information that they have gathered and include it in their survey and inventory.

    2. Oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms and resources. The goal for this element is to have state and tribal response programs that include oversight and enforcement authorities or other mechanisms, and resources to ensure that:

    a. A response action will protect human health and the environment, and be conducted in accordance with applicable laws; and

    b. the state or tribe will complete the necessary response activities if the person conducting the response fails to complete them (this includes operation and maintenance and/or long-term monitoring activities).

    3. Mechanisms and resources to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation. 7 The goal for this element is to have states and tribes include in their response program mechanisms and resources for meaningful public participation, at the local level, including, at a minimum:

    7 States and tribes establishing this element may find useful information on public participation on EPA's community involvement Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-community-involvement.

    a. Public access to documents and related materials that a state, tribe, or party conducting the cleanup is relying on or developing to make cleanup decisions or conduct site activities;

    b. prior notice and opportunity for meaningful public comment on cleanup plans and site activities, including the input into the prioritization of sites; and

    c. a mechanism by which a person who is, or may be, affected by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant at a brownfield site—located in the community in which the person works or resides—may request that a site assessment be conducted. The appropriate state or tribal official must consider this request and appropriately respond.

    4. Mechanisms for approval of cleanup plans, and verification and certification that cleanup is complete. The goal for this element is to have states and tribes include in their response program mechanisms to approve cleanup plans and to verify that response actions are complete, including a requirement for certification or similar documentation from the state, the tribe, or a licensed site professional that the response action is complete. Written approval by a state or tribal response program official of a proposed cleanup plan is an example of an approval mechanism.

    VI. Public Record Requirement

    In order to be eligible for section 128(a) funding, states and tribes (including those with MOAs) must establish and maintain a public record system, as described below, to enable meaningful public participation (refer to Section V.3 above). Specifically, under section 128(b)(1)(C), states and tribes must:

    1. Maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a public record that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions have been completed during the previous year;

    2. maintain and update, at least annually or more often as appropriate, a public record that includes the name and location of sites at which response actions are planned in the next year; and

    3. identify in the public record whether or not the site, upon completion of the response action, will be suitable for unrestricted use. If not, the public record must identify the institutional controls relied on in the remedy and include relevant information concerning the entity responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls; and how the responsible entity is implementing those activities (see Section VI.C).

    Section 128(a) funds may be used to maintain and make available a public record system that meets the requirements discussed above.

    A. Distinguishing the “Survey and Inventory” Element From the “Public Record”

    It is important to note that the public record requirement differs from the “timely survey and inventory” element described in the “Four Elements” section above. The public record addresses sites at which response actions have been completed in the previous year or are planned in the upcoming year. In contrast, the “timely survey and inventory” element, described above, refers to identifying brownfield sites regardless of planned or completed actions.

    B. Making the Public Record Easily Accessible

    EPA's goal is to enable states and tribes to make the public record and other information, such as information from the “survey and inventory” element, easily accessible. For this reason, EPA will allow states and tribes to use section 128(a) funding to make such information available to the public via the internet or other avenues. For example, the Agency would support funding state and tribal efforts to include detailed location information in the public record such as the street address, and latitude and longitude information for each site.8 States and tribes should ensure that all affected communities have appropriate access to the public record by making it available on-line, in print at libraries, or at other community gathering places.

    8 For further information on data quality requirements for latitude and longitude information, please see EPA's data standards Web site available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/datastds/findadatastandard/epaapproved/latitudelongitude.

    In an effort to reduce cooperative agreement reporting requirements and increase public access to the public record, EPA encourages states and tribes to place their public record on the internet. If a state or tribe places the public record on the Internet, maintains the substantive requirements of the public record, and provides EPA with the link to that site, EPA will, for purposes of cooperative agreement funding only, deem the public record reporting requirement met.

    C. Long-Term Maintenance of the Public Record

    EPA encourages states and tribes to maintain public record information, including data on institutional controls, on a long-term basis (more than one year) for sites at which a response action has been completed. Subject to EPA regional office approval, states or tribes may include development and operation of systems that ensure long-term maintenance of the public record, including information on institutional controls (such as ensuring the entity responsible for oversight, monitoring, and/or maintenance of the institutional and engineering controls is implementing those activities) in their work plans.9

    9 States and tribes may find useful information on institutional controls on the EPA's institutional controls Web site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/index.htm

    VII. Use of Funding A. Overview

    Section 128(a)(1)(B) describes the eligible uses of cooperative agreement funds by states and tribes. In general, a state or tribe may use funding to “establish or enhance” its response program. Specifically, a state or tribe may use cooperative agreement funds to build response programs that include the four elements outline in section 128(a)(2). Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

    • Developing legislation, regulations, procedures, ordinances, guidance, etc. that establish or enhance the administrative and legal structure of a response program;

    • establishing and maintaining the required public record described in Section VI of this guidance;

    • operation, maintenance and long-term monitoring of institutional controls and engineering controls;

    • conducting site-specific activities, such as assessment or cleanup, provided such activities establish and/or enhance the response program and are tied to the four elements. In addition to the requirement under CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii) to provide for public comment on cleanup plans and site activities, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed-especially from local communities with health risks related to exposure to hazardous waste or other public health concerns, those in economically disadvantaged or remote areas, and those with limited experience working with government agencies. EPA will not provide section 128(a) funds solely for assessment or cleanup of specific brownfield sites; site-specific activities must be part of an overall section 128(a) work plan that includes funding for other activities that establish or enhance the four elements;

    • capitalizing a revolving loan fund (RLF) for brownfields cleanup as authorized under CERCLA section 104(k)(3). These RLFs are subject to the same statutory requirements and cooperative agreement terms and conditions applicable to RLFs awarded under section 104(k)(3). Requirements include a 20 percent match (in the form of money, labor, material, or services from a non-federal source) on the amount of section 128(a) funds used for the RLF, a prohibition on using EPA cooperative agreement funds for administrative costs relating to the RLF, and a prohibition on using RLF loans or subgrants for response costs at a site for which the recipient may be potentially liable under section 107 of CERCLA. Other prohibitions relevant to CERCLA section 104(k)(4) also apply; and

    • purchasing environmental insurance or developing a risk-sharing pool, indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program.

    B. Uses Related To Establishing a State or Tribal Response Program

    Under CERCLA section 128(a), establish includes activities necessary to build the foundation for the four elements of a state or tribal response program and the public record requirement. For example, a state or tribal response program may use section 128(a) funds to develop regulations, ordinances, procedures, guidance, and a public record.

    C. Uses Related To Enhancing a State or Tribal Response Program

    Under CERCLA section 128(a), enhance is related to activities that add to or improve a state or tribal response program or increase the number of sites at which response actions are conducted under such programs.

    The exact enhancement activities that may be allowable depend upon the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. For example, regional offices and states or tribes may agree that section 128(a) funds may be used for outreach and training directly related to increasing awareness of its response program, and improving the skills of program staff. It may also include developing better coordination and understanding of other state response programs, (e.g., RCRA or Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)). As another example, states and tribal response program enhancement activities can also include outreach to local communities (e.g., distressed, environmental justice, rural, tribal, etc.) to increase awareness about brownfields, building a sustainable brownfields program, federal brownfields technical assistance opportunities 10 (e.g., holding workshops to assist communities to apply for federal Brownfields grant funding), and knowledge regarding the importance of monitoring engineering and institutional controls. Additionally, enhancement activities can include facilitating the participation of the state and local agencies (e.g., transportation, water, other infrastructure) in implementation of brownfields projects. States and tribes can also help local communities collaborate with local workforce development entities or Brownfields Environmental Workforce Development Job training recipients on the assessment and cleanup of brownfield sites.11 Other enhancement uses may be allowable as well.

    10 EPA expects states and tribes will familiarize themselves with U.S. EPA's brownfields technical assistance opportunities for brownfields communities. For more information on technical assistance opportunities, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields.

    11 For more information about EPA's Brownfields Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Program, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/types-brownfields-grant-funding.

    Note: EPA anticipates that states and tribes will work with their EPA Brownfields Area-Wide Planning, Assessment, Cleanup, and Revolving Loan Fund recipients to incorporate changing climate conditions in their reuse plans and clean up remedies, as appropriate.12

    12 For more information about EPA's Climate Adaptation Plan, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/climate-change-adaptation-plans.

    D. Uses Related to Site-Specific Activities 1. Eligible Uses of Funds for Site-Specific Activities

    Site-specific assessment and cleanup activities should establish and/or enhance the response program and be tied to the four elements. Site-specific assessments and cleanups can be both eligible and allowable if the activities is included in the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe, but activities must comply with all applicable laws and are subject to the following restrictions:

    a. Section 128(a) funds can only be used for assessments or cleanups at sites that meet the definition of a brownfields site at CERCLA section 101(39). EPA encourages states and tribes to use site-specific funding to perform assessment (e.g., phase I, phase II, supplemental assessments and cleanup planning) and cleanup activities that will expedite the reuse and redevelopment of sites, particularly those located in distressed, environmental justice, rural or tribal communities. Furthermore, states and tribes that perform site-specific activities should plan to directly engage with and involve affected communities. For example, a Community Relations Plan (CRP) could be developed to provide reasonable notice about a planned cleanup, as well as opportunities for the public to comment on the cleanup. States and tribes should work towards securing additional funding for site-specific activities by leveraging resources from other sources such as businesses, non-profit organizations, education and training providers, and/or federal, state, tribal, and local governments;

    b. absent EPA approval, no more than $200,000 per site assessment can be funded with section 128(a) funds, and no more than $200,000 per site cleanup can be funded with section 128(a) funds;

    c. absent EPA approval, the state/tribe may not use funds awarded under this agreement to assess and/or clean up sites owned or operated by the recipient or held in trust by the United States Government for the recipient; and

    d. assessments and cleanups cannot be conducted at sites where the state/tribe is a potentially responsible party pursuant to CERCLA section 107, except:

    • At brownfield sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or

    • when the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except in cases where the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

    Subawards are defined at 2 CFR 200.92 and may not be awarded to for-profit organizations. If the recipient plans on making any subawards under the cooperative agreement then they become a pass-through entity. As the pass-through entity, the recipient must report on its subaward monitoring activities under 2 CFR 200.331(d). Additional reporting requirements for these activities will be included in the cooperative agreement. In addition, subawards cannot be provided to entities that may be potentially responsible parties (pursuant to CERCLA section 107) at the site for which the assessment or cleanup activities are proposed to be conducted, except:

    1. At brownfields sites contaminated by a controlled substance as defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(I); or

    2. when the recipient would satisfy all of the elements set forth in CERCLA section 101(40) to qualify as a bona fide prospective purchaser except in cases where the date of acquisition of the property was on or before January 11, 2002.

    2. Limitations on the Amount of Funds Used for Site-Specific Activities and Waiver Process

    States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for site-specific activities that improve state or tribal capacity but the amount recipients may request for site-specific assessments and cleanups may not exceed 50% of the total amount of funding.13 In order to exceed the 50% site-specific funding limit, a state or tribe must submit a waiver request. The total amount of the site-specific request may not exceed the recipient's total funding level for the previous year. The funding request must include a brief justification describing the reason(s) for spending more than 50% of an annual allocation on site-specific activities. An applicant, when requesting a waiver, must include the following information in the written justification:

    13 Oversight of assessment and cleanup activities performed by responsible parties (other than the state or tribe) does not count toward the 50% limit.

    • Total amount requested for site-specific activities;

    • percentage of the site-specific activities (assuming waiver is approved) in the total budget;

    • site-specific activities that will be covered by this funding. If known, provide site specific information and describe how work on each site contributes to the development or enhancement of your state/tribal site response program. EPA recognizes the role of response programs to develop and provide capacity in distressed, environmental justice, rural or tribal communities, and encourages prioritization for site-specific activities in those communities. Further explain how the community will be (or has been) involved in prioritization of site work and especially those sites where there is a potential or known significant environmental impact to the community;

    • an explanation of how this shift in funding will not negatively impact the core programmatic capacity (i.e., the ability to establish/enhance the four required elements of a response program) and how the core program activities will be maintained in spite of an increase in site-specific work. Recipients must demonstrate that they have adequate funding from other sources to effectively carry out work on the four elements for EPA to grant a waiver of the 50% limit on using 128(a) funds for site-specific activities; and

    • an explanation as to whether the sites to be addressed are those for which the affected community(ies) has requested work be conducted (refer to Section VII.A Overview of Funding for more information).

    EPA Headquarters will review waiver requests based on the information in the justification and other information available to the Agency. EPA will inform recipients whether the waiver is approved.

    3. Uses Related to Site-Specific Activities at Petroleum Brownfield Sites

    States and tribes may use section 128(a) funds for activities that establish and enhance response programs addressing petroleum brownfield sites. Subject to the restrictions listed above (see Section VII.D.1) for all site-specific activities, the costs of site-specific assessments and cleanup activities at petroleum contaminated brownfield sites defined in CERCLA section 101(39)(D)(ii)(II), are both eligible and allowable if the activity is included in the work plan negotiated between the EPA regional office and the state or tribe. Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize a Brownfields RLF may be used at brownfield sites contaminated by petroleum to the extent allowed under CERCLA section 104(k)(3).

    4. Additional Examples of Eligible Site-Specific Activities

    Other eligible uses of funds for site-specific related include, but are not limited to, the following activities:

    • Technical assistance to federal brownfields cooperative agreement recipients;

    • development and/or review of quality assurance project plans (QAPPs); and

    • entering data into the Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) database

    E. Uses Related to Activities at “Non-Brownfield” Sites

    Other uses not specifically referenced in this guidance may also be eligible and allowable. Recipients should consult with their regional state or tribal contact for additional guidance. Costs incurred for activities at non-brownfield sites may be eligible and allowable if such activities are included in the state's or tribe's work plan. Direct assessment and cleanup activities may only be conducted on eligible brownfield sites, as defined in CERCLA section 101(39).

    VIII. General Programmatic Guidelines for 128(a) Grant Funding Requests

    Funding authorized under CERCLA section 128(a) is awarded through a cooperative agreement 14 between EPA and a state or a tribe. The program administers cooperative agreements under the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit requirements for Federal Awards regulations for all entity types including states, tribes, and local governments found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR part 200 and any applicable EPA regulations in Title 2 CFR Subtitle B—Federal Agency Regulations for Grants and Agreements Chapter 15 as well as applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 35 Subparts A and B. Under these regulations, the cooperative agreement recipient for a section 128(a) grant is the government to which a cooperative agreement is awarded and which is accountable for use of the funds provided. The cooperative agreement recipient is the legal entity even if only a particular component of the entity is designated in the cooperative agreement award document. Further, unexpended balances of cooperative agreement funds are subject to restrictions under 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518. EPA allocates funds to state and tribal response programs consistent with 40 CFR 35.420 and 40 CFR 35.737.

    14 A cooperative agreement is an agreement to a state/tribe that includes substantial involvement by EPA on activities described in the work plan which may include technical assistance, collaboration on program priorities, etc.

    A. One Application per State or Tribe

    Subject to the availability of funds, EPA regional offices will negotiate and enter into section 128(a) cooperative agreements with eligible and interested states or tribes. EPA will accept only one application from each eligible state or tribe.

    B. Maximum Funding Request

    For Fiscal Year 2017, EPA will consider funding requests up to a maximum of $1.0 million per state or tribe. Please note the CERCLA 128(a) program's annual budget has remained relatively the same since 2003 while demand has increased over time. Due to the increasing number of entities requesting funding, it is likely that the FY17 states and tribal individual funding amounts will be less than the FY16 individual funding amounts.

    C. Define the State or Tribal Response Program

    States and tribes must define in their work plan the “section 128(a) response program(s)” to which the funds will be applied, and may designate a component of the state or tribe that will be EPA's primary point of contact. When EPA funds the section 128(a) cooperative agreement, states and tribes may distribute these funds among the appropriate state and tribal agencies that are part of the section 128(a) response program. This distribution must be clearly outlined in their annual work plan.

    D. Separate Cooperative Agreements for the Capitalization of RLFS Using Section 128(A) Funds

    If a portion of the section 128(a) grant funds requested will be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund for cleanup, pursuant to section 104(k)(3), two separate cooperative agreements must be awarded (i.e., one for the RLF and one for non-RLF uses). States and tribes must, however, submit one initial request for funding, delineating the RLF as a proposed use. Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize an RLF are not eligible for inclusion into a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG).

    E. Authority To Manage a Revolving Loan Fund Program

    If a state or tribe chooses to use its section 128(a) funds to capitalize a revolving loan fund program, the state or tribe must have the lead authority to manage the program (e.g., hold loans, make loans, enter into loan agreements, collect repayment, access and secure the site in event of an emergency or loan default). If the agency/department listed as the point of contact for the section 128(a) cooperative agreement does not have this authority, it must be able to demonstrate that another state or tribal agency does have the authority to manage the RLF and is willing to do so.

    F. Section 128(a) Cooperative Agreements Can Be Part of a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG)

    States and tribes may include section 128(a) cooperative agreements in their PPG as described in 69 FR 51,756 (2004). Section 128(a) funds used to capitalize an RLF or purchase environmental insurance or develop a risk sharing pool, an indemnity pool, or insurance mechanism to provide financing for response actions under a state or tribal response program are not eligible for inclusion in the PPG.

    G. Project Period

    EPA regional offices will determine the project period for each cooperative agreement. These may be for multiple years depending on the regional office's cooperative agreement policies. Each cooperative agreement must have an annual budget period tied to an annual work plan. While not prohibited, pre-award costs are subject to 40 CFR 35.113 and 40 CFR 35.513.

    H. Demonstrating the Four Elements

    As part of the annual work plan negotiation process, states or tribes that do not have VRP MOAs must demonstrate that their program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described in Section V. EPA will not fund state or tribal response program annual work plans if EPA determines that these elements are not met or reasonable progress is not being made. EPA may base this determination on the information the state or tribe provides to support its work plan, on progress reports, or on EPA's review of the state or tribal response program.

    I. Establishing and Maintaining the Public Record

    Prior to funding a state's or tribe's annual work plan, EPA regional offices will verify and document that a public record, as described in Section VI and below, exists and is being maintained.15 Specifically for:

    15 For purposes of 128(a) funding, the state's or tribe's public record applies to that state's or tribe's response program(s) that utilized the section 128(a) funding.

    • States or tribes that received initial funding prior to FY16: Requests for FY17 funds will not be accepted from states or tribes that fail to demonstrate, by the December 31, 2016 request deadline, that they established and are maintaining a public record. (Note, this would potentially impact any state or tribe that had a term and condition placed on their FY16 cooperative agreement that prohibited drawdown of FY16 funds prior to meeting the public record requirement). States or tribes in this situation will not be prevented from drawing down their prior year funds once the public record requirement is met; and

    • states or tribes that received initial funding in FY16: By the time of the actual FY17 award, the state or tribe must demonstrate that they established and maintained the public record (those states and tribes that do not meet this requirement will have a term and condition placed on their FY17 cooperative agreement that prohibits the drawdown of FY17 funds until the public record requirement is met).

    J. Demonstration of Significant Utilization of Prior Years' Funding

    States and tribes should be aware that EPA and its Congressional appropriations committees place significant emphasis on the utilization of prior years' funding. Unused funds prior to FY16 will be considered in the allocation process. Existing balances of cooperative agreement funds as reflected in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse may result in an allocation amount below a recipient's request for funding or, if appropriate deobligation and reallocation by EPA Regions as provided for in 40 CFR 35.118 and 40 CFR 35.518.

    EPA Regional staff will review EPA's Financial Database Warehouse to identify the amount of remaining prior year(s) funds. The requestor should work, as early as possible, with both their own finance department, and with their Regional Project Officer to reconcile any discrepancy between the amount of unspent funds showing in EPA's system, and the amount reflected in the recipient's records. The recipient should obtain concurrence from the Region on the amount of unspent funds requiring justification by the deadline for this request for funding.

    K. Allocation System and Process for Distribution of Funds

    After the December 31, 2016, request deadline, EPA's Regional Offices will submit summaries of state and tribal requests to EPA Headquarters. Before doing so, regional offices may take into account additional factors when determining recommended allocation amounts. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the depth and breadth of the state or tribal program, and scope of the perceived need for funding (e.g., size of state or tribal jurisdiction or the proposed work plan balanced against capacity of the program, amount of current year funding, funds remaining from prior years, etc).

    After receipt of the regional recommendations, EPA Headquarters will consolidate requests and make decisions on the final funding allocations.

    EPA regional offices will work with interested states and tribes to develop their preliminary work plans and funding requests. Final cooperative agreement work plans and budgets will be negotiated with the regional office once final allocation determinations are made. Please refer to process flow chart below (dates are estimates and subject to change):

    EN25OC16.323 IX. Information To Be Submitted With the Funding Request A. Summary of Planned Use of FY17 Funding

    All states and tribes requesting FY17 funds must submit (to their regional brownfields contact, shown on the last page of this guidance) a draft work plan of the funds with associated dollar amounts. Please contact your regional contact listed on page 29 or visit www.epa.gov/brownfields/brownfields-comprehensive-environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act-cercla for a sample draft work plan.

    For entities which received CERCLA 128(a) funding in previous years, respond to the following:

    1. Funding Request

    a. Prepare a draft work plan and budget for your FY17 funding request. The funding requested should be reasonably spent in one year. The requestor should work, as early as possible, with their EPA regional program contact to ensure that the funding amount requested and related activities are reasonable.

    b. In your funding request, include the prior years' funding amount. Include any funds that you, the recipient, have not received in payments (i.e., funds EPA has obligated for grants that remain in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse). EPA will take into account these funds in the allocation process when determining the recipient's programmatic needs. The recipient should include a detailed explanation and justification of prior year funds that remain in EPA's Financial Data Warehouse. The recipient should consult with the region regarding the amount of unspent funds which require explanation to ensure they have addressed the full amount of any remaining balance.

    c. If you do not have an MOA with EPA, demonstrate how your program includes, or is taking reasonable steps to include, the four elements described in Section VI.

    For tribal entities which have never received CERCLA 128(a) funding, respond to the following:

    1. Funding Request

    a. Describe your plan to establish a response program, why it is a priority for your tribe, and why CERCLA 128(a) funding will be beneficial to your program. If your tribe is already supported by a tribal consortia receiving CERCLA 128(a) funding, explain why additional resources are necessary.

    b. Prepare a draft work plan and budget for your first funding year. The funding requested should be reasonably spent in one year. For budget planning purposes, it is recommended that you assume funding sufficient to support 0.5 staff to establish a response program and some travel to attend regional and national trainings or events.

    2. Programmatic Capability

    a. Describe the organizational structure you will utilize to ensure sound program management to guarantee or confirm timely and successful expenditure of funds, and completion of all technical, administrative and financial requirements of the program and cooperative agreement.

    b. Include a brief description of the key qualifications of staff to manage the response program and/or the process you will follow to hire staff to manage the response program. If key staff is already in place, include their roles, expertise, qualifications, and experience.

    c. Discuss how this response program fits into your current environmental program(s). If you don't have an environmental program, describe your process to develop, or interest to start one.

    d. Describe if you have had adverse audit findings. If you had problems with the administration of any grants or cooperative agreements, describe how you have corrected, or are correcting, the problems.

    X. Terms and Reporting

    Cooperative agreements for state and tribal response programs will include programmatic and administrative terms and conditions. These terms and conditions will describe EPA's substantial involvement including technical assistance and collaboration on program development and site-specific activities. Each of the subsections below summarizes the basic terms and conditions, and related reporting that will be incorporated into your cooperative agreement.

    A. Progress Reports

    In accordance with 2 CFR 200.328 and any EPA specific regulations, state and tribes must provide progress reports meeting the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement negotiated. State and tribal costs for complying with reporting requirements are an eligible expense under the section 128(a) cooperative agreement. As a minimum, state or tribal progress reports must include both a narrative discussion and performance data relating to the state or tribe accomplishments and environmental outputs associated with the approved budget and work plan. Reports should also provide an accounting of section 128(a) funding. If applicable, the state or tribe must include information on activities related to establishing or enhancing the four elements of the state's or tribe's response program. All recipients must provide information related to establishing or, if already established, maintaining the public record. Depending upon the activities included in the state's or tribe's work plan, the recipient may also need to report on the following:

    1. Interim and final progress reports. Reports must prominently display the following information as reflected in the current EPA strategic plan: Strategic Plan Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development; Strategic Plan Objective 3.1: Promote Sustainable and Livable Communities; and Work plan Commitments and Timeframes. EPA's strategic plan can be found on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html.

    2. Reporting for Non-MOA states and tribes. All recipients without a VRP MOA must report activities related to establishing or enhancing the four elements of the state's or tribe's response program. For each element state/tribes must report how they are maintaining the element or how they are taking reasonable steps to establish or enhance the element as negotiated in individual state/tribal work plans. For example, pursuant to CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(B), reports on the oversight and enforcement authorities/mechanisms element may include:

    • A narrative description and copies of applicable documents developed or under development to enable the response program to conduct enforcement and oversight at sites. For example:

    ○ Legal authorities and mechanisms (e.g., statutes, regulations, orders, agreements); and

    ○ policies and procedures to implement legal authorities; and other mechanisms;

    • a description of the resources and staff allocated/to be allocated to the response program to conduct oversight and enforcement at sites as a result of the cooperative agreement;

    • a narrative description of how these authorities or other mechanisms, and resources, are adequate to ensure that:

    ○ a response action will protect human health and the environment; and be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and state law; and if the person conducting the response action fails to complete the necessary response activities, including operation and maintenance or long-term monitoring activities, the necessary response activities are completed; and

    • a narrative description and copy of appropriate documents demonstrating the exercise of oversight and enforcement authorities by the response program at a brownfields site.

    3. Reporting for site-specific assessment or cleanup activities. Recipients with work plans that include funding for brownfields site assessment or cleanup must input information required by the OMB-approved Property Profile Form into the ACRES database for each site assessment and cleanup. In addition, recipients must report how they provide the affected community with prior notice and opportunity for meaningful participation as per CERCLA section 128(a)(2)(C)(ii), on proposed cleanup plans and site activities. For example, EPA strongly encourages states and tribes to seek public input regarding the priority of sites to be addressed and to solicit input from local communities, especially potential environmental justice communities, communities with a health risk related to exposure to hazardous waste or other public health concerns, economically disadvantaged or remote communities, and communities with limited experience working with government agencies.

    4. Reporting for other site-specific activities. Recipients with work plans that include funding for other site-specific related activities must include a description of the site-specific activities and the number of sites at which the activity was conducted. For example:

    • Number and frequency of oversight audits of licensed site professional certified cleanups;

    • number and frequency of state/tribal oversight audits conducted;

    • number of sites where staff conducted audits, provided technical assistance, or conducted other oversight activities; and

    • number of staff conducting oversight audits, providing technical assistance, or conducting other oversight activities.

    5. Reporting required when using funding for an RLF. Recipients with work plans that include funding for a revolving loan fund must include the information required by the terms and conditions for progress reporting under CERCLA section 104(k)(3) RLF cooperative agreements.

    6. Reporting environmental insurance. Recipients with work plans that include funding for environmental insurance must report:

    • Number and description of insurance policies purchased (e.g., name of insurer, type of coverage provided, dollar limits of coverage, any buffers or deductibles, category and identity of insured persons, premium, first dollar or umbrella, whether site specific or blanket, occurrence or claims made, etc.);

    • the number of sites covered by the insurance;

    • the amount of funds spent on environmental insurance (e.g., amount dedicated to insurance program, or to insurance premiums); and

    • the amount of claims paid by insurers to policy holders.

    The regional offices may also request that information be added to the progress reports, as appropriate, to properly document activities described by the cooperative agreement work plan.

    EPA regions may allow states or tribes to provide performance data in appropriate electronic format.

    The regional offices will forward progress reports to EPA Headquarters, if requested. This information may be used to develop national reports on the outcomes of CERCLA section 128(a) funding to states and tribes.

    B. Reporting of Program Activity Levels

    States and tribes must report, by December 31, 2016, a summary of the previous federal fiscal year's work (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016). The following information must be submitted to your regional project officer:

    • Environmental programs where CERCLA section 128(a) funds are used to support capacity building (general program support, non-site-specific work). Indicate as appropriate from the following:

    __Brownfields __Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks __Federal Facilities __Solid Waste __Superfund __Hazardous Waste Facilities __VCP (Voluntary Cleanup Program, Independent Cleanup Program, etc.) __Other________;

    • number of properties (or sites) enrolled in a response program during FY16;

    • number of properties (or sites) where documentation indicates that cleanup work is complete and all required institutional controls (IC's) are in place, or not required;

    • total number of acres associated with properties (or sites) in the previous bullet;

    • number of properties where assistance was provided, but the property was not enrolled in the response program (OPTIONAL);

    • date that the public record was last updated;

    • Estimated total number of properties (or sites) in your brownfields inventory;

    • Number of audits/inspections/reviews/other conducted to ensure engineering controls and institutional controls are still protective; and

    • Did you develop or revise legislation, regulations, codes, guidance documents or policies related to establishing or enhancing your Voluntary Cleanup Program/Response Program during FY16? If yes, please indicate the type and whether it was new or revised.

    EPA may require states/tribes to report specific performance measures related to the four elements that can be aggregated for national reporting to Congress.

    C. Reporting of Public Record

    All recipients must report, as specified in the terms and conditions of their cooperative agreement, and in Section VIII.I of this guidance, information related to establishing, or if already established, maintaining the public record, described above. States and tribes can refer to an already existing public record, e.g., Web site or other public database to meet the public record requirement. Recipients reporting may only be required to demonstrate that the public record a) exists and is up-to-date, and b) is adequate. A public record must, as appropriate, include the following information:

    A list of sites at which response actions have been completed in the past year including:

    • Date the response action was completed;

    • site name;

    • name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;

    • location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);

    • whether an institutional control is in place;

    • type of institutional control(s) in place (e.g., deed restriction, zoning restriction, local ordinance, state registries of contaminated property, deed notices, advisories, etc.);

    • nature of the contamination at the site (e.g., hazardous substances, contaminants or pollutants, petroleum contamination, etc.); and

    • size of the site in acres.

    A list of sites planned to be addressed by the state or tribal response program in the coming year including:

    • Site name and the name of owner at time of cleanup, if known;

    • location of the site (street address, and latitude and longitude);

    • to the extent known, whether an institutional control is in place;

    • type of the institutional control(s) in place (e.g., deed restriction, zoning restriction, local ordinance, state registries of contaminated property, deed notices, advisories, etc.);

    • to the extent known, the nature of the contamination at the site (e.g., hazardous substances, contaminants, or pollutants, petroleum contamination, etc.); and

    • size of the site in acres

    D. Award Administration Information 1. Subaward and Executive Compensation Reporting

    Applicants must ensure that they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the subaward and executive total compensation reporting requirements established under OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 170, unless they qualify for an exception from the requirements, should they be selected for funding.

    2. System for Award Management (SAM) and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Requirements

    Unless exempt from these requirements under OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 25 (e.g., individuals), applicants must:

    1. Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application or proposal under this announcement. SAM information can be found at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/;

    2. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an active federal award or an application or proposal under consideration by an agency; and

    3. Provide their DUNS number in each application or proposal submitted to the agency. Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711, or visiting the D&B Web site at: http://www.dnb.com.

    If an applicant fails to comply with these requirements, it will affect their ability to receive the award.

    Please note that the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM). To learn more about SAM, go to SAM.gov or https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/.

    3. Submitting an Application via Grants.gov

    If funding is provided it will be provided through a cooperative agreement award. All cooperative agreement applications for non-competitive assistance agreements must be submitted using Grants.gov. Below is the information that the applicant will use to submit their State and Tribal Response Program Grant applications via Grants.gov:

    CDFA number: 66.817.

    Funding Opportunity Number (FON): EPA-CEP-02.

    To learn more about the Grants.gov submission requirements, go to http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants_gov_submission_requirement.htm.

    4. Use of Funds

    An applicant that receives an award under this announcement is expected to manage assistance agreement funds efficiently and effectively, and make sufficient progress towards completing the project activities described in the work-plan in a timely manner. The assistance agreement will include terms and conditions related to implementing this requirement.

    Regional State and Tribal Brownfields Contacts Region State Tribal 1—CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT James Byrne, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR07-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone (617) 918-1389, Fax (617) 918-1294 AmyJean McKeown, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR07-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, Phone (617) 918-1248, Fax (617) 918-1294. 2—NJ, NY, PR, VI John Struble, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone (212) 637-4291, Fax (212) 637-3083 Phillip Clappin, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone (212) 637-4431, Fax (212) 637-3083. 3—DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV Michael Taurino, 1650 Arch Street (3HS51), Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone (215) 814-3371, Fax (215) 814-3274 4—AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN Nicole Comick Bates, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W, 10TH FL (9T25), Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Phone (404) 562-9966, Fax (404) 562-8788 Olga Perry, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W, 10TH FL (9T25), Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, Phone (404) 562-8534, Fax (404) 562-8788. 5—IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI Jan Pels, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (SB-7J), Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Phone (312) 886-3009, Fax (312) 692-2161 Rosita Clarke-Moreno, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (SB-7J), Chicago, IL 60604-3507, Phone (312) 886-7215, Fax (312) 697-2075. 6—AR, LA, NM, OK, TX Amber Perry, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 (6SF), Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Phone (214) 665-3172, Fax (214) 665-6660 Amber Perry, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 (6SF), Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Phone (214) 665-3172, Fax (214) 665-6660. 7—IA, KS, MO, NE Susan Klein, 11201 Renner Boulevard (SUPRSTAR), Lenexa KS 66219, Phone (913) 551-7786, Fax (913) 551-9786 Jennifer Morris, 11201 Renner Boulevard (SUPRSTAR), Lenexa KS 66219, Phone (913) 551-7341, Fax (913) 551-9341. 8—CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY Christina Wilson, 1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR-B), Denver, CO 80202-1129, Phone (303) 312-6706, Fax (303) 312-6065 Barbara Benoy, 1595 Wynkoop Street (8EPR-SA), Denver, CO 80202-1129, Phone (303) 312-6760, Fax (303) 312-6962. 9—AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP Eugenia Chow, 75 Hawthorne St. (SFD-6-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone (415) 972-3160, Fax (415) 947-3520 Jose Garcia, Jr., 600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1460, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone (213) 244-1811, Fax (213) 244-1850. 10—AK, ID, OR, WA Mary K. Goolie, 222 West 7th Avenue #19 (AOO), Anchorage, AK 99513, Phone ((907) 271-3414, Fax ( 907) 271-3424 Mary K. Goolie, 222 West 7th Avenue #19 (AOO), Anchorage, AK 99513, Phone ((907) 271-3414, Fax (907) 271-3424. XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 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). This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before certain actions may take effect, the agency promulgating the action must submit a report, which includes a copy of the action, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Because this final action does not contain legally binding requirements, it is not subject to the Congressional Review Act.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Gail Cooper, Deputy Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25770 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438; FRL-9954-50-OW] Notice of Extension to Comment Period on the Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to EPA on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for the notice, “Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to EPA on Peer Review Materials To Inform the Safe Drinking Water Act Decision Making on Perchlorate.” In response to stakeholder requests, EPA is extending the comment period for an additional eleven days, from November 14, 2016, to November 25, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period announced in the notice that was published on September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67350) is extended. Comments now must be received by EPA on or before November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0438, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Russ Perkinson at U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, (Mail Code 4607M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202-564-4901; or email:[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 30, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 67350), a notice announcing the release of materials for public comment. The materials will undergo expert peer review in support of the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act decision making on perchlorate. The Agency requests comment on both the draft Biologically Based Dose-Response Model and an accompanying draft model report entitled “Biologically Based Dose-Response Models for the Effect of Perchlorate on Thyroid Hormones in the Infant, Breast Feeding Mother, Pregnant Mother, and Fetus: Model Development, Revision, and Preliminary Dose-Response Analyses.” These materials will be reviewed by an expert peer review panel and the panelists will consider the public comments received. For more detailed information about this matter, please refer to the September 30, 2016, Federal Register notice.

    The notice of request for public comment, as initially published in the Federal Register, provided for written comments to be submitted to EPA on or before November 14, 2016, (a 45-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has received a request for additional time to submit comments. EPA is extending the public comment period for eleven days until November 25, 2016.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Joel Beauvais, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25772 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0061] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority 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 27, 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 Number: 3060-0061.

    Title: Annual Report of Cable Television Systems, FCC Form 325.

    Form Number: FCC Form 325.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,100 respondents; 1,100 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.166 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 601 and 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,383 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission uses FCC Form 325 “Annual Report of Cable Television Systems” to solicit basic operational information from the cable television industry. The information requested includes: the operator's name and address; system-wide capacity and frequency information; channel usage; and number of subscribers. The purpose of the form is to require operational cable television systems to verify, correct and/or furnish the Commission with the most current information on their respective cable systems.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25718 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0057] 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0057.

    Title: Application for Equipment Authorization, FCC Form 731.

    Form Number: FCC Form 731.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,740 respondents; 22,250 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 35 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 778,750 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: Commission rules require that manufacturers of certain radio frequency (RF) equipment file FCC Form 731 to obtain approval prior to marketing their equipment. Manufacturers may then market their RF equipment based on a showing of compliance with technical standards established in the FCC Rules for each type of equipment or device operated under the applicable FCC Rule part. The following types of equipment are regulated (a) the RF equipment is regulated under certain rule sections of 47 CFR part 15 and Part 18, and (b) in addition, rules governing certain RF equipment operating in the licensed services also require equipment authorization as established in the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2. The RF equipment manufacturers comply with the information collection requirements by (a) Filing FCC Form 731 electronically with the Commission, or (b) Submitting the information to a Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB), which acts on behalf of the FCC to issue grants of certification and may issue grants more expeditiously than the FCC. The TCBs have flexibility in the format in which they require the collection of information (i) TCBs may require applicants to submit the required information in FCC Form 731 format or in another format selected by the TCB, but (ii) whatever the information collection method, the information required is governed by the procedural rules in 47 CFR part 2 and a showing of compliance with the FCC technical standards for the specific type of equipment. RF manufacturer applicants for equipment certification may also request “expedited authorization” to market their equipment by: (a) Choosing to pay the fee levied by a TCB, and (b) submitting their request to a TCB in order for expedited authorization to market. The TCB processes the RF equipment manufacturer's application as follows: (i) The TCB receives and reviews the RF manufacturer's information submission/application; and (ii) the TCB enters the information into the FCC Equipment Authorization System database using an interface that provides the TCB with the tools to issue a standardized Grant of Equipment Authorization. Whichever method the RF manufacturers choose to submit their information—via either the FCC on FCC Form 731 or the TCB, FCC Rules require that applicants supply the following data: (a) Demographic information including Grantee name and address, contact information, etc.; (b) information specific to the equipment including FCC Identifier, equipment class, technical specifications, etc.; and (c) attachments that demonstrate compliance with FCC Rules that may include any combination of the following based on the applicable Rule parts for the equipment for which authorization is requested: (1) Identification of equipment (47 CFR 2.925); (2) attestation statements that may be required for specific equipments; (3) external photos of the equipment for which authorization is requested; (4) block diagram of the device; (5) schematics; (6) test report; (7) test setup photos; (8) Users Manual; (9) Internal Photos; (10) Parts List/Tune Up Information; (11) RF Exposure Information; (12) Operational Description; (13) Cover Letters; and, (14) Software Defined Radio/Cognitive Radio Files.

    In general, an applicant's submission is as follows: (a) FCC Form 731 includes approximately two pages covering the demographic and equipment identification information; and (b) applicants must supply additional documentation and other information, as described above, demonstrating conformance with FCC Rules, which may range from 100-1,000 pages. The supplemental information is essential to control potential interference to radio communications, which the FCC may use, as is necessary, to investigate complaints of harmful interference. In response to new technologies and in allocating spectrum, the Commission may establish new technical operating standards: (a) RF equipment manufacturers must meet the new standards to receive an equipment authorization, and (b) RF equipment manufacturers must still comply with the Commission's requirements in FCC Form 731 and demonstrate compliance as required by 47 CFR part 2 of FCC Rules. Thus, this information collection applies to a variety of RF equipment: (a) That is currently manufactured, (b) that may be manufactured in the future, and (c) that operates under varying technical standards. On July 8, 2004, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, ET Docket No. 03-201, FCC 04-165. The change requires that all paper filings required in 47 CFR Sections 2.913, 2.926(c), 2.929(c), and 2.929(d) of the rules are outdated and now must be filed electronically via the Internet on FCC Form 731. The Commission believes that electronic filing speeds up application processing and supports the Commission in further streamlining to reduce cost and increase efficiency. Information on the procedures for electronically filing equipment authorization applications can be obtained from the Commission's rules, and from the Internet at: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ea-app-info.htm.

    On October 26, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 14-172, PS Docket 13-87, that modified Sections 2.1033 and 90.548 of the rules and effectively required equipment manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the Interoperability Technical Standards contained in Section 90.548 of the Commission's rules as a condition for FCC certification of equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels. One method of demonstrating this requirement is documenting compliance with the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP). CAP is a program that establishes an independent compliance assessment process to ensure that communications equipment conforms to Project 25 standards and is interoperable across vendors. Alternatively, a manufacturer may submit a document describing how it determined compliance with Section 90.548 and that its equipment is interoperable across vendors.

    On August, 22, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission released an Order on Reconsideration, FCC 16-111, PS Docket No. 13-87 (see attached) that modified Part 2 and Part 90 of the Rules for equipment approval and Private Land Mobile Radio Services. See 81 FR 66830 (Sept. 29, 2016). The amended rule requires all Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers who manufacture 700 MHz narrowband equipment capable of operating on the interoperability channels to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's Interoperability Technical Standards in 90.548. The Order on Reconsideration prescribes two methods for showing compliance with Section 90.548 after equipment authorization application approval and before the marketing and sale of equipment capable of operating on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels. Specifically, the Commission modified Section 2.1033(c)(20) to provide that:

    Before equipment operating under part 90 of this chapter and capable of operating on the 700 MHz interoperability channels (See § 90.531(b)(1) of this chapter) may be marketed or sold, the manufacturer thereof shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 of this chapter and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold.

    The Commission also modified Section 90.548(c) of the Commission's rules to provide:

    Transceivers capable of operating on the interoperability channels listed in § 90.531(b)(1) shall not be marketed or sold unless the transceiver has previously been certified for interoperability by the Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; provided, however, that this requirement is suspended if the CAP is discontinued. Submission of a 700 MHz narrowband radio for certification will constitute a representation by the manufacturer that the radio will be shown, by testing, to be interoperable across vendors before it is marketed or sold. In the alternative, manufacturers may employ their own protocol for verifying compliance with Project 25 standards and determining that their product is interoperable among vendors. In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with this § 90.548.

    To effectively implement the provisions of the new Rules, no modifications to the existing FCC Form 731 Application for Equipment Authorization are required. The changes are intended to simplify the filing process, ensure equipment complies with Project 25 standards and is interoperable across vendors. The following specific methods are proposed to ensure compliance with Section 90.548 and simplify filing processes for equipment manufacturers:

    (1) The Order on Reconsideration establishes that before the marketing or sale of equipment designed to operate on the 700 MHz narrowband interoperability channels, manufacturers shall have a Compliance Assessment Program Supplier's Declaration of Conformity and Summary Test Report or, alternatively, a document detailing how the manufacturer determined that its equipment complies with § 90.548 and that the equipment is interoperable across vendors. OMB has approved the information collections associated with P25 CAP compliance under OMB Control No. 1640-0015.1

    1 Congressional direction for a P25 compliance assessment program can be found in the COPS Law Enforcement Technologies and Interoperable Communications Program section of the Conference Report to Public Law 109-148, as well as the Science & Technology Management and Administration section of Division E of the Conference Report to Public Law 110-161.

    (2) In the event that field experience reveals that a transceiver is not interoperable, the Commission may require the manufacturer thereof to provide evidence of compliance with § 90.548.

    The modified rules provide a benefit to public safety licensees by ensuring that only equipment that has been tested for interoperability in a vendor-neutral environment before equipment can be marketed or sold to public safety. This will provide the additional benefit of engendering competition in the public safety equipment marketplace by eliminating system compatibility as a gating factor when evaluating equipment purchases. The Order on Reconsideration reduces the burden on equipment manufacturers by allowing them to meet this standard by demonstrating compliance with the P25 CAP or manufacturers' interoperability testing protocol. Compliance with the P25 CAP program is already a requisite for grant eligibility and agency purchasing standards, consequently any new burden imposed by this requirement would be minimal.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25714 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] 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 the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. 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 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before December 27, 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 Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Connect America Fund—High Cost Portal Filing.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,525 unique respondents; 3,590 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours-30 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly reporting requirements, annual reporting requirements, one-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 65,640 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of certain data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs or other purposes specified by the Commission; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or the Administrator believed confidential to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission is requesting approval for this new information collection. In March 2016, the Commission adopted an order reforming its universal service support program in areas served by rate-of-return carriers. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-33 (Rate-of-Return Order). Also, in May 2016, the Commission adopted rules to implement a competitive bidding process for Phase II of the Connect America Fund. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-64 (Phase II Auction Order).

    This information collection addresses the requirement that certain carriers with high cost reporting obligations must file information about their locations which meet their broadband deployment public interest obligations via an electronic portal (“portal”). The Rate-of-Return Order required that the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) establish the portal so that carriers could file their location data with the portal starting in 2017. The Rate-of-Return Order required all recipients of Phase II model-based support and rate-of-return carriers to submit geocoded location data and related certifications to the portal. Recipients of Phase II model-based support had been required to file such information in their annual reports due by July 1. The Phase II Auction Order requires auction winners to build-out networks capable of meeting their public interest obligations and report, to an online portal, locations to which auction winners had deployed such networks. This collection also implements the Rate-of-Return Order by moving and revising the currently approved requirements under OMB Control Numbers 3060-1200 and 3060-0986 to enable recipients of Phase II model-based support and rural broadband experiment funding to file their location information and associated reports and certifications in the portal instead of on the FCC Form 481 or as is currently required.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25719 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice October 21, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    2:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 9, 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: Secretary of Labor v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC, Docket No. PENN 2013-385 (Issues include whether the Judge erred in making high negligence and unwarrantable failure findings.)

    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.

    PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO MEETING:

    1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 493-925.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25913 Filed 10-21-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice October 21, 2016. TIME AND DATE:

    2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 8, 2016.

    PLACE:

    The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance)

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of Labor v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC, Docket No. PENN 2013-385 (Issues include whether the Judge erred in making high negligence and unwarrantable failure findings.)

    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.

    PHONE NUMBER FOR LISTENING TO ARGUMENT:

    1-(866) 867-4769, Passcode: 493-925.

    Sarah L. Stewart, Deputy General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25912 Filed 10-21-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date: 10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EST, November 22, 2016.

    Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    Status: Open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701.

    Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2016 pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will expire on September 30, 2017.

    Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes the following dose reconstruction review activities: dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 14-18 and Set 22 (“blind reviews”), including the Oak Ridge sites (Y-12, K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Hanford, Feed Materials Production Center (“Fernald”), Mound Plant, Rocky Flats Plant, Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Laboratory, and Savannah River Site; and consideration of new dose reconstruction review methods and/or case selection criteria to evaluate the consistency of certain dose reconstruction methods.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (513)533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25728 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17AX; Docket No. CDC-2016-0100] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection project entitled “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) Study.” The collect is part of a research study designed to evaluate the efficacy of smartphone-based platform for delivering sexual health and prevention messages to MSM.

    DATES:

    Written comments will be received on or before December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0100 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) Study—New—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention is requesting approval for two years of data collection entitled, “Mobile Messaging Intervention to Present New HIV Prevention Options for MSM.” The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a smartphone-based HIV prevention intervention, known as M3, through a randomized controlled trial. The information collected through this study will be used to evaluate whether the M3 mobile-messaging intervention is an effective HIV-prevention strategy, by assessing whether exposure to the message-delivery platform results in improvements in participants' self-reported sexual health and HIV prevention behaviors, beliefs and attitudes. The trial will assess whether intervention participants' behaviors significantly change from baseline to post-intervention when compared to participants in a waitlist control arm, and whether these changes are sustained at 6-month and 9-month follow-ups.

    This study will be carried out in three metropolitan areas in the United States: Atlanta, Georgia, Detroit, Michigan and New York City, New York. These cities were selected not only because they have high rates of HIV, but also because significant disparities in HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) have been observed by race/ethnicity and age.

    The study population will include 1,206 adult MSM living in Atlanta, Detroit, and New York City. Men recruited to the study will be at least 18 years in age, who have had anal sex with at least one man in the past 12 months, and who own and use an Android and iOS smartphone.

    Across the three sites, we will ensure that at least 40% of participants are people of color (non-white or Hispanic) by quota sampling. Participants will be recruited to the study through a combination of approaches, including online advertisement, traditional print advertisement, referral, in-person outreach, and through word of mouth.

    A quantitative assessment will be used to collect information for this study, which will be delivered at the time of study enrollment and again at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups. The assessment will be used to measure changes in condom use behavior, number of sex partners, HIV testing, sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing, health care engagement, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake and adherence, and antiretroviral therapy uptake and adherence following completion of the intervention. Participants will complete the assessment in-person at baseline and 9-months, using a computer in a private location, and remotely via their personal computer or tablet device at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups.

    It is expected that 50% of men screened will meet study eligibility and provide contact information, that 75% will schedule and show up for an in-person appointment, and that 95% of these men will remain eligible after reverification. We expect the initial screening to take approximately four minutes to complete, that providing contact information will take one minute, and the rescreening prior to study enrollment to take another four minutes. The assessment will take 90 minutes (11/2 hour) to complete, and will be administered to 1,206 men a total of four times. The total number of burden hours are 5,164.

    Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • General Public—Adults Participant Screening (Eligibility) 1,356 1 4/60 90 General Public—Adults Contact Information Form 678 1 1/60 11 General Public—Adults Participant Screening (Verification) 508 1 4/60 34 General Public—Adults Assessment 482 4 1.5 2,892 Total 3,027
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25677 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (MSHRAC, NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 8:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (PST), November 14, 2016.

    Place: CDC/NIOSH Spokane Mining Research Division, 315 E. Montgomery, Spokane, WA 99207. Teleconference and webinar is also available. If you wish to attend in person, or by phone or webinar, please contact Marie Chovanec by email at [email protected] or by phone at 412-386-5302 at least 5 days in advance.

    Status: Open to public, limited only by the space available. In person, the meeting room accommodates approximately 30 people. By webinar, the webinar system accommodates a maximum of 100 people.

    Purpose: This committee is charged with providing advice to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NIOSH, on priorities in mine safety and health research, including grants and contracts for such research, 30 U.S.C. 812(b)(2), Section 102(b)(2).

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will focus on mining safety and health research projects, partnerships and initiatives, including the mining program strategic goals, and priority research areas. The meeting will also include updates from the Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, and the Spokane Mining Research Division.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Jeffrey H. Welsh, Executive Secretary, MSHRAC, NIOSH, CDC, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA, telephone (412)386-4040, fax (412)386-6614. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
    [FR Doc. 2016-25729 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Request for Nominations of Candidates To Serve on the World Trade Center Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (the STAC or the Committee), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services

    The CDC is soliciting nominations for membership on the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC).

    Title I of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-347 (Jan. 2, 2011), amended by Pub. L. 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015), added Title XXXIII to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), establishing the WTC Health Program within HHS (42 U.S.C. 300mm to 300mm-61). Section 3302(a) of the PHS Act established the WTC Health Program STAC. The STAC is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees in the Executive Branch. PHS Act Section 3302(a)(1) establishes that the STAC will review scientific and medical evidence and make recommendations to the WTC Program Administrator on additional WTC Health Program eligibility criteria and on additional WTC-related health conditions. Section 3341(c) of the PHS Act requires the WTC Program Administrator to also consult with the STAC on research regarding certain health conditions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The STAC may also be consulted on other matters related to implementation and improvement of the WTC Health Program, as outlined in the PHS Act, at the discretion of the WTC Program Administrator.

    In accordance with Section 3302(a)(2) of the PHS Act, the WTC Program Administrator will appoint the members of the committee, which must include at least:

    • 4 occupational physicians, at least two of whom have experience treating WTC rescue and recovery workers;

    • 1 physician with expertise in pulmonary medicine;

    • 2 environmental medicine or environmental health specialists;

    • 2 representatives of WTC responders;

    • 2 representatives of certified-eligible WTC survivors;

    • 1 industrial hygienist;

    • 1 toxicologist;

    • 1 epidemiologist; and

    • 1 mental health professional.

    At this time the Administrator is seeking nominations for members fulfilling the following categories:

    • Mental Health Professional

    • Occupational physician who has experience treating WTC rescue and recovery workers;

    • Industrial Hygienist;

    • Representative of WTC responders;

    • Representative of certified-eligible WTC survivors

    Additional members may be appointed at the discretion of the WTC Program Administrator.

    A STAC member's term appointment may last 3 years. If a vacancy occurs, the WTC Program Administrator may appoint a new member who fulfills the same membership category as the predecessor. STAC members may be appointed to successive terms. The frequency of committee meetings shall be determined by the WTC Program Administrator based on program needs. Meetings may occur up to four times a year. Members are paid the Special Government Employee rate of $250 per day, and travel costs and per diem are included and based on the Federal Travel Regulations.

    Any interested person or organization may self-nominate or nominate one or more qualified persons for membership.

    Nominations must include the following information:

    • The nominee's contact information and current occupation or position;

    • The nominee's resume or curriculum vitae, including prior or current membership on other National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC, or HHS advisory committees or other relevant organizations, associations, and committees;

    • The category of membership (environmental medicine or environmental health specialist, occupational physician, pulmonary physician, representative of WTC responders, or certified-eligible WTC survivor representative) that the candidate is qualified to represent;

    • A summary of the background, experience, and qualifications that demonstrates the nominee's suitability for the nominated membership category;

    • Articles or other documents the nominee has authored that indicate the nominee's knowledge and experience in relevant subject categories; and

    • A statement that the nominee is aware of the nomination, is willing to regularly attend and participate in STAC meetings, and has no known conflicts of interest that would preclude membership on the Committee.

    STAC members will be selected upon the basis of their relevant experience and competence in their respective categorical fields. The information received through this nomination process, in addition to other relevant sources of information, will assist the WTC Program Administrator in appointing members to serve on the STAC. In selecting members, the WTC Program Administrator will consider individuals nominated in response to this Federal Register notice, as well as other qualified individuals.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that Committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees, requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for the STAC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection.

    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Report,” OGE Form 450. This form is used by CDC to determine whether there is a financial conflict between that person's private interests and activities and their public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee as well as any appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded at http://www.oge.gov/Forms-Library/OGE-Form-450—Confidential-Financial-Disclosure-Report/. This form should not be submitted as part of a nomination.

    Dates: Nominations must be submitted (postmarked or electronically received) by December 15, 2016.

    Submissions must be electronic or by mail. Submissions should reference docket 229-E. Electronic submissions: You may electronically submit nominations, including attachments, to [email protected] Attachments in Microsoft Word are preferred. Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: Written nominations may be submitted (one original and two copies) to the following address only: NIOSH Docket 229-E, c/o Mia Wallace, Committee Management Specialist, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS: E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone and facsimile submissions cannot be accepted.

    For Further Information Contact: Paul Middendorf, Acting Deputy Associate Director for Science, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE., MS: E-20, Atlanta, GA 30329-4027; telephone (404)498-2500 (this is not a toll-free number); email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25731 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CK17-005, “Vector-Borne Disease Regional Centers of Excellence”.

    Time and Date: 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EST, November 16-17, 2016 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Vector-Borne Disease Regional Centers of Excellence”, CK17-005.

    Contact Person for More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25730 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10466] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; the accuracy of the estimated burden; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ______, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10466 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Exchange Functions: Eligibility for Exemptions

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Exchange Functions: Eligibility for Exemptions; Use: The data collection and reporting requirements in “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Exchange Functions: Eligibility for Exemptions; Miscellaneous Minimum Essential Coverage Provisions” (CMS-9958-F, 78 FR 39518), address federal requirements that states must meet with regard to the Exchange minimum function of performing eligibility determinations and issuing certificates of exemption from the shared responsibility payment. In the final regulation, CMS addresses standards related to eligibility, including the verification and eligibility determination process, eligibility redeterminations, options for states to rely on HHS to make eligibility determinations for certificates of exemption, and reporting. The data collection and reporting requirements included in this information collection request are critical to the basic ability of Exchanges to determine eligibility for and issue certificates of exemption, and will also assist Exchanges, HHS, and IRS in ensuring program integrity and quality improvement. Form Number: CMS-10466 (OMB Control Number: 0938-1190); Frequency: Monthly, Yearly; Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,000,000; Total Annual Responses: 2,000,000; Total Annual Hours: 540,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kate Ficke at 301-492-4256).

    Dated: October 19, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25678 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Title: OCSE-157 Child Support Enforcement Program Annual Data Report.

    OMB No.: 0970-0177.

    Description: The information obtained from this form will be used to: (1) Report Child Support Enforcement activities to the Congress as required by law; (2) calculate incentive measures performance and performance indicators utilized in the program; and (3) assist the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in monitoring and evaluating State Child Support programs.

    Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    OCSE-157 54 1 7 378

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 378.

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25753 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request

    Proposed Projects:

    Title: DRA TANF Final Rule.

    OMB No.: 0970-0338.

    Description: When the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, it imposed a new data requirement that States prepare and submit data verification procedures and replaced other data requirements with new versions including: The TANF Data Report, the SSP-MOE Data Report, the Caseload Reduction Documentation Process, and the Reasonable Cause/Corrective Compliance Documentation Process. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-46) provides federal funds to operate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs in the states, DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and for approved federally recognized tribes and Alaskan Native Villages through January 15, 2014. We are proposing to continue these information collections without change.

    Respondents: The 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Preparation and Submission of Data Verification Procedures §§ 261.60-261.63 54 1 640 34,560 Caseload Reduction Documentation Process, ACF-202 §§ 261.41 & 261.44 54 1 120 6,480 Reasonable Cause/Corrective Compliance Documentation Process §§ 262.4, 262.6, & 262.7; § 261.51 54 2 240 25,920 TANF Data Report Part 265 54 4 2,201 475,416 SSP-MOE Data Report Part 265 29 4 714 82,824

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 625,200.

    In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address: [email protected] All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.

    The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25775 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1380] The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance; Public Workshop; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled “The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance.” Hospitals play a critical role in the development of these national capabilities, leading to more robust evidence generation. Recently, the role of hospital reporting of device-related adverse events in device surveillance and, more generally, device evaluation, has garnered increased scrutiny. This public workshop will further explore the critical role of hospitals in the evolution of device surveillance and in creating more robust surveillance capabilities.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on December 5, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. Submit either electronic or written comments on the public workshop by January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852. Parking is available for this public meeting at $7 per day (cash only). Alternatively, the location is accessible by metro via the Twinbrook metro stop (Red Line). When you leave the Metro station, make a right turn towards the east side of the parking lot. Proceed to the north east corner of the parking lot and leave through the pedestrian gate. When you exit the station you will be at the corner of Fishers Lane and Twinbrook Parkway. Cross the street and proceed down Fishers Lane to 5635 Fishers Lane. Entering through the main front entrance on Fishers Lane, you will need to take an elevator down to the Terrace Level. Follow the short hallway towards the elevators and the Conference Center glass doors are straight ahead near the elevators.

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1380 for “The Role of Hospitals in Modernizing Evidence Generation for Device Evaluation: Harnessing the Digital Revolution for Surveillance.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jill Marion, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3110, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6128, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In 2012, FDA issued a report, “Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance,” 1 that described limitations in current authorities and approaches to medical device postmarket surveillance and proposed a strategy for a national medical device postmarket surveillance system. The system would leverage real-world data—data developed through routine clinical practice—captured in electronic health information (such as device registries, electronic health records, and payer claims forms) that incorporated unique device identifiers to quickly identify poorly performing devices, accurately characterize and disseminate information about real-world device performance, including the clinical benefits and risks of marketed devices, and efficiently generate data to support premarket clearance or approval of new devices and new uses of currently marketed devices. Following extensive public input, FDA issued an update in 2013 2 that outlined concrete steps the Agency would take to promote more efficient and robust national system capabilities. Two critical steps were the creation of a Planning Board and a Medical Device Registry Task Force. The Brookings Institution, under commission by FDA, convened a multistakeholder Planning Board. In February 2015, the Planning Board issued a report, “Strengthening Patient Care: Building a National Postmarket Medical Device Surveillance System,” 3 that sets out the key steps towards development of a national system, including its governance, operations, and sustainability.

    1http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/UCM301924.pdf.

    2http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/CDRHPostmarketSurveillance/UCM348845.pdf.

    3http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/UCM435112.pdf.

    The system was renamed an “evaluation system” to reflect the broad evidence needs of stakeholders with the August 2015 release of the report, “Recommendations for a National Medical Device Evaluation System: Strategically Coordinated Registry Networks to Bridge the Clinical Care and Research,” issued by the multistakeholder Task Force, under the auspices of the Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet).4 In 2016, the Planning Board, convened by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, published “Better Evidence on Medical Devices: A Coordinating Center for a 21st Century National Medical Device Evaluation System.” 5 This document further clarifies the expectations, roles, and responsibilities of the coordinating center described in the Planning Board's earlier 2015 report. This additional detail provides insight into the expected business practices of an independent, transparent coordinating center that would guide the future development and implementation of the national evaluation system now referred to as the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST). The Planning Board's most recent and last report titled, The National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST): Priorities for Effective Early Implementation, was issued in September 2016. The report provides recommendations on organizational governance, development of NEST resources, and development/demonstration project areas to help begin building resources for NEST while demonstrating value to stakeholders.6 FDA is in the process of implementing the Task Force's and Planning Board's recommendations including establishment of a Coordinating Center. FDA issued a grant in September to the Medical Device Innovation Consortium to establish the center.

    4http://mdepinet.org/.

    5https://healthpolicy.duke.edu/files/2016/03/med-device-report-web.pdf.

    6http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/ucm301912.htm.

    The importance and challenges of hospital surveillance efforts have long been recognized. In 1997, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (Pub. L. 105-115), which amended section 519(b) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360i(b)). This amendment legislated the replacement of universal user facility reporting by an alternative system that is limited to a “. . . subset of user facilities that constitutes a representative profile of user reports” for device related deaths and serious injuries. In response, FDA developed The Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun).7 Currently there are approximately 300 hospitals nationwide that are active, voluntary partners with FDA in the assessment and reporting of device-related events. The value of and challenges with the MedSun reporting program will be discussed at the workshop, including the limitations of passive reporting as a sole source of timely identification for the investigation and resolution of device safety issues. At this time, the digital revolution offers new opportunities to leverage information collected during routine clinical care and to build a robust national evaluation infrastructure. Therefore, the Agency believes it is an opportune time to revisit the role of hospitals in device surveillance, taking into account the limitations and challenges of traditional surveillance tools and the growing availability of new tools, methodologies, and electronic data sources. This public workshop is intended to bring together many medical device stakeholders from hospitals including clinicians, epidemiologists, healthcare risk managers, IT system managers, healthcare technology management professionals, clinical researchers, and others involved in surveillance efforts to discuss current hospital-based surveillance efforts, the role of hospitals in evidence generation and future opportunities for hospital-based surveillance, the importance of using unique device identification (UDI) to aid future development of surveillance efforts and healthcare delivery, and the partnership needed to build the future of surveillance into the infrastructure for NEST. Building the national evaluation system will bring with it changes that may support efforts in hospitals to address broader issues of improved quality of care and efficiencies.

    7http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductSafetyNetwork/.

    II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    This workshop is intended to foster a dialogue about the value of, costs of, and challenges with current hospital-based reporting and surveillance, what the role of hospitals should be and reasonably could be in the evolution of device surveillance and in creating more robust surveillance capabilities in the developing national evaluation system, and how that should impact current hospital reporting requirements and future voluntary opportunities to best meet the needs of patients in receiving and hospitals in providing quality care. Topics for discussion at the public workshop include:

    • An overview of the role of hospitals and potential benefits from a national evaluation system.The recent reports of the Planning Board and the work in transitioning to establishing a Coordinating Center to support development of the national system.

    • The role of hospitals in evidence generation and how this fits into the national system;

    • Current hospital-based surveillance efforts including participation in registries, patient safety organizations, electronic health records-based surveillance projects, and other surveillance projects.

    • A review of the role of hospitals in medical device reporting activities as outlined in the Safe Medical Devices Act (Pub. L. 101-629) and current challenges hospitals face in complying with these requirements. An assessment of the current value of reporting from user facilities and identification of opportunities for process improvement.

    • An exploration of FDA's MedSun, a user facility reporting program introduced in 2002 which partners with a subset of user facilities in the United States to identify and report medical device events including mandatory events under the Safe Medical Devices Act and voluntary events.

    • Future surveillance opportunities for hospitals in the national system, including use of non-traditional sources of hospital data and capabilities.

    • A review of the potential benefits to hospitals of the national system and Unique Device Identification implementation to modernize hospital surveillance. Additional benefits to hospitals include improvement of supply chain management, efficiency of recalls, efficiency of medical device purchasing, and quality of care.

    • A discussion of how all stakeholders can work together to improve hospital-based medical device surveillance and determine the role and value of evidence generation as it is integrated into the developing national evaluation system.

    Registration: Registration is free and available on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons interested in attending this public workshop must register online by November 28, 2016. Early registration is recommended because facilities are limited and, therefore, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization. If time and space permit, onsite registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided beginning at 7:30 a.m.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Susan Monahan, Office of Communications and Education, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5661, FAX: 301-847-8142, [email protected] no later than November 21, 2016.

    To register for the public workshop, please visit FDA's Medical Devices News & Events—Workshops & Conferences calendar at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this meeting/public workshop from the posted events list.) Please provide complete contact information for each attendee, including name, title, and affiliation, address, email, and telephone number. Those without Internet access should contact Susan Monahan to register (see special accommodations contact). Registrants will receive confirmation after they have been accepted. You will be notified if you are on a waiting list.

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will also be Webcast. The Webcast link will be available on the registration Web page after November 28, 2016. Organizations are requested to view using one connection per location.

    Requests for Oral Presentations: This public workshop includes a public comment session and topic-focused sessions. During online registration you may indicate if you wish to present during a public comment session or participate in a specific session, and which topics you wish to address. FDA has included general topics in this document. FDA will do its best to accommodate requests to make public comments. Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to consolidate or coordinate their presentations and request time for a joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives to participate in the focused sessions. Following the close of registration, FDA will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin, and will select and notify participants by November 29, 2016. All requests to make oral presentations must be received by November 15, 2016. If selected for presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to Jill Marion (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than December 2, 2016. No commercial or promotional material will be permitted to be presented or distributed at the public workshop.

    FDA is holding this public workshop to obtain information on the role of hospitals in evidence generation and surveillance. In order to permit the widest possible opportunity to obtain public comment, FDA is soliciting either electronic or written comments on all aspects of the public workshop topics. The deadline for submitting comments related to this public workshop is January 6, 2017.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). A transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. The Freedom of Information office address is available on the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov. A link to the transcript will also be available approximately 45 days after the public workshop on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/default.htm. (Select this public workshop from the posted events list).

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25735 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0538] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) 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 25, 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-NEW and title “Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising.” 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.

    Animation in Direct-to-Consumer Advertising OMB Control Number 0910-NEW

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA-regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.

    Advertisers use many techniques to increase consumer interest in their ads, including the use of animated spokes-characters. These characters may be fictional or nonfictional and human or nonhuman (Ref. 1). Despite variations in form, animated characters are often used to grab attention, increase ad memorability, and enhance persuasion to ultimately drive behavior (Refs. 2-4). Animated characters have long been used for low-involvement products (e.g., food products) and have made their way into direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising. However, to our knowledge, one study (Ref. 5) has examined how animation affects attitudes toward products and risk perceptions in drug ads, and no studies have examined how various animation strategies (e.g., symbolizing the disease vs. the benefit) and product characteristics (e.g., low-risk medication vs. high-risk medication) influence these perceptions.

    Animation in Drug Ads. Animation is used in prescription drug ads in a variety of ways. Perhaps the simplest way is the use of rotoscoped animation, which involves tracing live-action images frame-by-frame to create animated characters. ABILIFY has used this technique in advertisements (Ref. 6). In this instance, the animated character was not central to the informational content of the ad; instead, the animation appeared to be a visual technique to attract attention. Whether a drug ad with a rotoscoped human results in greater comprehension of product benefit and risk information than an ad with a human actor is unclear. The few studies that have examined this technique in drug ads have found that animated human characters either had no effect on perceived product risk (Ref. 7) or led to poorer recognition of drug side effects (Ref. 6).

    Animation also has been used in drug ads to symbolize the disease (e.g., IMITREX and LAMISIL ads), the sufferer (e.g., MYBETRIQ and ZOLOFT), the benefit (e.g., ROZEREM), the mode of administration (e.g., FLUZONE), and the mechanism of action (e.g., LUNESTA). Drug companies may use a personified nonhuman character to illustrate, in a visually memorable way, the medical condition or drug attributes. Using secondary data from copy-testing studies, Pashupati found that drug ads featuring animated characters led to much stronger brand recall and brand association scores (Ref. 8); however, the other elements of these studies (e.g., ad characteristics, presence of control group) are unclear.

    Animated characters may provide marketers with a way to explain product benefits in an engaging and even humorous manner. Thus, the majority of research on animated characters in advertising focuses on outcomes such as product evaluations (Ref. 9), emotional responses (Refs. 1, 10-11), brand attitudes (Ref. 12), and perceived product value (Ref. 13). The extent to which emotional responses can be fostered by animated characters is especially relevant to this study, as the positive effects these animations induce might transfer to the brands being advertised. It is also possible that animated characters may lead to lower perceived risk by minimizing or camouflaging side effects (Ref. 14).

    Animation and Message Communication. Personifying animated characters may interfere with message communication. Although personification may increase involvement with the characters in the ad (i.e., perceived as engaging and likeable), it may not increase involvement with the message itself (e.g., risk and benefit information). Whether personified characters lead to reduced comprehension of risk and benefit information in drug ads is an important and unanswered question. Based on a theory called the limited capacity model of mediated message processing (Ref. 15), advertising content that is engaging, relevant, and maximizes audio/visual redundancy should improve learning and memory (Ref. 16). However, others argue that the entertainment aspects can distract from learning key information and may lead to message complexity that interferes with message communication (Ref. 17).

    It is important to examine whether animation in drug ads inflates efficacy perceptions, minimizes risk, or otherwise hinders comprehension of drug risks and benefits. To investigate these issues, we will conduct a two-part experimental study to examine how: (1) Type of animation and (2) nonhuman personification in drug ads influence consumer comprehension, processing, and perception of risk and benefit information. Understanding how issues of animation and personification affect perceptions of both risks and benefits can inform FDA regarding how prescription drug risk and benefit information is processed. These strategies will be examined across two different medical conditions to see if the findings are consistent across patient populations.

    General Research Questions

    1. How does consumer processing of a DTC prescription drug ad differ depending on whether the ad is live-action, rotoscoped, or animated?

    2. Does consumer processing differ depending on whether the sufferer, the disease, or the benefit is the focus of the animation?

    Design

    To test these research questions, we will conduct two experiments. Both experiments will be examined in two different medical conditions: Chronic dry eye and psoriasis. The mock drugs we will create for these conditions mimic currently available medications and were chosen for their variance in serious side effects, i.e., medications for psoriasis have very long, serious lists of risks and side effects, whereas chronic dry eye medications have relatively few risks and side effects.

    The first experiment will examine whether animation itself influences consumer processing, defined as consumer recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character (table 1). We will examine two different types of animation in addition to a control ad which will be shot with live actors: An “in-between” animation technique, rotoscoping, in which live scenes are drawn to look animated, and full animation with nonhuman characters. The live action and rotoscoped ad will be identical except for the rotoscope treatment. The animated ad will follow the theme and message as closely as possible within the limitations of animation itself. The benefits and risks of the product will be identical, although the ad's storyline may vary somewhat to account for a nonhuman protagonist.

    Table 1—Experiment 1: Animation Design Type of Animation Medical condition Nonhuman sufferer Rotoscoped human
  • sufferer
  • Human
  • sufferer
  • Chronic Dry Eye Psoriasis

    The second experiment will examine whether the object of the animation influences consumer processing of the ad (table 2), defined as consumer recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character. The animation will focus on the animated character who will personify either the sufferer of the medical condition, the disease itself, or the benefit from the drug. In this study, all ads will contain the same kind of full animation and the general theme will be as similar as possible, accounting for the variations in focus of character. The experiments will be conducted concurrently, and the same participants in the nonhuman sufferer groups will be part of both.

    Table 2—Experiment 2: Personification Design Nonhuman Personification Medical condition Sufferer Disease Benefit Chronic Dry Eye Psoriasis

    In both cases, a professional firm will create all ads such that they are indistinguishable from currently running DTC ads.

    Pretesting will take place before the main study to evaluate the procedures and measures used in the main study. We will recruit adults who have experienced chronic dry eye or psoriasis. We will exclude individuals who work in healthcare or marketing settings because their knowledge and experiences may not reflect those of the average consumer. We propose to test 300 participants for the pretest. Each experiment will include 30 participants per condition for a total of 180 participants each, but 60 of those in the nonhuman sufferer conditions will overlap between the two experiments. We will need 1,500 unique participants for the main study to obtain 90 percent power to detect a moderately small effect size. There will be 150 participants per condition for a total of 900 participants in each experiment, with 300 participants in the overlapping nonhuman sufferer conditions.

    In both experiments, participants who have been diagnosed with either chronic dry eye or psoriasis will be recruited via an opt-in Internet panel to watch one ad for a prescription drug that treats their medical condition. In experiment 1, participants will be randomly assigned to view either a live-action, rotoscoped, or fully animated ad. All themes in experiment 1 will focus on the main character as the sufferer of the condition. In experiment 2, participants will be randomly assigned to a personification condition: Sufferer, disease, or benefit. All ads in experiment 2 will be fully animated. Participants will watch the ad once and then answer an online survey with questions addressing recall of risks and benefits, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes and emotional responses to the ad, the brand, the product, and the character. The questionnaire is available upon request. Participation is estimated to take approximately 25 minutes.

    To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance.

    With online surveys, several participants may be completing the survey at the time that the total target sample is reached. Those participants are allowed to complete the survey, which can result in the number of completes going slightly over the target number. Thus, our target number of completes is 1,500, so we have rounded up by an additional 150, or 10 percent, to allow for some overage.

    In the Federal Register of March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10867), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. FDA received a number of comments as enumerated and discussed here. Of these comments, 22 were out of the scope of the proposed project (“Ban DTC” or “Ban animated DTC”).

    1. AbbVie

    (Comment 1) Note that the accuracy of the findings will be highly dependent on the quality of the stimuli (i.e., the animation).

    (Response 1) We agree.

    2. Lilly

    (Comment 2) Assume that stimuli will conform to FDA regulations and standards.

    (Response 2) Reviewers from the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion have been involved throughout the development of the stimuli to ensure that the mock ads conform to FDA regulations and standards.

    (Comment 3) Question the use of such a large (n = 300) pretest and recommends the use of a qualitative, in-person pretest.

    (Response 3) Before the pretests and main studies are conducted, we will conduct nine cognitive interviews to obtain verbal in-person feedback on the questionnaires and the stimuli. We believe this will accomplish what this commenter is suggesting. The pretest is designed to test procedures, verify that the online questionnaire is working as intended, identify and correct any challenges to nesting the stimuli within the questionnaire, and examine data trends to check that the manipulations and questionnaire items are appropriate. A qualitative in-person pretest would not meet those objectives.

    (Comment 4) Recommend screening and quotas by length of time since diagnosis as this may influence the urgency with which individuals watch the ads and their familiarity with previous treatments.

    (Response 4) We have included a question toward the end of the questionnaire to measure time since diagnosis, which will enable us to assess its association with attention to the ad and statistically control for it if necessary. However, statistical control will likely be unnecessary, since random assignment to conditions in our study design should prevent there from being systematic differences among groups in time since diagnosis or any other extraneous variable.

    (Comment 5) For question 5, the item “think rather than feel” seems out of place in the question bank and Lilly recommends deletion.

    (Response 5) The items in Question 5 make up a validated scale developed by Stephenson and Palmgreen (Ref. 18). Niederdeppe (Ref. 19) used the same scale items to measure cognitive processing. There may be psychometric consequences to deleting this item—in other words, the reliability of the scale may be reduced if we remove this item. Since it was previously validated as a scale, we will maintain the item.

    (Comment 6) Questions 6 and 8 (“In your opinion, if 100 people take [DRUG X], for how many will the drug work?”) may be difficult to answer, as pharmaceutical ads rarely have specific side effect information. Recommend changing to ask how frequently side effects will occur, from “very frequent” to “never occurs.”

    (Response 6) We agree and will revise these questions to focus on perceived frequency or likelihood of side effects and efficacy in more general terms.

    (Comment 7) Questions 13 and 14 (overall comprehension closed-ended questions) may be too difficult to answer because they are nuanced and involve multiple concepts. Recommend changing to an open-ended response.

    (Response 7) We appreciate the commenter's concerns about the complexity of the response options. We will examine the closed-ended questions in cognitive testing, with careful attention to participant's ability to understand and choose among the response options. If participants have notable difficulty with the closed-ended questions, we will revise them to enhance accessibility, or we will replace those items with open-ended items.

    (Comment 8) Question 16b for Chronic Dry Eye does not have any question or response options.

    (Response 8) We have since developed question and response options for this item.

    (Comment 9) Recommend moving questions 17-28 to before question 15 because questions 15 and 16 are specific and starting with question 17, questions again refer to general ad perceptions.

    (Response 9) We always approach question ordering carefully, attempting to balance a number of considerations, including the reduction of bias from one question to another, flow, and importance of each item. In this case, we feel that specific claim comprehension is more important than the other more general questions in our questionnaire, which is why they are placed afterwards. We will examine this issue closer in cognitive testing.

    (Comment 10) Recommend reducing question 18 to only “like/dislike” because the results will be too similar and will be confounded.

    (Response 10) We selected these items because they have been used consistently in past research. We use three items rather than one to achieve reliability, which provides a fuller understanding of the dependent variable. However, we will pay close attention to this in cognitive testing to ensure that participants are not confused or annoyed by the three questions.

    (Comment 11) For question 21, recommend adding clarifying language: “. . . in terms of dealing with your psoriasis/chronic dry eye” to provide context for participant to understand how to compare themselves with the character.

    (Response 11) We will present the additional context as an alternative way of asking the question in cognitive interviews.

    (Comment 12) Recommend removing question 26 about how “eerie” the character is because the essence of this question is answered in question 25 and the question is leading, as it directs participants to respond only negatively about their perceptions of the character.

    (Response 12) Given the uncanny valley theory concerning rotoscoped images (Ref. 6), we feel it is crucial to maintain this specific question about the eeriness of the character.

    (Comment 13) Recommend adding an open-ended question, preferably near the beginning of the survey (e.g., after question 2), about how well they feel they took away all of the relevant information and understood the risks and benefits of the drug after viewing the ad.

    (Response 13) Although we do not include questions that directly measure perceived understanding of the overall message, risks, and benefits, much of the questionnaire is focused on measuring participants' memory and comprehension of that information in the ad.

    (Comment 14) Recommend adding demographic questions about how much television participants watch per week and whether English is their primary language to provide extra detail for analyses.

    (Response 14) We appreciate this suggestion and will add the recommended demographic items to the questionnaire.

    (Comment 15) Recommend adding another open-ended question about whether any additional information could have or should have been included in the ad (e.g., disease information, accessibility of the drug) to provide information on what participants feel could be added and communicated via DTC ads.

    (Response 15) This is a great question and may provide fruitful avenues for future research. We will include the item in the pretest and if timing is not an issue, we will maintain it in the main study.

    3. Merck

    (Comment 16) Concerned that execution-specific learnings from this research may not translate readily into FDA DTC policy/guidance. The research may not have practical utility for the general public and may be unnecessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions.

    (Response 16) On the contrary, this particular study has the potential to directly influence policy in an area that we have no prior research on. We have attempted to address the execution-specific nature of the research by investigating our questions in two distinct medical conditions with two distinct products and ad executions. Although one research study cannot answer all questions, we believe we have designed the study in such a way that we will be able to provide information on the issue of animation in DTC ads. Because there is no previous research of this kind, this will be an informative study that will help FDA develop guidance and policy in the future, should the research reveal a need to.

    (Comment 17) FDA should conduct research on how all of the elements investigated previously combine to influence DTC viewing.

    (Response 17) We appreciate this suggestion and will look for opportunities to do so in the future. Note we have conducted research combining the results of two previous studies—toll-free wording and distraction—in our recent eye-tracking study.

    4. GSK

    (Comment 18) Suggests a number of additional reasons for animation besides those stated in the FRN: Education, to help consumers quickly identify relevant ads, and to de-personalize an ad to make it more relevant to a variety of people.

    (Response 18) We will keep these in mind in writing up the results of the studies.

    (Comment 19) The proposed research may oversimplify animation by not incorporating multiple types of animation or examining ads that are 100 percent versus partially animated, and thus be unlikely to yield any general conclusions about the use of animation.

    (Response 19) We acknowledge that we are not studying all types and executions of animation. As the first study of its kind, we feel the animation manipulations that we propose to examine will provide information on a reasonable number of variations (i.e., full animation, rotoscoping, and three different foci of animated character). We will ensure that our conclusions are reasonable with regard to the issues we studied.

    (Comment 20) The proposed methodology fails to measure the relevance of the ads. A copy-testing methodology, whereby the ads are embedded in a clutter reel, may more accurately gauge the recall of risks and benefits that might occur in the real world.

    (Response 20) We needed to make difficult choices in this study, as in all of our studies, regarding the tradeoff between experimental control and real-world generalizability. Given the lack of data available regarding animation in DTC, we chose to err on the side of experimental control in this study. Our research questions involve the issue of recall and comprehension of the ads when people have watched the ads. Depending on the findings of the current study, further research examining the effects of animation within a clutter reel or considering other variables may be warranted.

    (Comment 21) Advertising concepts are generally not designed to be adapted or translated to different creative formats, and because whether an ad is animated or in live action is an integral part of the concept itself, this is an inherent limitation of the research.

    (Response 21) We agree that animated ads often have different storylines or different approaches to conveying information from live action ads. However, if we were to use completely different ads for our animated, rotoscoped, and live-action ads, we would be unable to determine what caused any differences in our dependent variables. Indeed, by maintaining as much similarity as possible among these three conditions, we will be able to determine whether it is the animation form per se that causes differences or not.

    5. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

    (Comment 22) Encourage FDA to acknowledge that this study is exploratory and that results will not be generalizable beyond the two medical conditions studied.

    (Response 22) We acknowledge that this is the first study to directly examine animation in DTC advertising. We are always mindful of how far we can extrapolate our research. We chose to examine two different medical conditions because this will provide some assurance that our findings are not exclusive to one medical condition or execution, if that is what we find. We note that the strength of the study is in its experimental design. Participants will be randomly assigned to cells, which will allow us to determine whether differences exist between different levels of our independent variables. Random assignment will somewhat allay concerns about demographic differences and other individual characteristics, which should even out across cells. However, we agree that other medical situations may cause different reactions and we will acknowledge the limitations of our study, which include not examining all medical conditions and levels of risk, in any writeup we produce.

    (Comment 24) The major statement is required to be in the audio and the amount and type of risk information will vary by drug. We request that the professional ad agency designing the TV ads ensure that the major statement is presented consistently across the ads studied for the given “mock drug.”

    (Response 24) We have designed the fictitious ads to very closely align with both FDA policies and with the types of DTC ads that currently air on TV. Our ads have been reviewed by staffers in the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion multiple times throughout the ads' development. The mock products closely mimic existing drugs in their respective classes. We agree that the quality of the ads strongly influences the success of our research and the professional development of these ads is a high priority.

    (Comment 25) An imbalance of gender distribution in the diseases and study groups could skew the results due to potential gender differences in consumer processing and perception of information from drug ads. To ensure a gender balance between the study groups, we propose a randomization scheme stratified by gender. Also, please capture patient demographic information and important confounding factors and report on a comparison of the baseline patient characteristics.

    (Response 25) Stratified randomization by gender would be methodologically appropriate and conservative, but in practice would make our already complex survey even more complicated. We will acknowledge a potential gender-disease confound as a limitation of the design in reports of the results.

    (Comment 26) While the results from this proposed study may suggest hypotheses on difference in how prescription drug risk and benefit information may be perceived by consumers viewing live versus animation ads, the results from this study should not be used to guide or influence FDA's current thinking on the use of animation in DTC ads. More robust and controlled studies will be required in the future to test specific hypotheses generated from this two-part survey experiment.

    (Response 26) Although this is the first study to directly examine animation in DTC ads the way we have proposed here, the research we have designed is robust and well controlled. As trained research psychologists, we adhere to the highest standards in terms of rigorous control, prespecified hypotheses, appropriate statistical analyses, and reasonable and responsible interpretations. Our research undergoes many internal and external reviews before and after data collection, including a stringent OMB review (of which public comment is a part), multiple levels of internal clearance, and peer review at well-respected academic journals in relevant fields. Although FDA never exclusively uses the findings of one scientific study to make policy decisions, the quantitative research we conduct is one part of the calculus that FDA uses to inform policy decisions.

    6. AstraZeneca

    (Comment 27) Recommend that questions 18 and 19 be switched in order to avoid participants being confused by the questions. Also suggest some kind of bolding for emphasis.

    (Response 27) We agree that formatting these questions to emphasize and differentiate the target object will be useful and have no problem changing the order of questions 18 and 19 and will do so.

    (Comment 28) The term “main character” needs to be clarified. As it is, it could mean the human character or the animated character which may, or may not, be the human character.

    (Response 28) Participants will only view one version of the ad corresponding to the ad condition to which they've been randomized, and each ad will either be animated or live action. In terms of screen time and storyline, a single character will be dominant in each ad. We do not expect ambiguity surrounding who the main character is in each ad, but we will test this phrase in cognitive interviewing.

    (Comment 29) For question 23, the commenter agrees that trust is a useful metric to study but questions whether our options are valid measures of trust, particularly “ethical.” Suggest the use of the following adjectives instead: Exaggerated, deceptive, manipulative, trustworthy, informative, credible.

    (Response 29) The negative adjectives on the list are from an existing scale (Refs. 20-21) and we would like to keep those consistent with the prior literature. We will revise the positive adjectives to reflect the commenter's suggestion: Trustworthy, informative, credible, and reliable.

    (Comment 30) For questions 24 and 25, suggest the addition of “hopeful,” “empowered,” and “informed.”

    (Response 30) The emotional reaction questions were adapted from existing scales (Ref. 22), but we think it would be useful to test a longer set of emotions in cognitive interviews and narrow down from there.

    (Comment 31) We feel that question 26 should be deleted because it is a leading question. If not deleted, change “eerie” to “strange.”

    (Response 31) We agree that this is an unusual question and may seem offputting without context. However, previous research has compared live action and rotoscoped action in advertisements and has determined that people feel uncomfortable with rotoscoping because it is very similar to what we expect from live renditions, but not exactly. This theory is called the uncanny valley theory (Ref. 6). Question 26 comes directly from this previous research and we feel strongly that we need the question as it is to ground our comparison of live action and rotoscoping in the prior literature.

    (Comment 32) Question 29 about anthropomorphism seems inappropriate to gauge audience acceptance of the premise. Suggest using a question such as: “To what extent do/can bodily organs or pills have personalities?”

    (Response 32) The purpose of question 29 is to measure an individual difference variable, namely to what extent people tend to anthropomorphize. The question is modified from a validated measure (Ref. 23). We do not intend to assess people's acceptance of animated DTC ads through this question. Instead, we are using this as a possible moderator variable to explain some of the variance we might find in responses to other questions. Indeed, another commenter wrote that we should measure demographics and other possibly confounding variables. This is one of these variables. The amount of humanization people ascribe to nonhuman objects may influence their attitudes and perceptions, and these items have been validated in past research. It is not an outcome measure.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 3—Estimated Burden Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total hours
    Pretesting Number to complete the screener (assumes 50% eligible) 660 1 660 .08 (5 minutes) 53 Number of completes 330 1 330 .42 (25 minutes) 139 Main Study Number to complete the screener (assumes 50% eligible) 3,300 1 3,300 .08 (5 minutes) 264 Number of completes 1,650 1 1,650 .42 (25 minutes) 693 Total Hours 1,149 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    References 1. Callcott, M.F. and W. Lee, “Establishing the Spokes-Character in Academic Inquiry: Historical Overview and Framework for Definition.” Advances in Consumer Research. 1995; 22:144-151. 2. Bell, J.A., “Creativity, TV Commercial Popularity, and Advertising Expenditures.” International Journal of Advertising. 1992;11(2):165-72. 3. Heiser, R.S., J.J. Sierra, and I.M. Torres, “Creativity Via Cartoon Spokespeople in Print Ads: Capitalizing on the Distinctiveness Effect.” Journal of Advertising. 2008;37(4):75-85. 4. Luo, J.T., P. McGoldrick, S. Beatty, and K.A. Keeling, “On-Screen Characters: Their Design and Influence on Consumer Trust.” Journal of Service Marketing. 2006;20(2):112-24. 5. Bhutada, N.S., B.L. Rollins, and M. Perri, “Impact of Animated Spokes-Characters in Print Direct-To-Consumer Advertising: An Elaboration Likelihood Modeal Approach.” Health Communication. 2016. DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1138382. 6. Clayton, R.B. and G. Lesher, “The Uncanny Valley: The Effects of Rotoscope Animation on Motivational Processing of Depression Drug Messages.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 2015;59(1):57-75. 7. Bhutada, N.S., B.L. Rollins, and M. Perri, “Animation in Print Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs: Impact on Consumers. At the 32nd Association for Marketing and Healthcare Research Annual Meeting and Conference, February 27-March 1, 2013, Big Sky, MT. 8. Pashupati, K, “Beavers, Bubbles, Bees, and Moths: An Examination of Animated Spokescharacters in DTC Prescription Drug Advertisements and Web sites.” Journal of Advertising Research. 2009;49(3):373-93. 9. Chandler, J. and N. Schwarz, “Use Does Not Wear Ragged the Fabric of Friendship: Thinking of Objects as Alive Makes People Less Willing to Replace Them.” Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2010;20(2):138-145. 10. Callcott, M.F. and B.J. Phillips, “Observations: Elves Make Good Cookies: Creating Likeable Spokescharacter Advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research. 1996;36(5):73-79. 11. Garretson, J.A. and R.W. Niedrich, “Spokes-Characters: Creating Character Trust and Positive Brand Attitudes.” Journal of Advertising. 2004;33(2):25-36. 12. Delbaere, M., E.F. McQuarrie, and B.J. Phillips, “Personification in Advertising: Using a Visual Metaphor to Trigger Anthropomorphism.” Journal of Advertising. 2011;40(1):121-130. 13. Hart, P.M., S.R. Jones, and M.B. Royne, “The Human Lens: How Anthropomorphic Reasoning Varies by Product Complexity and Enhances Personal Value.” Journal of Marketing Management. 2013;29(1-2):105-121. 14. Moyer-Guse E., C. Mahood, and S. Brookes, “Entertainment-Education in the Context of Humor: Effects on Safer Sex Intentions and Risk Perceptions.” Health Communication. 2011;26(8):765-774. 15. Lang, A, “The Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing.” The Sage Handbook of Mass Media Effects. New York: Sage;2009:193-204. 16. Garretson, J.A. and S. Burton, “The Role of Spokescharacters as Advertisement and Package Cues in Integrated Marketing Campaigns.” Journal of Marketing. 2005;69(4):118-132. 17. Lang, A, “Using the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message Processing to Design Effective Cancer Communication Messages.” Journal of Communication. 2006;56:557-580. 18. Stephenson, M.T. and P. Pamgreen, “Sensation-Seeking, Perceived Message Value, Personal Involvement, and Processing of Anti-Marijuana PSAs.” Communication Monographs. 2001;68:49-71. 19. Niederdeppe, J.D., “Syntactic Indeterminancy, Perceived Message Sensation, Value-Enhancing Features, and Message Processing in the Context of Anti-Tobacco Advertisements.” Communication Monographs. 2005;72(3):324-44. 20. Parvanta, S., L. Gobson, H. Forquer, et al., “Applying Quantitative Approaches to the Formative Evaluation of Antismoking Campaign Messages.” Social Marketing Quarterly. 2013;19(4):242-64. 21. Thomas, V., K. Fowler, and P. Grimm, “Conceptualization and Exploration of Attitude Toward Advertising Disclosures and its Impact on Perceptions of Manipulative Intent.” Journal of Consumer Affairs. 2013;47(3):564-87. 22. Richins, M., “Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience.” Journal of Consumer Research. 1997;24:127-46. 23. Waytz, A., J. Cacioppo, and N. Epley, “Who Sees Human? The Stability and Importance of Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2010;5:216-32. Dated: October 19, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25727 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-AKR-GLBA-22231; PPWOBSADA0, PPMPSAS1Y.Y00000 (177)] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Bear Sighting and Encounter Reports AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192; or [email protected] (email). Please include “1024-GLBA” in the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Margaret Hazen, Supervisory Park Ranger, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve at [email protected] (email) or at (907) 697-2608 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The National Park Service Organic Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101(a) et seq.), requires that the NPS preserve national parks for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. Permit requirements and restrictions for recreational activities in the backcountry are governed in accordance with the regulations found at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 1.5, 1.6, and 2.10 (36 CFR 1.5, 1.6, 2.10, and 13.116). In order to monitor resources and wildlife in the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve (GLBA) and to enhance the safety of future visitors, the park monitors all sightings and interactions by visitors with bears. The bear sighting and encounter reporting forms are an extension of our statutory authority and responsibility to protect the park areas we administer and to manage the public use thereof. NPS regulations codified in 36 CFR 1-7, 12 and 13, are designated to implement statutory mandates that provide for resource protection and public enjoyment.

    Bear sighting data provides the park with important data used to determine bear movements, habitat use, and species distribution. This information can be used in backcountry management and planning, field research planning, and educational outreach for visitors. Bear-human interaction data is vital to understand how bears respond to people, detecting changes in bear behavior, and identifying potential areas of high bear-human conflict. Obtaining immediate information on bear-human conflicts allows managers to respond promptly to mitigate further conflicts. Proactive mitigation includes notifying other backcountry users, issuing advisories or recommendations, or issuing closures to prevent further conflicts and maintain public safety. Additionally, managers may respond to reports of bear-human conflict with bear management techniques such as hazing or aversive conditioning. Obtaining current accurate information on bear sightings and interactions is essential for public safety and to effectively manage bears and people to minimize conflicts. Summary statistics (without personal information) may be generated to examine long-term trends in types and locations of bear-human interactions. Observations and interactions by visitors are recorded via the two forms: NPS Form 10-405 and NPS Form 10-406.

    The NPS requires the submission of NPS Form 10-405 upon exiting the park backcountry in order to collect information regarding bear sightings within GLBA. The collection and timeliness of the data collection is critical for the NPS' ability to enhance the safety of future visitors and to protect the bear population at the park. Information collected via NPS Form 10-405 includes:

    • Group name;

    • Take-out date;

    • Whether visitor encountered dirty campsites left by previous users or observe unsafe or inappropriate behavior by other groups; and

    • Detailed information for each sighting documented on the form, to include:

    ○ Date/time;

    ○ Species type

    ○ Total number of bears seen together (for each sighting);

    ○ Bear unit type;

    ○ Estimation of distance between visitor and bear(s);

    ○ Whether the bear was aware of the group;

    ○ Bear reaction to group;

    ○ Activity of group;

    ○ Number of observers; and

    ○ Location description/campsite name/GPS position/other comments.

    Submission of a completed NPS Form 10-406 is required when a bear enters camp, approaches the group, damages gear, obtains food, and/or acts in an aggressive or threatening manner towards the group. The collection and timeliness of data concerning bear-human contact is critical for the NPS' ability to enhance the safety of future visitors and to protect the bear population at the park. Information collected via NPS Form 10-406 includes:

    • Name and phone number of the primary person involved in the interaction;

    • Group type: Park visitor, concession employee, contractor, researcher, NPS employee, or other;

    • Number of people who encountered the bear;

    • Corresponding sighting number on NPS Form 10-405; Location 1-28 (Backcountry vs. Developed Area A and B);

    • Types of vegetation in area of encounter;

    • The bear's activity when it was first observed;

    • The group's activity prior to seeing the bear;

    • The bear's initial and subsequent reaction to the group;

    • Group's response to bear's reaction;

    • Group's distance to the bear;

    • Whether food was present, and if so, if it was eaten by the bear;

    • Whether property was damaged;

    • Detailed description of the interaction;

    • Detailed description of the bear, to include color, markings, scars, tags, etc.;

    • Date, time, and duration of encounter;

    • Exact location of encounter documented on map provided by GLBA, to include the latitude/longitude;

    • Where did the individual learn about how to behave while in bear country; and

    • Whether visitor encountered dirty campsites left by previous users or observe unsafe or inappropriate behavior by other groups

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-New.

    Title: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Bear Sighting and Encounter Reports.

    Service Form Number(s): NPS Forms 10-405, “Tatshenshini—Alsek River Bear Report” and 10-406, “Bear Information Management Report”.

    Type of Request: Existing collection in use without an OMB Control Number.

    Description of Respondents: Backcountry and frontcountry visitors to Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    Activity Estimated
  • annual number
  • of responses
  • Estimated
  • completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Estimated
  • total annual
  • burden hours
  • NPS Form 10-405, “Tatshenshini—Alsek River Bear Report Form 1” 40 5 3 NPS Form 10-406, “Tatshenshini—Alsek River Bear Information Management (BIM) Report Form 2” 10 5 1 Totals 50 4
    III. Comments

    On June 26, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 36844) a Notice of our intent to request that OMB approve the collection of information associated with the collection of information via NPS Forms 10-405, “Tatshenshini—Alsek River Bear Report” and 10-406, “Bear Information Management Report”. We did not receive any comments in response to that notice.

    We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25744 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-457-A-D (Fourth Review)] Heavy Forged Hand Tools From China; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward Petronzio (202-205-3176), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On October 4, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 43235, July 1, 2016) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    2 Vice Chairman David S. Johanson voted to conduct full reviews.

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 27, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determination the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before November 1, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by November 1, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Ames Companies, Inc. and Council Tool Company, Inc. to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Determination.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 19, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25720 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1026] Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 19, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Andrea Electronics Corp. of Bohemia, New York. A supplement was filed on October 5, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio processing hardware, software, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 (“the '607 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 (“the '345 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 (“the '637 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2015).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on October 19, 2016, Ordered that—

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio processing hardware, software, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-12 and 25-37 of the '607 patent; claims 1-25, 38-40, and 42-47 of the '345 patent; claims 1-14 of the '637 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Andrea Electronics Corp., 620 Johnson Avenue, Suite 1B, Bohemia, NY 11716.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 19, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25722 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1025] Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on May 26, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Silicon Genesis Corporation of Santa Clara, California. Supplements were filed on October 3 and 7, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain silicon-on-insulator wafers by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,458,672 (“the '672 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,171,965 (“the '965 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on October 19, 2016, Ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain silicon-on-insulator wafers by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 3, 28 and 39 of the '672 patent and claims 1-3 and 5 of the '965 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Notwithstanding any Commission Rules that would otherwise apply, the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall hold an early evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision, as to whether the complainant has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. Any such decision shall be in the form of an initial determination (ID). Petitions for review of such an ID shall be due five calendar days after service of the ID; any replies shall be due three business days after service of a petition. The ID will become the Commission's final determination 30 days after the date of service of the ID unless the Commission determines to review the ID. Any such review will be conducted in accordance with Commission Rules 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45, 19 CFR 210.43, 210.44, and 210.45. The Commission expects the issuance of an early ID relating to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement within 100 days of institution, except that the presiding ALJ may grant a limited extension of the ID for good cause shown. The issuance of an early ID finding that complainants do not satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement shall stay the investigation unless the Commission orders otherwise; any other decision shall not stay the investigation or delay the issuance of a final ID covering the other issues of the investigation;

    (3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Silicon Genesis Corporation, 2424 Walsh Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054.

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Soitec, S.A., Parc Technologique des Fontaines, Chemin des Franques, 38190 Bernin, France

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 19, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25721 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-379 and 731-TA-788, 792, and 793 (Third Review)] Stainless Steel Plate From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan; Scheduling of Expedited Five-Year Reviews AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel plate from South Africa and the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate from Belgium, South Africa, Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amelia Shister (202-205-2047), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On October 4, 2016, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (81 FR 43245, July 1, 2016) of the subject five-year reviews was adequate and that the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting full reviews.1 Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would conduct expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2

    1 A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    2 Commissioner Broadbent voted to conduct full reviews.

    For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Staff report.—A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 27, 2016, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for these reviews. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.

    Written submissions.—As provided in section 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the reviews and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,3 and any party other than an interested party to the reviews may file written comments with the Secretary on what determinations the Commission should reach in the reviews. Comments are due on or before November 1, 2016 and may not contain new factual information. Any person that is neither a party to the five-year reviews nor an interested party may submit a brief written statement (which shall not contain any new factual information) pertinent to the reviews by November 1, 2016. However, should the Department of Commerce extend the time limit for its completion of the final results of its reviews, the deadline for comments (which may not contain new factual information) on Commerce's final results is three business days after the issuance of Commerce's results. If comments contain business proprietary information (BPI), they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules with respect to filing were revised effective July 25, 2014. See 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014), and the revised Commission Handbook on E-filing, available from the Commission's Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    3 The Commission has found the responses submitted by Allegheny Ludlum, LLC, North American Stainless, and Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC to be individually adequate. Comments from other interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Determination.—The Commission has determined these reviews are extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 19, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25715 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1002] Certain Carbon and Alloy Steel Products; Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 34), granting a motion of complainant United States Steel Corporation to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to correct the name of respondent “Shougang Group” to “Shougang Corporation.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Megan M Valentine, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on June 2, 2016, based on a complaint filed by United States Steel Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“U.S. Steel”), alleging a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. 81 FR 35381 (June 2, 2016). The notice of investigation named numerous respondents, including Shougang Group and China Shougang International Trade & Engineering Corporation (“Shougang Trade”) both of Beijing, China. Id. at 35382. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) was also named as a party. Id. The alleged violation of section 337 is based upon the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain carbon and alloy steel products by reason of: (1) a conspiracy to fix prices and control output and export volumes, the threat or effect of which is to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States; (2) misappropriation and use of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States; or (3) false designation of origin or manufacturer, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. Id. at 35381.

    On August 31, 2016, U.S. Steel filed a motion for leave to amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation to correct the name of respondent “Shougang Group” to “Shougang Corporation.” On September 12, 2016, respondent Shougang Trade responded to the motion, identifying an apparent error in the proposed amended Complaint but stating that it does not oppose the motion. No other responses were received.

    On September 19, 2016, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting U.S. Steel's motion pursuant to Commission rule 210.14(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.14(b)(1)). The ID notes that on June 30, 2016, following institution of the investigation, Shougang Trade filed a response to the Complaint, stating that “Shougang Group” is not a legal entity. Shougang Trade also asserted that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shougang Corporation. U.S. Steel noted in its motion that the address for Shougang Corporation is the same address that was identified in the Complaint for “Shougang Group.” The ALJ found there is good cause to amend the pleadings to correct the name of a misidentified respondent. The ALJ also found that there is no prejudice in identifying Shougang Corporation at this stage of the investigation because Shougang Trade, its wholly owned subsidiary, was properly served the Complaint and Notice of Investigation and has entered an appearance.

    No petitions for review were filed and the Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 19, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25716 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-420F] Final Adjusted Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016 AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice (DOJ).

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    This final order establishes the final adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.

    DATES:

    This order is effective October 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Legal Authority

    Section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 826), requires the Attorney General to establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II and for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. The Attorney General has delegated this function to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100.

    Background

    The DEA published the 2016 established aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II and for the assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine in the Federal Register on October 6, 2015. 80 FR 60400. This notice stated that the Administrator would adjust, as needed, the established aggregate production quotas in 2016 in accordance with 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13. The 2016 proposed adjusted aggregate production quotas for controlled substances in schedules I and II, and assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine were subsequently published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2016, (81 FR 47829) in consideration of the outlined criteria. All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to the proposed adjusted aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs on or before August 22, 2016.

    Comments Received

    Four DEA-registered entities submitted timely comments regarding a total of six schedule I and II controlled substances. Comments received proposed that the aggregate production quotas for amphetamine (for sale), etorphine hydrochloride, methadone, methadone intermediate, nabilone, and phencyclidine were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The DEA received one comment from a non-DEA registered entity requesting the reduction of oxycodone (for sale) to pre-2013 levels. The DEA received one comment from a DEA registrant regarding the proposed removal of the additional 25% of the estimated medical, scientific, and research needs of the United States for the calendar year 2017 published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2016 (81 FR 47821).

    The DEA received one comment from a DEA-registered entity and two comments from non-DEA registered entities for the proposed adjustments to the 2016 assessment of annual needs for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine. Comments received proposed that the annual assessment of needs for ephedrine (for sale) and pseudoephedrine (for sale) were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements, and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks.

    Analysis for Final Adjusted 2016 Aggregate Production Quotas and Assessment of Annual Needs

    In determining the final adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the factors set forth in 21 CFR 1303.13 and 21 CFR 1315.13 in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 826(a), and other relevant factors including the 2015 year-end inventories, initial 2016 manufacturing and import quotas, 2016 export requirements, actual and projected 2016 sales, research and product development requirements, and additional applications received. Based on all of the above, the Administrator has determined that the proposed adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for amphetamine (for sale), etorphine hydrochloride, dextropropoxyphene, levorphanol, nabilone, noroxymorphone (for sale), phencyclidine, and secobarbital required additional consideration, and hereby further adjusts the 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for these substances. This final order reflects those adjustments.

    Regarding ephedrine (for sale), methadone, methadone intermediate, oxycodone (for sale), and pseudoephedrine (for sale) the Administrator hereby determines that the proposed adjusted 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs for these substances and list I chemicals as published on July 22, 2016, (81 FR 47829) are sufficient to meet the current 2016 estimated medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States and to provide for adequate reserve stock. This final order establishes these aggregate production quotas at the same amounts as proposed.

    As described in the previously published notice establishing the 2016 aggregate production quotas and assessment of annual needs, the DEA has specifically considered that inventory allowances granted to individual manufacturers may not always result in the availability of sufficient quantities to maintain an adequate reserve stock pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826(a), as intended. 21 CFR 1303.24. This would be concerning if a natural disaster or other unforeseen event resulted in substantial disruption to the amount of controlled substances available to provide for legitimate public need. As such, the DEA included in all final schedule II aggregate production quotas, and certain schedule I aggregate production quotas, an additional 25% of the estimated medical, scientific, and research needs as part of the amount necessary to ensure the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The resulting final aggregate production quotas will reflect these included amounts. This action will not affect the ability of manufacturers to maintain inventory allowances as specified by regulation. The DEA expects that maintaining this reserve in certain established aggregate production quotas will mitigate adverse public effects if an unforeseen event results in the substantial disruption to the amount of controlled substances available to provide for legitimate public need, as determined by the DEA. The DEA does not anticipate utilizing the reserve in the absence of these circumstances.

    Pursuant to the above, the Administrator hereby finalizes the 2016 aggregate production quotas for the following schedule I and II controlled substances and the 2016 assessment of annual needs for the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, as follows:

    Basic class Revised 2016 quotas (g) Temporarily Scheduled Substances beta-Hydroxythiofentanyl 30 Butyryl fentanyl 30 Schedule I [1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3-yl](naphthalen-1-yl)methanone (THJ-2201) 15 1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine 10 1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201) 45 1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694) 45 1-[1-(2-Thienyl)cyclohexyl]piperidine 15 1-[2-(4-Morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200) 45 1-Benzylpiperazine 25 1-Butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073) 45 1-Cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR-18 and RCS-8) 45 1-Hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019) 45 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-4-propionoxypiperidine 2 1-Pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678) 45 1-Pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-203) 45 1-Pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250) 45 1-Pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398) 45 1-Pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122) 45 1-Pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19, RCS-4) 45 1-Pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-081) 45 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E) 30 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D) 30 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N) 30 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-n-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-P) 30 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H) 30 2-(4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25B-NBOMe; 2C-B-NBOMe; 25B; Cimbi-36) 25 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C) 30 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25C-NBOMe; 2C-C-NBOMe; 25C; Cimbi-82) 25 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I) 30 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25I-NBOMe; 2C-I-NBOMe; 25I; Cimbi-5) 15 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylamphetamine (DOET) 25 2,5-Dimethoxy-4-n-propylthiophenethylamine 25 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine 25 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-2) 30 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-4) 30 3,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine 25 3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) 55 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) 50 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA) 40 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylcathinone (methylone) 50 3,4-Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) 35 3-FMC; 3-Fluoro-N-methylcathinone 25 3-Methylfentanyl 2 3-Methylthiofentanyl 2 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOB) 25 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine (2-CB) 25 4-FMC; Flephedrone 25 4-Methoxyamphetamine 150 4-Methyl-2,5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DOM) 25 4-Methylaminorex 25 4-MEC; 4-Methyl-N-ethylcathinone 25 4-Methyl-N-methylcathinone (mephedrone) 45 4-Methyl-α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (4-MePPP) 25 5-(1,1-Dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol 68 5-(1,1-Dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-homolog) 53 5-Fluoro-UR144, XLR11 25 5-Methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine 25 5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine 25 5-Methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine 25 AB-PINACA 15 Acetyl-alpha-methylfentanyl 2 Acetyldihydrocodeine 2 Acetylmethadol 2 AH-7921 30 Allylprodine 2 alpha-Ethyltryptamine 25 alpha-Methylfentanyl 2 alpha-Methylthiofentanyl 2 alpha-Methyltryptamine (AMT) 25 alpha-Pyrrolidinobutiophenone (α-PBP) 25 alpha-Pyrrolidinopentiophenone (α-PVP) 25 Alphacetylmethadol 2 Alphameprodine 2 Alphamethadol 2 Aminorex 25 APINCA, AKB48 25 Benzylmorphine 2 beta-Hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl 2 beta-Hydroxyfentanyl 2 Betacetylmethadol 2 Betameprodine 2 Betamethadol 4 Betaprodine 2 Bufotenine 3 Butylone 25 Cathinone 30 Codeine methylbromide 5 Codeine-N-oxide 305 Desomorphine 25 Diethyltryptamine 25 Difenoxin 11,000 Dihydromorphine 2,000,000 Dimethyltryptamine 35 Dipipanone 5 Fenethylline 5 gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid 70,250,000 Heroin 50 Hydromorphinol 2 Hydroxypethidine 2 Ibogaine 5 Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 40 Marihuana 658,000 Mescaline 25 Methaqualone 10 Methcathinone 25 Methyldesorphine 5 Methyldihydromorphine 2 Morphine methylbromide 5 Morphine methylsulfonate 5 Morphine-N-oxide 350 N,N-Dimethylamphetamine 25 N-(1-Amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA) 50 N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA) 50 N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-CHMINACA) 15 N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacetamide (acetyl fentanyl) 100 N-Ethyl-1-phenylcyclohexylamine 5 N-Ethylamphetamine 24 N-Hydroxy-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine 24 Naphyrone 25 Noracymethadol 2 Norlevorphanol 52 Normethadone 2 Normorphine 40 Para-fluorofentanyl 5 Parahexyl 5 Pentedrone 25 Pentylone 25 Phenomorphan 2 Pholcodine 5 Psilocybin 30 Psilocyn 50 Quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22) 25 Quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC) 25 Tetrahydrocannabinols 511,250 Thiofentanyl 2 Tilidine 25 Trimeperidine 2 UR-144 25 Schedule II 1-Phenylcyclohexylamine 5 1-Piperidinocyclohexanecarbonitrile 5 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP) 2,250,000 Alfentanil 17,750 Alphaprodine 3 Amobarbital 25,125 Amphetamine (for conversion) 15,000,000 Amphetamine (for sale) 50,000,000 Carfentanil 19 Cocaine 200,000 Codeine (for conversion) 50,000,000 Codeine (for sale) 63,900,000 Dextropropoxyphene 55 Dihydrocodeine 226,375 Dihydroetorphine 3 Diphenoxylate (for conversion) 18,750 Diphenoxylate (for sale) 1,337,500 Ecgonine 125,000 Ethylmorphine 5 Etorphine hydrochloride 40 Fentanyl 2,300,000 Glutethimide 3 Hydrocodone (for conversion) 177,500 Hydrocodone (for sale) 86,000,000 Hydromorphone 7,000,000 Isomethadone 5 Levo-alphacetylmethadol (LAAM) 4 Levomethorphan 33 Levorphanol 9,525 Lisdexamfetamine 23,750,000 Meperidine 4,632,500 Meperidine Intermediate-A 6 Meperidine Intermediate-B 11 Meperidine Intermediate-C 6 Metazocine 19 Methadone (for sale) 31,875,000 Methadone Intermediate 34,375,000 Methamphetamine 2,061,375 [1,250,000 grams of levo-desoxyephedrine for use in a non-controlled, non-prescription product; 750,000 grams for methamphetamine mostly for conversion to a schedule III product; and 61,375 grams for methamphetamine (for sale)] Methylphenidate 84,375,000 Morphine (for conversion) 91,250,000 Morphine (for sale) 62,500,000 Nabilone 18,875 Noroxymorphone (for conversion) 17,500,000 Noroxymorphone (for sale) 875,000 Opium (powder) 112,500 Opium (tincture) 375,000 Oripavine 30,000,000 Oxycodone (for conversion) 5,000,000 Oxycodone (for sale) 139,150,000 Oxymorphone (for conversion) 25,000,000 Oxymorphone (for sale) 6,250,000 Pentobarbital 38,125,000 Phenazocine 6 Phencyclidine 60 Phenmetrazine 3 Phenylacetone 50 Racemethorphan 5 Racemorphan 3 Remifentanil 3,750 Secobarbital 243,380 Sufentanil 6,255 Tapentadol 25,500,000 Thebaine 125,000,000 List I Chemicals Ephedrine (for conversion) 50,000 Ephedrine (for sale) 4,000,000 Phenylpropanolamine (for conversion) 15,000,000 Phenylpropanolamine (for sale) 8,500,000 Pseudoephedrine (for conversion) 40 Pseudoephedrine (for sale) 200,000,000

    Aggregate production quotas for all other schedule I and II controlled substances included in 21 CFR 1308.11 and 1308.12 remain at zero.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25696 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Program To Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before November 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201605-1219-001 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-MSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines information collection. Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702 prohibits a person from smoking or carrying smoking materials underground or in places where there is a fire or explosion hazard. Regulations 30 CFR 75.1702-1 requires a mine operator to submit a smoking prevention plan to the MSHA for approval. Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 section 103(h) authorizes this information collection. See 30 U.S.C. 813(h).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1219-0041.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42734).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1219-0041. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Agency: DOL-MSHA.

    Title of Collection: Program to Prevent Smoking in Hazardous Areas of Underground Coal Mines.

    OMB Control Number: 1219-0041.

    Affected Public: Private Sector—businesses or other for-profits.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 17.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 17.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 9 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25769 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will be submitting the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of publication of this notice.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before November 25, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for NCUA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at [email protected] and (2) NCUA PRA Clearance Officer, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, Suite 5067, or email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Copies of the submission may be obtained by emailing [email protected] or viewing the entire information collection request at www.reginfo.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Number: 3133-0098.

    Type of Review: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection.

    Title: Advertising of Excess Insurance, 12 CFR 740.3.

    Abstract: Requirements of 12 CFR 740.3, Advertising of excess insurance, prescribes that federally insured credit unions must disclose in advertising the share or savings account insurance provided by a party other than NCUA. This disclosure statement must include the identity of the carrier, the type and amount of such insurance and must avoid any statement or implication that the carrier is affiliated with NCUA or the federal government. The disclosure requirements under § 740.3 are necessary to ensure that share account holders are aware that their accounts are insured by carriers other than the NCUA.

    Affected Public: Private Sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 300.

    OMB Number: 3133-0130.

    Type of Review: Extension of a previously approved collection.

    Title: Written Reimbursement Policy.

    Abstract: Federal Credit Unions (“FCU”) may reimburse its board members for reasonable and proper costs incurred in conducting their official responsibilities only if the reimbursement is in accordance with the written reimbursement policies and procedures established by the FCU's board of directors. Access to this plan, and documentation related to its implementation is necessary for NCUA examiners to verify compliance with this requirement.

    Affected Public: Private sector: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,890.

    By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, the National Credit Union Administration, on October 19, 2016.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Troy S. Hillier, NCUA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25736 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Humanities Meeting of National Council on the Humanities AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Council on the Humanities will meet to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) with respect to policies, programs and procedures for carrying out his functions; to review applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman; and to consider gifts offered to NEH and make recommendations thereon to the Chairman.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m., and Friday, November 18, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until adjourned.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for room numbers.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Council on the Humanities is meeting pursuant to the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 951-960, as amended). The Committee meetings of the National Council on the Humanities will be held on November 17, 2016, as follows: the policy discussion session (open to the public) will convene at 10:30 a.m. until approximately 11:30 a.m., followed by the discussion of specific grant applications and programs before the Council (closed to the public) from 11:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.

    Challenge Grants: Room 4089

    Education Programs: Conference Room C.

    Federal/State Partnership: 2002

    Preservation and Access Programs: Room P002.

    Public Programs: Room P003

    Research Programs/Digital Humanities: Room 4002.

    The plenary session of the National Council on the Humanities will convene on November 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in the Conference Center at Constitution Center. The agenda for the morning session (open to the public) will be as follows:

    A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting B. Reports 1. Chairman's Remarks 2. Deputy Chairman's Remarks 3. Conversation with NEH Chairman William D. Adams and Mellon Foundation President Earl Lewis 4. Congressional Affairs Report 5. Budget Report 6. Reports on Policy and General Matters a. Challenge Grants b. Education Programs c. Federal/State Partnership d. Preservation and Access Programs e. Public Programs f. Research Programs g. Digital Humanities

    The remainder of the plenary session will be for consideration of specific applications and therefore will be closed to the public.

    As identified above, portions of the meeting of the National Council on the Humanities will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4), 552b(c)(6) and 552b(c)(9)(b) of Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The closed sessions will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, and discussion of certain information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated April 15, 2016.

    Please note that individuals planning to attend the public sessions of the meeting are subject to security screening procedures. If you wish to attend any of the public sessions, please inform NEH as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Katherine Griffin at (202) 606-8322 or [email protected] Please also provide advance notice of any special needs or accommodations, including for a sign language interpreter.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25723 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0214] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from September 27, 2016, to October 7, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on October 11, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by November 25, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods.

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0214. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0214, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0214.

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

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0214, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    I. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).

    The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by December 27, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter “petition”), and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a petition will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing.

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Dominion Energy Kewanee, Inc. (DEK), Docket No. 50-305, Kewanee Power Station (KPS), Carlton, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2015. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15261A238.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the KPS Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) and the Permanently Defueled Emergency Action Levels (EAL) Bases Document. DEK requests revisions of the PDEP and the EAL Bases Document that reflect DEK's plan to transfer all spent fuel to the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment would modify the KPS renewed facility operating license by revising the emergency plan and revising the EAL scheme. KPS has permanently ceased operation and is permanently defueled. The proposed amendment is conditioned on all spent nuclear fuel being removed from wet storage in the spent fuel pool and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI. Occurrence of postulated accidents associated with spent fuel stored in a spent fuel pool is no longer credible in a spent fuel pool devoid of such fuel. The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems, structures, and components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated accidents in the KPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).

    Since KPS has permanently ceased operation, the generation of fission products has ceased and the remaining source term continues to decay. This continues to significantly reduce the consequences of previously postulated accidents.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.

    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment constitutes a revision of the emergency planning function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated reduction in radiological source term at KPS.

    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment as a result of the proposed amendment.

    Similarly, the proposed amendment would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. The credible events for the ISFSI remain unchanged.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for KPS no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. With all nuclear spent fuel pool transferred out of wet storage from the spent fuel pool and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is no longer credible. There are no longer credible events that would result in any releases beyond the site boundary exceeding the EPA PAG [Environmental Protection Agency protective action guideline] exposure levels, as detailed in the EPA's “Protective Action Guide and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,” Draft for Interim Use and Public Comment dated March 2013 (PAG Manual).

    The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is no change to any of these margins.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.

    Dominion Energy Kewanee, Inc. (DEK), Docket No. 50-305, Kewanee Power Station (KPS), Carlton, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: July 28, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16216A187.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the KPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 9.5.2.2.4, “Auxiliary Building Crane,” to: (1) Add a description of a non-single failure proof intermediate lifting device that DEK intends to use during a specific spent fuel cask handling activity in the auxiliary building, and (2) incorporate a new load drop analysis applicable to the use of this intermediate lifting device. The amendment also includes (for information) a new Technical Requirements Manual section that governs the use of the non-single failure proof intermediate lifting device to ensure compliance with the required parameters in the load drop analysis.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The probability of a heavy load drop onto fuel is unchanged by this amendment since the intermediate lift device is not used for handling loaded or unloaded spent fuel canisters in or around the spent fuel pool. Heavy load lifts in and around the spent fuel pool will continue to be performed per the current licensing basis.

    The proposed amendment has no effect on the capability of any plant systems, structures, and components (SSCs) to perform their design functions. The spent fuel pool is unaffected by the proposed amendment. The design function of the auxiliary building crane is not changed. Other lifting devices and interfacing lifting points associated with spent fuel cask handling are designed in accordance with applicable NRC guidance pertaining to single failure proof lifting systems. Therefore, the proposed amendment would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated accidents in the KPS USAR.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.

    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment does not affect cask handling activities in or around the KPS spent fuel pool. Drops of heavy loads will continue to be very improbable events. Use of a different type of equipment to lift spent fuel canisters does not involve any new or different kind of accident.

    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not physically change any SSCs involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. The physical structure of the spent fuel canisters is not altered by this amendment.

    The possibility of a heavy load drop onto fuel remains non-credible since the intermediate lift device is not used to handle spent fuel canisters in or around the spent fuel pool. Heavy load lifts in and around the spent fuel pool will continue to be performed per the current licensing basis. The proposed amendment does not impact safe shutdown equipment. The spent fuel pool, including its cooling and inventory makeup, is unaffected by the proposed amendment.

    The current licensing basis (USAR Section 14.2.1) includes evaluations of the consequences of a fuel handling accident involving failure of fuel cladding. Postulation of a canister load drop creates the possibility of a new initiator of this previously evaluated accident (failure of fuel cladding) caused by the postulated non-mechanistic single failure of the intermediate lift device. The analysis concludes that the postulated drop of a canister loaded with fuel assemblies would not result in failure of canister integrity (and therefore there would be no radiological release). The consequences of a canister drop are bounded by the current licensing scenario of a fuel handling accident.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Heavy load handling will continue to be conducted in accordance with NRC approved methods. Analysis of a postulated load drop of a loaded spent fuel canister demonstrates satisfactory outcomes.

    The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not significantly affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and components perform their safety function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant, there is likewise no significant change to any of these margins.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.

    Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16243A259.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Operating License and associated Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications (PDTS) to reflect removal of all CR-3 spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools and its transfer to dry cask storage within the onsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment would modify the CR-3 facility operating license and PDTS by deleting the portions of the license and PDTS that are no longer applicable to a facility with no spent nuclear fuel stored in the spent fuel pools, while modifying the remaining portions to correspond to all nuclear fuel stored within an ISFSI. This amendment will be implemented within 60 days following DEF's submittal of written notification to the NRC that all spent fuel assemblies have been transferred out of the spent fuel pools and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI.

    The definition of safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in 10 CFR 50.2 states that safety-related SSCs are those relied on to remain functional during and following design basis events to assure:

    1. The integrity of the reactor coolant boundary;

    2. The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition; or

    3. The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(1) or 100.11.

    The first two criteria (integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and safe shutdown of the reactor) are not applicable to a plant in a permanently defueled condition. The third criterion is related to preventing or mitigating the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures exceeding limits. However, after all nuclear spent fuel assemblies have been transferred to dry cask storage within an ISFSI, none of the SSCs at CR-3 are required to be relied on for accident mitigation. Therefore, none of the SSCs at CR-3 meet the definition of a safety-related SSC stated in 10 CFR 50.2. The proposed deletion of requirements in the PDTS does not affect systems credited in any accident analysis at CR-3.

    Section 14 of the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) described the design basis accidents (DBAs) related to the spent fuel pools. These postulated accidents are predicated on spent fuel being stored in the spent fuel pools. With the removal of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pools, there are no remaining spent fuel assemblies to be monitored and there are no credible accidents that require the actions of a Certified Fuel Handler, Shift Manager, or a Non-certified Operator to prevent occurrence or mitigate the consequences of an accident.

    The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the remaining decommissioning activities or any of their postulated consequences.

    The proposed changes related to the relocation of certain administrative requirements do not affect operating procedures or administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or decommissioning of the facility.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes eliminate the operational requirements and certain design requirements associated with the storage of the spent fuel in the spent fuel pools, and relocate certain administrative controls to the Quality Assurance Program Description or other licensee controlled document.

    After the removal of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pools and transfer to the ISFSI, there are no spent fuel assemblies that remain in the spent fuel pools. Coupled with a prohibition against storage of fuel in the spent fuel pools, the potential for fuel related accidents is removed. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the spent fuel pools into storage in casks within an ISFSI, coupled with a prohibition against future storage of fuel within the spent fuel pools, removes the potential for fuel related accidents.

    The design basis and accident assumptions within the CR-3 FSAR and the PDTS relating to safe management and safety of spent fuel in the spent fuel pools are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not affect remaining plant operations, systems, or components supporting decommissioning activities.

    The requirements for systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that have been removed from the CR-3 PDTS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for any applicable postulated accident; and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.

    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16182A387.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise HNP Technical Specifications (TSs) to (1) delete the Gaseous Radwaste Treatment System definition from TSs, (2) relocate Explosive Gas Mixture TS requirements and Liquid Holdup Tanks TS requirements to a licensee-controlled program in the Procedures and Programs TSs section, and (3) modify the Gas Storage Tank Radioactivity Monitoring Program TSs into an Explosive Gas and Storage Tank Radioactivity Monitoring Program to include controls for potentially explosive gas mixtures and the quantity of radioactivity contained in unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and alter only the format and location of programmatic controls and procedural details relative to explosive gas monitoring and liquid holdup tanks. Existing TS containing procedural details are being relocated to licensee control. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements will continue to be maintained. In addition, the proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any of the previous accident analyses. Because the previous accident analyses remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new limiting single failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes. Also, there will be no change in types or increase in the amounts of any effluents released offsite.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety and are considered administrative in nature. The proposed changes do not involve any actual change in the methodology used in the monitoring of explosive gas mixtures contained in the Gaseous Waste Processing System. HNP does not currently utilize unprotected outdoor liquid storage tanks; therefore, there are no associated methodology changes with this request. These changes provide for the relocation of procedural details outside of the technical specifications with the addition of appropriate administrative controls to provide continued assurance of compliance to applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lara Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.

    Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16194A515.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would reduce the minimum reactor dome pressure associated with the critical power correlation from 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 685 psig in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1, “Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],” and associated bases.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The change does not involve a modification of any plant hardware; the probability and consequence of the Pressure Regulator Failure Open (PRFO) transient are essentially unchanged. The reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit (SL) from 785 psig to 685 psig provides greater margin to accommodate the pressure reduction during the transient within the revised TS limit.

    The proposed change will continue to support the validity range for the correlations and the calculation of Minimum Core Power Ratio (MCPR) as approved. The proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal, accident or transient operating conditions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure SL from 785 psig to 685 psig is a change based upon previously approved documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being introduced.

    Therefore, the change does not introduce a new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure enhances the safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The available pressure range is expanded by the change, thus offering greater margin for pressure reduction during the transient.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO), Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated June 3, 2016, and September 19, 2016. Publicly available versions are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16015A456, ML16155A326, and ML16263A237, respectively.

    Description of amendment request: The licensee has provided a formal notification to the NRC of the intention to permanently cease power operations of JAF at the end of the current operating cycle. Once certifications for permanent cessation of operation and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, certain staffing and training Technical Specifications (TSs) administrative controls will no longer be applicable or appropriate for the permanently defueled condition. Therefore, ENO is requesting approval of changes to the staffing and training requirements in Section 5.0, “Administrative Controls,” of the JAF TSs. Specifically, the amendment would revise and remove certain requirements in TS Sections 5.1, “Responsibility”; 5.2, “Organization”; and 5.3, “Plant Staff Qualifications,” and add additional definitions to TS Section 1.1, “Definitions.” The proposed amendment would not be effective until the certification of permanent cessation of operation and certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are submitted to the NRC.

    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10678). The notice is being reissued in its entirety to include the revised scope and description of the amendment request.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment would not take effect until JAF has permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled condition. The proposed amendment would modify the JAF TS by deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition.

    The deletion and modification of provisions of the administrative controls do not directly affect the design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes to the administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor.

    In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accident is the fuel handling accident.

    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable accidents.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The administrative removal of or modifications of the TS that are related only to administration of facility cannot result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and JAF will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.

    The proposed deletion of requirements of the JAF TS do not affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the fuel handling accident at JAF. The proposed TS will continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.

    The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for JAF will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are submitted, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible accident is a fuel handling accident (FHA). The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact the FHA.

    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the OL [operating license] and TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the JAF OL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and JAF will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16210A227.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise technical specification (TS) requirements relating to: (1) The inservice inspection (ISI) program required by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Code (Code), and (2) the inservice testing (IST) program required by the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code). The proposed changes are based, in part, on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing.”

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises TS 4.0.5, Surveillance Requirements for inservice inspection and testing of ASME Code Class 1, 2 & 3 components, by revising the Inservice Testing Program and Inservice Inspection Program specification.

    Most requirements in the IST Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” The remaining requirements in the TS Section 4.0.5, IST Program are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program,” is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).

    Similarly, the requirements in the ISI Program are revised, as they are [ ] duplicative of requirements in Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda.

    Performance of inservice testing or inservice inspection is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than two years may be extended by up to six months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing or inservice inspection performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing and inservice inspection is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing or inspection would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change eliminates some provisions from the TS in lieu of provisions in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20 (IST) or ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ISI). Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than two years to be extended by six months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR 4.0.2 allowance to perform a specified surveillance time interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25% of the surveillance interval, unless there is a specific SR referencing usage of the INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM and TS SR 4.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16201A306.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for TMI-1. The proposed changes would decrease the radiation protection technician staffing from three to two technicians, remove two maintenance technicians currently assigned to the repair and corrective action function, and eliminate the on-shift Operations Support Center director position.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to the TMI Emergency Plan do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO [emergency response organization] to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.

    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.

    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public.

    The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to the ERO minimum on-shift staffing.

    The proposed changes are associated with the Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.

    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    Northern States Power Company—Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A493.

    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Required Actions and associated Completion Times to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.7, “Inverters—Operating.” Specifically, Condition B would be deleted and current Condition C would be re-lettered to Condition B. Additionally, the Required Actions and associated Completion Times for Condition A would be modified to require restoration of one inoperable inverter to operability within 24 hours. These changes conform to Improved Standard Technical Specification TS 3.8.7.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The proposed TS change does not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor does the proposed change alter existing system relationships. The proposed change does not affect normal plant operation. Further, the proposed change does not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any SSC [structure, system and component] or impact any analyzed accident. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected and there is no significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Further, the proposed change does not introduce new accident initiators.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of eliminating a non-conservative Required Action. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis assumptions and acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16203A006.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) Technical Specifications (TS), Section 6.8.4.i, “Inservice Testing Program,” to remove requirements duplicated in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program,” will be added to the TS 1.0, “Definitions,” section. The licensee stated that the proposed change to the TS is consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarity SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15294A555), with no proposed variations or deviations. However, the Hope Creek TS uses different numbering for surveillance requirements than the Standard Technical Specifications on which TSTF-545 was based, so the licensee changed the TSTF-545 numbering to be consistent with the Hope Creek TS numbering.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises TS Chapter 6, “Administrative Controls,” Section 6.8, “Procedures and Programs,” by eliminating the “Inservice Testing Program” specification. Most requirements in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” The remaining requirements in the Section 6.8 IST Program are eliminated [. . .]. A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program,” is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).

    Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS 4.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the TS provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. [. . .] However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 15, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16259A310.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* information. Specifically, the proposed changes would revise the Combined Licenses to clarify information in WCAP-17179, “AP1000® Component Interface Module Technical Report,” which demonstrates design compliance with licensing bases requirements. WCAP-17179 is incorporated by reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details regarding the component interface module (CIM) system design. The requested amendments also propose a change to the CIM internal power supply that will enable proper functioning of the field programmable gate arrays.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the field programmable gate array (FPGA) to function properly. The proposed change to the FPGA core power has no adverse effect on the operation of the output actuation relays. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc [volts direct current] supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.

    The proposed changes to clarify how licensing basis design documentation reflects compliance with license basis requirements, and the proposed change to the ownership of safety remote node controller (SRNC) and CIM intellectual property, are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiator in the UFSAR, or affect the radioactive material releases in the UFSAR accident analyses. The proposed change does not alter the ability of the facility to prevent and mitigate abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-related structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is adversely affected. The change does not involve or interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. This activity does not involve a new fission product release path, nor a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures. Because the proposed changes do not change any safety-related SSC or function credited in the mitigation of an accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly and does not involve accident initiators. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on CIM functionality.

    The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect other plant equipment or adversely affect the design of the CIM. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. No system or design function or equipment qualification would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supplies has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.

    The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by the changes. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16272A373.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, plant-specific Tier 2, and Combined License (COL) Appendix C information concerning the details of the Class 1E direct current and uninterruptible power supply system (IDS), specifically adding seven Class 1E fuse panels to the IDS design. These proposed changes provide electrical isolation between the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and their respective Class 1E battery banks. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits, are necessary to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.75 Rev. 2 (consistent with UFSAR Appendix 1A exceptions) and IEEE 384-1981 to prevent a fault on non-Class 1E circuits or equipment from degrading the operation of Class 1E IDS circuits and equipment below an acceptable level. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design functions of the IDS, including the Class 1E battery banks and the battery monitors.

    These proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and UFSAR information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits as described in the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions of any plant systems. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any plant electrical system and do not affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident precursors.

    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to revise plant-specific Tier 1, COL Appendix C, and UFSAR information concerning details of the IDS, specifically the addition of seven Class 1E fuse isolation panels at the interconnection of the non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits, are necessary to conform to Regulatory Guide 1.75 Rev. 2 (consistent with UFSAR Appendix 1A exceptions) and IEEE 384-1981 to prevent a fault on non-Class 1E circuits or equipment from degrading the operation of Class 1E IDS circuits and equipment below an acceptable level. The proposed changes do not adversely affect any plant electrical system and do not adversely affect the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the proposed changes.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    There is no safety-related [structure, system, and component (SSC)] or function adversely affected by the proposed change to add IDS fuse isolation panels to non-Class 1E IDS battery monitors and Class 1E IDS circuits. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes and no margin or safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated July 27, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15356A655 and ML16209A477, respectively.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise the Combined License (COL) Appendix C and corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 information to add two turbine building sump pumps to accommodate the increased flow that will be experienced during condensate polishing system rinsing operations, for each unit, respectively. The proposed changes include information in the combined license, Appendix C. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes to the AP1000 DCD Tier 1 is included with the request.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps (WWS-MP-07A and WWS-MP-07B) to COL Appendix C Subsection 2.3.29 and corresponding Table 2.3.29-1 will provide consistency within the current licensing basis. The main turbine building sumps and sump pumps are not safety-related components and do not interface with any systems, structures, or components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events; thus, the probability of accidents evaluated within the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to accident conditions, thus the consequences of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps to the non-safety waste water system (WWS) do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor do they add any new interface to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The WWS is a non-safety-related system that does not interface with any safety-related equipment. The proposed changes to identify that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps do not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16236A266.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information and involve related changes to the Combined Operating License Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific design control document Tier 1) information. Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to the design reliability assurance program (D-RAP) to identify the covers for the in-containment refueling water storage tank vents and overflow weirs as the risk-significant components included in the D-RAP and to differentiate between the rod drive motor-generator (MG) sets field control relays and the rod drive power supply control cabinets in which the relays are located.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) provides flooding of the refueling cavity for normal refueling. The tank also serves as a heat sink during Passive Residual Heat Removal (PRHR) Heat Exchanger (HX) operation and in the event of a loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) provides injection in support of long-term RCS [reactor coolant system] cooling. This activity adds normally closed covers to the IRWST vents and overflow weirs to prevent debris from entering the tank, prevent over-pressurization and accommodate volume and mass increases in the tank. The vent and overflow weir covers open upon differential pressures between the IRWST and containment.

    The rod drive MG sets provide the power to the control rod drive mechanisms through the reactor trip switchgear. This activity revises the equipment description and equipment tag associated with the risk-significant control relays which open to de-energize the rod drive MG sets and permit rods to drop.

    The proposed changes to add the IRWST vent and overflow weir covers and to change the description of the equipment and equipment tag related to the rod drive MG sets does not inhibit the SSCs from performing their safety-related function. The design bases of the IRWST vents and overflow weirs are not modified as a result of the addition of the covers to the vents and overflow weirs and the change to the control cabinet relay description and equipment tag. This proposed amendment does not have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions because the functions of the SSCs are not changed. Required IRWST venting is not affected for any accident conditions. Required DAS functions are not affected for any accident conditions. Safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is not adversely affected by this change. The changes to include the IRWST covers and to change the control cabinet relay description and tag number do not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) modeling and analyses associated with the SSCs are not impacted by this change.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to the design of the IRWST vent and overflow weir covers do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or safety-related equipment as the simplistic design of the cover louvers and hinged flappers are not considered unique designs. No new credible failure modes are introduced by the addition of the covers.

    The proposed changes to the description and equipment tag associated with the risk-significant control relays for the rod drive MG sets do not adversely affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or safety-related equipment because the design function of the control relays, control cabinets, or rod drive MG sets is not changed.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes maintain compliance with the applicable Codes and Standards, thereby maintaining the margin of safety associated with these SSCs. The proposed changes do not alter any applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not reduced. Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by these changes, no margin of safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A836.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* information. Specifically, the proposed changes would revise the Combined Licenses for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, to clarify information in WCAP-17179, “AP1000® Component Interface Module Technical Report,” which demonstrates design compliance with licensing bases requirements. WCAP-17179 is incorporated by reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details regarding the component interface module (CIM) system design. The requested amendments also propose a change to the CIM internal power supply that will enable proper functioning of the field programmable gate arrays.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the field programmable gate array (FPGA) to function properly. The proposed change to the FPGA core power has no adverse effect on the operation of the output actuation relays. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc [volts direct current] supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.

    The proposed changes to clarify how licensing basis design documentation reflects compliance with license basis requirements, and the proposed change to the ownership of safety remote node controller (SRNC) and CIM intellectual property, are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiator in the UFSAR, or affect the radioactive material releases in the UFSAR accident analyses. The proposed change does not alter the ability of the facility to prevent and mitigate abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No safety-related structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is adversely affected. The change does not involve or interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. This activity does not involve a new fission product release path, nor a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures. Because the proposed changes do not change any safety-related SSC or function credited in the mitigation of an accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly and does not involve accident initiators. The change to the CIM internal power supply has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on CIM functionality.

    The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not affect other plant equipment or adversely affect the design of the CIM. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. No system or design function or equipment qualification would be adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change to the CIM internal power supply enables the FPGA to function properly. The function of the internal power supply has no input to plant safety analysis. The change to the CIM internal power supplies has a negligible effect on the 24 Vdc supplies and ultimately the plant electrical system load and has no adverse effect on the CIM functionality.

    The proposed clarified descriptions and the proposed change to the ownership of SRNC and CIM intellectual property are not technical changes. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be adversely affected by the changes. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16256A135.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would correct an error in the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-8, for Condition 2.C.(23). Specifically, the Unit 2 referenced date prior to the period of extended operation was incorrectly entered as June 25, 2017. This date corresponds to the Unit 1 period of extended operation. The Unit 2 correct date for this license condition is March 31, 2021.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment contains no technical changes; all proposed changes are administrative. These changes are consistent with the intent of what has already been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are no accidents affected by this change, and therefore no reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated September 13, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16210A001 and ML16257A598, respectively.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.6.4.1, “Secondary Containment,” Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3 to provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve any physical change to structures, systems, or components (SSCs) and do not alter the method of operation of any SSCs. The proposed change addresses a temporary condition during which Secondary Containment SRs are not met. The Secondary Containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. [Two accidents credit the Secondary Containment from a dose consequence perspective. They are the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and fuel/equipment handling accident. Each accident requires time to drawdown the secondary containment to less than atmospheric pressure. The brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of both an inner and outer personnel access door during normal entry and exit conditions followed by prompt closure does not challenge the design basis drawdown time and does not result in an increase in any on-site or offsite dose for the LOCA dose analysis. All dose consequences are within the regulatory limits established for the fuel handling accident and bound the case in which airlock doors are briefly, inadvertently opened.] As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of any plant equipment. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There are not setpoints, at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated, affected by the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function of credited equipment be changed. No alterations in the procedures that ensure the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event described in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change addresses temporary conditions during which the Secondary Containment SR is not met. The allowance for both an inner and outer Secondary Containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the reactor enclosure and refuel area Secondary Containments as the doors are promptly closed after entry of exit, thereby restoring the Secondary Containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent simultaneous opening and closing of redundant Secondary Containment personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions does not affect the ability of the SGTS to establish the required Secondary Containment vacuum. Therefore, the safety function of the Secondary Containment is not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie, Esquire, Associate General Counsel, Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 18101.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16277A477.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time extension of the frequency for performing TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) related to verifying the operability of the containment ice bed.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The requested action is a one-time extension to the performance interval for TS SRs [3.6.11.2] and 3.6.11.3. The performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not affect the probability of an accident.

    Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time that the systems and components will be in service before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this action and the consequences remain consistent with previously evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the performance interval of TS SRs [3.6.11.2] and 3.6.11.3. Extending these surveillance requirements does not involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation. Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or process.

    Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems and components will be in service before the surveillances are next performed, as well as the operating experience that these surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.

    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.

    Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16146A540.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.14, “Circulating and Service Water Systems,” to extend the allowed outage time (AOT) for only one operable service water (SW) flow path to the charging pump service water (CPSW) subsystem and to the main control room/emergency switchgear room (MCR/ESGR) air conditioning (AC) subsystem. TS 3.14.A.5 and TS 3.14.A.7 require two SW flow paths to the CPSW subsystem and to the MCR/ESGR AC subsystem, respectively, to be operable. Currently, the TS 3.14.C AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path is 24 hours. The proposed revision will extend the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. The CPSW subsystem is a support system for the Charging/High Head Safety Injection (HHSI) pumps; the proposed CPSW AOT extension aligns the CPSW support system AOT with the AOT for the supported components (i.e., the Charging/HHSI pumps). The proposed MCR/ESGR AC AOT extension revises the AOT to be the same as the CPSW AOT since both subsystems share common piping. The design function of the CPSW system, which is to provide cooling to the charging pump intermediate seal coolers and the charging pump lubricating oil coolers, is not impacted by the proposed revision, nor is the design function of the Charging/HHSI pumps impacted. Furthermore, the design functions of the MCR/ESGR AC subsystem and the MCR/ESGR chillers are not impacted by the proposed revision. In addition, the proposed change deletes the now expired and no longer necessary requirements for the temporary SW jumper to the CCHXs [component cooling heat exchangers]. The deletion of these temporary requirements is administrative in nature. As a result, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGRAC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. In addition, the proposed change deletes the now expired and no longer necessary requirements for the temporary SW jumper to the CCHXs. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) and does not impact plant operation. Furthermore, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change extends the AOT for only one operable CPSW or MCR/ESGR AC flow path from 24 hours to 72 hours. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Furthermore, as noted above, a supporting PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] was performed for the proposed AOT changes. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated with the proposed changes is consistent with the RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS AOT change. This PRA evaluation demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be significantly impacted by changing the AOTs for only one operable SW flow path to the CPSW subsystem and to the MCR/ESGR AC subsystem from 24 to 72 hours. In addition, the proposed change deletes the now expired and no longer necessary requirements for the temporary SW jumper to the CCHXs. The deletion of these temporary requirements is administrative in nature. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16202A068.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.14, “Circulating and Service Water Systems,” to extend the allowed outage time (AOT) for emergency service water (ESW) pump inoperability. The proposed revision would extend the TS 3.14.B AOT for one inoperable ESW pump from 7 days to 14 days to provide operational flexibility for ESW pump maintenance and repairs.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The design function of the ESW pumps is to ensure that water can be provided to the intake canal (i.e., the ultimate heat sink) when power is not available to the Circulating Water (CW) pumps. The proposed extension of the AOT for one inoperable ESW pump from 7 to 14 days does not impact the design function of the ESW pumps. In addition, the number of ESW pumps required to be operable for the specified plant operating conditions is not impacted by the proposed AOT extension. As a result, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) and does not impact plant operation. Furthermore, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Furthermore, as noted above, a supporting PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] was performed for the proposed AOT change. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated with the proposed change is consistent with the RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS AOT change. This PRA evaluation demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be significantly impacted by changing the AOT for one inoperable ESW pump from 7 to 14 days.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 24, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2 Technical Specifications (TSs) to add the evaluation model EMF-2328(P)(A), Supplement 1, “PWR [pressurized water reactor] Small Break LOCA [loss-of coolant accident] Evaluation Model S-RELAP5 Based,” and EMF-92-116(P)(A), Supplement 1, “Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for PWR Fuel Designs,” to the TS Section 6.9.1.8.b list of analytical methods used to determine core operating limits as a result of reanalyzing the small break LOCA.

    Date of issuance: September 30, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 329. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16249A001; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76318). The supplemental letter dated March 24, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated May 19, June 16, July 21, August 12, September 22, November 4, and November 17, 2015; and January 15, March 25, April 7, May 19, and August 29, 2016.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized the transition of the ANO-1 fire protection program to a risk-informed, performance-based program based on National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of performance-based methods such as fire modeling and risk-informed methods such as fire probabilistic risk assessment to demonstrate compliance with the nuclear safety performance criteria.

    Date of issuance: October 7, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented as described in the transition license conditions.

    Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16223A481; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38589). The supplemental letters dated May 19, June 16, July 21, August 12, September 22, November 4, and November 17, 2015; and January 15, March 25, April 7, May 19, and August 29, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 7, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: October 15, 2015, as supplemented by a letter dated May 6, 2016.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments revised the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing bases to reflect the use of the commercially available computer code “Generation of Thermal-Hydraulic Information for Containments (GOTHIC Version 7.2b(QA))” to model the containment response following the inadvertent actuation of the containment spray system during normal plant operation (referred to as the vacuum analysis). The amendments also updated the licensing bases to credit the design basis ability of the containment vessel to withstand a higher external pressure differential of 1.04 pounds per square inch (psi) for Unit No. 1 and 1.05 psi for Unit No. 2, and updated TS 3.6.1.4 for each unit to revise the allowable containment operating pressure range.

    Date of issuance: October 5, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 236 (Unit No. 1) and 186 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16166A424; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7839). The supplemental letter dated May 6, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated October 5, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 9, 2015, and March 14, March 29, April 7, April 20, August 16, September 16, September 21, and September 29, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: By order dated May 6, 2016, as published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2016 (81 FR 32350), the NRC approved the transfer of Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89 for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, and the general license for the independent spent fuel storage installation facility from the current holder, Luminant Generation Company LLC, to Comanche Peak Power Company LLC, as owner, and TEX Operations Company LLC, as operator. The conforming amendments revised the FOLs to reflect the direct transfer of ownership and the indirect transfer of control of the licenses.

    Date of issuance: October 3, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 7 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 167 (Unit No. 1) and 167 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16266A005; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: Amendments revised the FOLs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6545). The supplemental letters dated March 14, March 29, April 7, April 20, August 16, September 16, September 21, and September 29, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016.

    PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date amendment request: October 12, 2015.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding MODE 4 to the applicability of TS 3.6.2.3, “Containment Cooling System.” The amendments also revised TS 3.7.1.1, “Safety Valves,” to correct discrepancies between the applicable modes and the action statements.

    Date of issuance: September 29, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days.

    Amendment Nos.: 315 (Unit No. 1) and 296 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16229A519; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : January 5, 2016 (81 FR 264).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated May 12, 2016, and July 12, 2016.

    Description of amendment: The amendments incorporated changes that are consistent with those generically approved in WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, “AP1000 Core Reference Report,” dated February 19, 2015. The amendments also approved changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 licensing basis information, involves changes to the UFSAR information that has been designated as Tier 2* information, and involves changes to the plant-specific Technical Specifications.

    Date of issuance: September 20, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 50 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 52 (Unit 2) and 52 (Unit 3). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16144A591; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments revised the Facility Combined Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28900). The supplemental letters dated May 12, 2016, and July 12, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; and City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: October 10, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated May 4, 2015; October 15, 2015; and August 26, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting 18 previously NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers, two TSTF T-Travelers, and one feature of the Improved Standard Technical Specifications not associated with a Traveler.

    Date of issuance: September 29, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit 1) and 223 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16231A041; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : March 31, 2015 (80 FR 17095). The supplemental letters dated May 4, 2015; October 15, 2015; and August 26, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; City of Dalton, Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: October 15, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated March 16, May 9, and May 16, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 3.6.4.1.3 to increase the allowable time from 2 minutes to 10 minutes for the standby gas treatment system to draw down the secondary containment to negative pressure.

    Date of issuance: September 30, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 280 (Unit No. 1) and 224 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16235A287; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73240). The supplemental letters dated March 16, May 9, and May 16, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments consisted of change to the Completion Date of Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8—full implementation of the CSP from October 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017.

    Date of issuance: October 3, 2016.

    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 337 (Unit 1) and 330 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16228A096; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79. The amendments revised the Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 8, 2016 (81 FR 44665).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated October 3, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016, as supplemented by letters dated May 31, 2016, and July 22, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a new Condition A to TS 3.7.8, “Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) System,” to extend the allowed completion time to restore ERCW System train to OPERABLE status from 72 hours to 7 days for planned maintenance when the opposite unit is defueled or in Mode 6 following defueled under certain restrictions.

    Date of issuance: September 29, 2016.

    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 336 (Unit 1) and 329 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16225A276; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79. Amendments revised the TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21603). The supplemental letters dated May 31, 2016, and July 22, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated September 29, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    George A. Wilson, Jr., Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25641 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C Systems; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital I&C Systems will hold a meeting on November 2, 2016, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Wednesday, November 2, 2016—8:30 a.m. Until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the Proposed Rulemaking on Cyber Security for Fuel Cycle Facilities. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christina Antonescu (Telephone 301-415-6792 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015, (80 FR 63846).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25767 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on November 3, 2016, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Thursday, November 3, 2016—12:00 p.m. Until 1:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen (Telephone 301-415-5844 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63846).

    Information regarding changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the DFO if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. After registering with security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25796 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES:

    October 24, 31, November 7, 14, 21, 28, 2016.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and closed.

    Week of October 24, 2016 Thursday, October 27, 2016 9:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) (Petition Seeking Review of Decommissioning Trust Fund Issues) (Tentative) Week of October 31, 2016—Tentative Friday, November 4, 2016 10:00 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed Ex. 1) Week of November 7, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 7, 2016.

    Week of November 14, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 14, 2016.

    Week of November 21, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of November 21, 2016.

    Week of November 28, 2016—Tentative Tuesday, November 29, 2016 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Uranium Recovery (Public Meeting), (Contact: Samantha Crane: 301-415-6380) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at [email protected].

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at [email protected]. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected].

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Denise L. McGovern, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25842 Filed 10-21-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0101] Superseded or Outdated Generic Communications AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Generic communications; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing selected generic communications because their guidance no longer provides useful information, their guidance is superseded by updated guidance, or the information can be more effectively made available to interested stakeholders by other means.

    DATES:

    The effective date of the withdrawals is October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0101 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0101. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela M. Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion A. General Information

    The NRC performs periodic reviews of generic communications and withdraws them when they no longer provide useful information or are superseded by technological innovations or updated guidance. A withdrawal includes the original generic communication and any supplements or revisions. The NRC is currently publishing withdrawals of generic communications on a quarterly basis.

    Withdrawal of the original generic communication and supplements, if applicable, will not affect the public's ability to obtain this information. The original generic communication and supplements will remain accessible through ADAMS and the NRC's generic communications Web site. The NRC's generic communication Web site will be updated to reflect the generic communications status as withdrawn. The generic communications Web site is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/.

    B. Withdrawals of Generic Communications

    The following generic communications, by category, are withdrawn.

    1. NRC Requests for Scheduling and Licensing Request Information

    This class of generic communications includes NRC requests for licensing action estimates, scheduling of acceptance reviews to determine budget, and requests for advance notice to pursue license renewals. This class of generic communications are routine correspondence from the NRC requesting licensees, on a voluntary basis, to submit information to assist in planning and budgeting resources. The submittal of this information is strictly voluntary. No specific action or written response is required. After the voluntary submittal period for this class of communication has expired, the document is no longer needed and, in most cases, has been superseded by a new request for the next fiscal year or time period. Therefore, the NRC is withdrawing the following generic communications:

    • Administrative Letter (AL) 1998-03, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” May 6, 1998 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031110198);

    • AL 1999-02, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” June 3, 1999 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031110137);

    • Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2000-04, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” March 16, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003687730);

    • RIS 2001-08, “Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates,” April 2, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML010880474);

    • RIS 2001-21, “Licensing Action Estimates for Operating Reactors,” November 16, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML012840123);

    • RIS 2014-13, “Planned Licensing Action Submittals for all Power Reactor Licensees,” December 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14329A165);

    • RIS 2008-01, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews Based on Notification of Applicant Submission Dates for Early Site Permits, Combined Licenses and Design Certifications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2010,” January 10, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080030011);

    • RIS 2009-03, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications After April 2009 and Process for Determining Budget Needs For Fiscal Year 2011,” February 12, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083260416);

    • RIS 2010-01, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2012,” February 3, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093230517);

    • RIS 2010-03, “Licensing Submittal Information for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” February 25, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100260855);

    • RIS 2010-10, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2013,” November 15, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102720901);

    • RIS 2011-02, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” February 2, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103260128);

    • RIS 2012-12, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” December 28, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A181);

    • RIS 2013-08, “Process for Scheduling Acceptance Reviews of New Reactor Licensing and Design Certification Applications and Process for Determining Budget Needs for Fiscal Year 2016,” May 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13077A148);

    • RIS 2013-18, “Licensing Submittal Information and Design Development Activities for Small Modular Reactor Designs,” November 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13263A227);

    • RIS 2000-20, “Importance of Industry Providing NRC Advance Notice of Intent to Pursue License Renewal,” November 14, 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003752145); and

    • RIS 2003-02, “Importance of Giving NRC Advance Notice of Intent to Pursue License Renewal,” February 3, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030340042).

    2. Generic Communications Withdrawn Because the Information Is Superseded, Out-Of-Date, No Longer Needed, or Being Provided to Interested Stakeholders in a Different Manner

    • RIS 2002-08, “Availability of the Topical Report Program Description and Status on Staff Reviews on the NRC's Web site,” dated May 22, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML012760489), is withdrawn because this RIS informed industry that the publication of NUREG-0390, “Topical Report Review Status,” was being discontinued and all information contained within the NUREG would be available on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/topical-reports.html. This RIS is being withdrawn because the information within the NUREG has been replaced by technological innovations and is available electronically.

    • Circular 1980-18, “10 CFR 50.59 [§ 50.59 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Changes, tests, and experiments”] Safety Evaluations for Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems,” dated August 22, 1980 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103420467), is withdrawn because the information is no longer applicable following the NRC rulemaking (65 FR 53613; October 4, 1999) that went into effect on March 13, 2001.

    • The class of communications in reference to occupational dose or dose equivalent are withdrawn because the information contained within each RIS has been consolidated into the guidance in Regulatory Guide 8.40, “Methods for Measuring Effective Dose Equivalent from External Exposure,” dated July 31, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100610534). Therefore, these generic communications are being withdrawn:

    ○ RIS 2002-06, “Evaluating Occupational Dose for Individuals Exposed to NRC-Licensed Material and Medical X-Rays,” April 16, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML021080436);

    ○ RIS 2003-04, “Use of the Effective Dose Equivalent in Place of the Deep Dose Equivalent in Dose Assessments,” February 13, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030370122);

    ○ RIS 2004-01, “Method for Estimating Effective Dose Equivalent from External Radiation Sources Using Two Dosimeters,” February 17, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040420042); and

    ○ RIS 2009-09, “Use of Multiple Dosimetry and Compartment Factors in Determining Effective Dose Equivalent from External Radiation Exposures, July 13, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML082320040).

    • GL 1989-17, “Planned Administrative Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Written Exam Process,” September 6, 1989 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031140236), is withdrawn because the eligibility requirements for taking the generic fundamentals examination section has been incorporated into Revision 10 of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” December 31, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14352A297).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Sheldon Stuchell, Chief, Generic Communications Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25750 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Securities Rule 477, SEC File No. 270-493, OMB Control No. 3235-0550.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Rule 477 (17 CFR 230.477) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) sets forth procedures for withdrawing a registration statement, including any amendments or exhibits to the registration statement. The rule provides that if an issuer intends to rely on the safe harbor contained in Securities Act Rule 155 to conduct an unregistered private offering of securities, the issuer must affirmatively state in the withdrawal application that it plans to undertake a subsequent private offering of its securities. Without this statement, the Commission would not be able to monitor a company's reliance on, and compliance with, Securities Act Rule 155(c). All information submitted to the Commission under Securities Act Rule 477 is available to the public for review. Information provided under Securities Act Rule 477 is mandatory. The information is required on occasion. We estimate that approximately 327 issuers will file Securities Act Rule 477 submissions annually at an estimated one hour per response for a total annual burden of approximately 327 hours. We estimate that 100% of the reporting burden is prepared by the issuer.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25708 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79122; File No. SR-DTC-2016-010] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Allow DTC To Automate the Process for Participants To Submit Eligibility Requests for Older Issues October 19, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4,2 notice is hereby given that on October 14, 2016, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.4 The proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would amend the DTC Operational Arrangements for Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services (“OA”) 5 and the DTC Underwriting Service Guide (“Guide”) 6 to allow DTC to automate the process by which Participants submit requests and related documents for Securities that are already issued and outstanding (“Older Issues”) to become eligible for Deposit and book-entry transfer services at DTC (“Older Issue Eligibility Requests”).7 Upon its implementation, the proposed rule change would enhance efficiencies for Participants and DTC by providing a secure, centralized environment for the submission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests.

    5Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf.

    6Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/Settlement-Asset-Services/Underwriting/Underwriting-Service-Guide.pdf.

    7 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings set forth in the DTC Rules, By-laws and Organization Certificate (“Rules”), available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.aspx.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The proposed rule change would change the method of submission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests by Participants from the current email method to instead utilize DTC's Securities Origination, Underwriting and Reliable Corporate Action Environment (“UW SOURCE”) for this purpose.8

    8 UW SOURCE is an existing Internet-based system currently used by Participants to submit eligibility requests for newly-issued Securities (“New Issues”). See OA, supra note 5, at 1. The process for submitting eligibility requests for New Issues through UW SOURCE would not change as a result of the proposed rule change. See generally DTC UW Reengineering Web page, available at http://dtcc.com/matching-settlement-and-asset-services/underwriting/uw-source-info (providing background and links to additional information on UW SOURCE).

    In order for an Older Issue to be made eligible for Deposit and book-entry transfer services at DTC, a Participant must submit an Older Issue Eligibility Request to DTC 9 that evidences that the Older Issue meets DTC's requirements for Securities to become and remain eligible for DTC services 10 as set forth in the OA (“Eligibility Requirements”).11 The Older Issue Eligibility Request must at a minimum include a questionnaire (“Older Eligibility Questionnaire”),12 a copy of the Security certificate for the Older Issue, an attestation form signed by the “Agent” 13 for the issue (“Agent Attestation Form”) 14 and the original offering documents prepared by the issuer of the Older Issue (collectively, “Eligibility Request Documents”).15 Today, Participants submit Older Issue Eligibility Requests, including the Eligibility Request Documents, to DTC using email.

    9 Only Participants can request that DTC make a Security eligible. See OA, supra note 5, at 1-2.

    10 It is the responsibility of the Participant requesting eligibility for the Securities to provide evidence that the Securities satisfy the criteria set forth in DTC's OA. See id.

    11See OA, supra note 5, at 2-13 (for DTC's eligibility criteria).

    12 The Older Issue Eligibility Questionnaire is a form that a Participant must complete with respect to the Older Issue to provide DTC with the issuer's name, issue description, CUSIP number, information relating to compliance with Eligibility Requirements, contact information, and other information required in order for DTC to process the issue. In addition, by signing the Older Eligibility Questionnaire, the Participant (i) represents and warrants (a) that the issuer complies with all applicable securities laws, rules and regulations, and banking regulations, (b) the registration or exemption status of the Older Issue under the Securities Act of 1933, and (c) that the information provided on the form is true, accurate and complete, (ii) agrees to indemnify DTC and its affiliates for any loss, damage, cost or expense, arising out of the eligibility request and the Deposit of the referenced Security, and (iii) certifies that it complies with the Rules regarding compliance with sanctions administered and enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and that the Participant has implemented a risk-based OFAC compliance program. (See Rule 2, Section 8, supra note 7.).

    13 “Agent” in the OA means an issuer's auction agent, custodian, depositary, dividend reinvestment plan administrator, exchange agent, issuing and/or paying agent, redemption agent, remarketing agent, registrar, tender agent, transfer agent, trustee, trust company, and/or any other person or entity acting in an agency capacity on behalf of the issuer. See OA, supra note 5, at 1.

    14 By signing the Agent Attestation Form, the Agent for the issue represents that the Agent will comply with the requirements stated in the OA with respect to the issue upon acceptance of the issue as eligible for deposit at DTC.

    15 Further documents and information (e.g., legal opinions, indemnifications and other documentation) may be required as part of the eligibility review. See OA, supra note 5, at 2-13.

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, in an effort to improve processing efficiencies and provide a centralized, secure method for the submission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests, Participants would be required to submit their Older Issue Eligibility Requests, including required Eligibility Request Documents, through UW SOURCE with the designation as an “Eligibility Only” request.16 In other words, pursuant to the proposed rule change, rather than attaching the Eligibility Request Documents to an email message to be sent to a DTC email box as in the current method, Participants would instead transmit the Eligibility Request Documents to DTC via online transmission by uploading the documents into UW SOURCE.17

    16 Designating the submission as “Eligibility Only” in UW SOURCE signifies that the issue is not a New Issue and allows the Participant to deposit the Securities for the issue as soon as it has been made eligible by DTC.

    17 The forms of the Eligibility Request Documents as described above would not change.

    Implementation of the proposed rule change would provide several advantages to Participants and DTC in relation to the current email-based method used for Participants to transmit Older Issue Eligibility Requests to DTC. First, UW SOURCE would enhance security in transmission of Older Issue Eligibility Requests by using a secure online system instead of the current email method.18 Second, use of UW SOURCE for this purpose would enhance transparency for Participants with respect to the status of their Older Issue Eligibility Requests.19 Third, the migration of this function to UW SOURCE would enhance efficiencies associated with DTC's processing of Older Issue Eligibility Requests by providing an automated and centralized means of receiving and managing Eligibility Request Documents rather than having to manually retrieve them from multiple emails as it does today.

    18 UW SOURCE is a secure, centralized online system managed by DTC, whereas Participant security protocols for the transmission of emails may vary.

    19 UW SOURCE provides Participants with the ability to view the status of their eligibility request online and directly obtain the contact information for the DTC staff person that is handling the request.

    Proposed Changes to the OA and Guide Text

    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, DTC would amend the text of the OA to:

    i. State that Eligibility Request Documents must be submitted through UW SOURCE;

    ii. update an Internet link to an informational page on DTCC's Web site relating to UW SOURCE; and

    iii. update the copyright date of the OA.

    In addition, DTC would amend the Guide to:

    i. Delete text indicating that Older Issue Eligibility Requests are submitted either by providing DTC with copies of security certificates or a file on a diskette, and replacing it with text that would reflect the proposed UW SOURCE-based submission process;

    ii. conform relevant text relating to the Older Issue Eligibility Request process to the text of the OA, as amended by this proposed rule change;

    iii. provide the Internet address for the OA in order for Participants to reference additional information on the Eligibility Requirements and related documentation; and

    iv. delete an incorrect statement indicating that when a certificate is received in connection with an Older Issue Eligibility Request that does not have a CUSIP number assigned to it, DTC would facilitate the assignment of a CUSIP number.20

    20 DTC performs this function in regards to its Custody Service. See the DTC Custody Service Guide, at 4, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/Custody.pdf.

    Implementation Date

    DTC would announce the implementation date for the proposed rule change via a DTC Important Notice.

    2. Statutory Basis

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 21 requires that the rules of the clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this provision of the Act because it would (i) improve processing efficiencies and provide for a more secure transmission method for Older Issue Eligibility Requests by replacing an email-based method of submission with a secure online submission method, and (ii) provide greater transparency to Participants by providing them with a direct online view into the status of their Older Issue Eligibility Requests. As a result, the proposed rule change would facilitate processing of Participant requests to make Older Issues eligible for Deposit and book-entry transfer services at DTC, and therefore promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions through DTC, consistent with the Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) cited above.

    21 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Rule 17Ad-22(d)(6) promulgated under the Act 22 requires that each registered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable, be cost-effective in meeting the requirements of participants while maintaining safe and secure operations. DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(6) because (i) by enhancing the efficiency of the processing of Older Issue Eligibility Requests without increasing costs to Participants to access the service,23 the proposed rule change would be cost-effective in meeting requirements of Participants, and (ii) by processing Older Issue Eligibility Requests through UW SOURCE, a centralized and secure online application, DTC would maintain safe and secure operations with respect to transmission and processing of such requests.

    22 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(6).

    23 DTC does not charge Participants a fee for access to UW SOURCE.

    (B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any adverse impact, or impose any burden, on competition because DTC does not charge a fee for access to UW SOURCE and therefore the proposal would not impose additional costs on Participants in this regard. In addition, the process for Participant's to register for UW SOURCE is transparent and available on DTCC's Web site 24 and identical to that used by Participants to register for DTC Web-based services generally. Moreover, because the proposed rule change improves the efficiency of the Older Issue Eligibility Request process, the proposed rule change may have a positive effect on competition among DTC Participants.

    24See DTC's UW SOURCE Registration Information, available at http://www.dtcc.com/matching-settlement-and-asset-services/underwriting/uw-source-registration-information.

    (C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit, comments regarding the proposed rule change. DTC has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties. To the extent DTC receives written comments on the proposed rule change, DTC will forward such comments to the Commission. DTC has issued an Important Notice to provide notice and related information with regard to the implementation of the proposal.25

    25Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/pdf/2016/8/10/3896-16.pdf.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 26 of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 27 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    26 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    27 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form

    (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-DTC-2016-010 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2016-010. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2016-010 and should be submitted on or before November 15, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.28

    28 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25686 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-79125; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, To Amend Certain Rules Related to Flexible Exchange Options October 19, 2016. I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to amend certain rules related to Flexible Exchange (“FLEX”) Options. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016.3 On August 30, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On August 31, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.5 On September 27, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which superseded and replaced Amendment No. 1.6 On October 19, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.7 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78348 (July 15, 2016), 81 FR 47469 (“Notice”).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78744 (August 31, 2016), 81 FR 61725 (September 7, 2016). The Commission designated October 19, 2016 as the date by which it shall approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.

    6 In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Provided greater clarity regarding the operation of FLEX Binary Return Derivatives contracts (“ByRDs”), including specifying position limits applicable to FLEX ByRDs and indicating that FLEX ByRDs will be settled using VWAP settlement and European exercise style; (2) specified that Asian and Cliquet style settlement will be available for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups; (3) clarified that VWAP settlement will be available for FLEX Equity Options; and (4) removed its proposal to allow cash settlement of FLEX Options. Amendment No. 2 is available at the Exchange's Web site and at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2016-48/nysemkt201648-2.pdf.

    7 In Amendment No. 3, the Exchange removed its proposal to allow VWAP settlement of FLEX Equity Options generally, although VWAP settlement would still be used for FLEX ByRDs. Amendment No. 3 is available at the Exchange's Web site.

    II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    FLEX Options are customized equity or index contracts that allow investors to tailor contract terms for exchange-listed equity and index options.8 The Exchange has proposed to modify the rules relating to FLEX Options to allow FLEX Options in ByRDs, make available additional settlement styles, modify how exercise prices and premiums are expressed, change certain provisions relating to floor-based trading, and modify other related provisions pertaining to FLEX Options.

    8See Rule 900G(b)(1) (defining “FLEX Option”). See generally Section 15, Flexible Exchange Options, Rules 900G-909G.

    A. FLEX ByRDs

    The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to trade FLEX options contracts in ByRDs. ByRDs are option contracts that have a fixed return in cash based on a set strike price and that may only be exercised at expiration pursuant to the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation.9 ByRDs may be issued on individual stocks, Exchange-Traded Fund Shares, and Section 107 Securities, and must satisfy heightened listing standards.10 ByRDs are settled using a settlement price calculated from the all-day Volume-Weighted Average Price of the composite prices of the underlying security on the expiration date (“VWAP”) and using a European exercise style.11

    9See Rule 900ByRDs(b)(1).

    10See Rule 915ByRDs. For a description of “Exchange-Traded Fund Shares” and “Section 107 Securities,” see also Rule 915, Commentaries .06 and .11.

    11See Rules 900ByRDs (b)(1), 910ByRDs.

    Through the use of FLEX ByRDs,12 market participants would be able to trade ByRDs with non-standard exercise prices, non-standard expiration dates, or both. FLEX ByRDs would be settled in the same manner as ByRDs, with all-day VWAP settlement and European exercise style.13 The Exchange would establish position limits for FLEX ByRDs that are the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs, as set forth in Rule 904ByRDs(a), although positions in FLEX ByRDs would be aggregated with positions in Non-FLEX ByRDs on the same or similar underlying for the purpose of calculating position limits.14 The Exchange stated that, in its view, FLEX ByRDs would enable market participants to negotiate terms that differ from standardized ByRDs and thereby provide greater opportunities for investors to manage risk through the use of FLEX Options.15

    12 Proposed Rule 900G(b)(17) would define “FLEX ByRDs” to mean “a Binary Return Derivatives contract on any ByRDs-eligible underlying security that is subject to the rules in this Section.” Proposed Rule 900G(b)(22) would define “Non-FLEX ByRDs” to mean “a Non-FLEX Option that is a Binary Return Derivatives contract.” Proposed Rule 900G(b)(16) would revise the definition of “Series of FLEX Options” to provide that a such a series would consist of, “in the case of FLEX ByRDs, all such option contracts of the same class having the same expiration date, strike price, and exercise settlement amount.”

    13See proposed Rule 903G(c)(3)(ii). Proposed Rule 903G(c)(3)(i) would specify that settlement by physical delivery of the underlying security would apply to FLEX Equity Options other than FLEX ByRDs. See also Amendment No. 2, at 6. “FLEX Equity Option” is defined in Rule 900G(b)(10).

    14See proposed Rule 906G(b)(ii). For purposes of these position limits, long positions in “Finish Low” and short positions in “Finish High” ByRDs would be considered to be on the same side of the market; and short positions in “Finish Low” and long positions in “Finish High” ByRDs would be considered to be on the same side of the market. See id.

    15See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.

    B. Alternative Settlement Styles: Asian and Cliquet

    The Exchange has proposed to allow market participants to designate Asian or Cliquet settlement styles for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups.16 In its filing, the Exchange noted that these settlement styles are currently offered by another options exchange.17

    16See Amendment No. 2, at 4. “FLEX Index Option” is defined in Rule 900G(b)(11). A “broad stock index group” is “a stock index which reflects representative stock market values or prices of . . . a broad segment of the stock market.” Rule 900C(b)(1). See also Rule 901C, Commentary .02 (specifying conditions that must be satisfied to trade options on a broad stock index group). Asian and Cliquet settlement styles would not be available for FLEX ByRDs. See Amendment No. 2, at 4-5, n. 9. The Commission notes that the Exchange has agreed file a proposed rule change to provide additional clarity to several aspects of the rule. None of these changes impact the Commission's analysis of this proposed rule change.

    17See Amendment No. 2, at 4 (citing Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (“CBOE”) Rules 24A.1, 24A.4, 24B.1, 24B.4).

    1. Asian Style Settlement

    FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Asian style settlement would be cash-settled call 18 option contracts for which the final payout would be based on an arithmetic average of specified closing prices of an underlying broad stock index group taken on twelve predetermined monthly observation dates, including the expiration date (“Asian option”).19 Asian options would use a “preceding business day convention,” such that if the monthly observation date falls on a non-NYSE MKT business day, the monthly observation date would be the immediately preceding business day.20 Asian options would have a term of approximately one year, ranging from 350 to 371 days from the date of initial listing.21 The contract multiplier would be determined in accordance with Rule 900G(b)(12) and, for Asian options that settle in U.S. Dollars, would be $100.22 The exercise settlement amount would be the difference between the designated strike price and the observed average closing price.23 Given that settlement value would be determined by observations taken over a 12-month period, Asian options would require the use of European exercise style.24

    18 Puts would not be permitted. See proposed Rule 903G(b)(4).

    19See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18) (defining “Asian style settlement”); proposed Rule 903G(b)(4) (specifying terms for Asian options).

    20See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18).

    21See proposed Rule 903G(b)(4).

    22See Notice, 81 FR at 47470; Rule 900G(b)(12).

    23See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.

    24See proposed Rule 900G(b)(18).

    In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of an Asian option that expires in-the-money. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of XYZ Index over a year purchases an Asian FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a strike price of 2000 and a contract multiplier of $100. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.

    Monthly observation date 25 XYZ Index
  • closing value
  • 23-Feb-15 2025.36 23-Mar-15 2049.34 23-Apr-15 2019.77 22-May-15 1989.65 23-Jun-15 2005.64 23-Jul-15 2035.10 21-Aug-15 2032.15 23-Sep-15 2076.18 23-Oct-15 2099.01 23-Nov-15 2109.32 23-Dec-15 2085.42 22-Jan-16 2084.81 Exercise (Averaged) Settlement Value 24,611.75/12 = 2050.98

    In this example, the exercise settlement amount would be $5,098. This amount would be determined by adding the 12 observed closing values for the XYZ index and dividing that amount by 12 (24,611.75/12), which is equal to 2050.98 (when rounded). The payout would be the difference between the exercise (averaged) settlement value and the strike price (2050.98−2000 = 50.98) multiplied by the contract multiplier (50.98 × $100 = $5,098). If alternatively, in the above example, the strike price was 2060, the contract would have expired out-of-the money. The option would not be exercised and would expire worthless because the strike price of 2060 would be more than the 2050.98 exercise settlement value.26

    25 Note that May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015 fell on a weekend or holiday, so the business days immediately preceding those dates were used as the monthly observation dates.

    26See Notice, 81 FR at 47470.

    2. Cliquet Style Settlement

    FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups with Cliquet style settlement would be cash-settled call 27 option contracts for which the final payout would be based on the greater of $0 or the sum of monthly returns (i.e., percent changes in the closing value of the underlying broad stock index group from one month to the next), subject to a monthly return “cap” (e.g., 3%), applied over twelve monthly observation dates (“Cliquet option”).28 Cliquet options would use a preceding business day convention and have a term of approximately one year, ranging from 350 to 371 days from the date of initial listing.29 The contract multiplier would be determined in accordance with Rule 900G(b)(12) and, for Cliquet options that settle in U.S. Dollars, would be $100.30

    27 Puts would not be permitted. See proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).

    28See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19) (defining “Cliquet style settlement”); proposed Rule 903(G)(b)(5) (specifying terms for Cliquet options).

    29See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19); proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).

    30See Notice, 81 FR at 47470; Rule 900G(b)(12).

    The parties to a Cliquet option would designate a set of monthly observation dates for each contract and an expiration date for each contract. The monthly observation date would be the date each month on which the closing price of the underlying broad stock index group would be observed for the purpose of calculating the exercise settlement value. In addition, the parties to a Cliquet option would designate a capped monthly return (i.e., percent change in the closing values of the underlying broad stock index group from one month to the next month) for the contract, which would be the maximum monthly return that would be included in the calculation of the exercise settlement value for the contract. On each monthly observation date, the Exchange would determine the actual monthly return by computing the percent change between the closing value of the broad stock index group on the current monthly observation date versus its closing value on the previous monthly observation date. The Exchange would then compare the actual monthly return to the capped monthly return. The value used as the monthly return for a Cliquet option would be the lesser of the actual monthly return or the capped monthly return.

    For example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was 1.75% and the designated capped monthly return for a Cliquet option was 2%, the 1.75% value would be utilized (and not the 2%) as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. Using this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was 3.30%, the 2% value would be utilized (and not the 3.30%) as the value of the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. This latter example illustrates that Cliquet options have a capped upside. Cliquet options do not, however, have a capped downside for the monthly return that would be utilized in determining the exercise settlement value. Drawing on this same example, if the actual monthly return of the underlying broad stock index group was −4.07%, the −4.07% value would be utilized as the value for the observation date to determine the exercise settlement value. There would, however, be a floor for all Cliquet options in that if the sum of the monthly returns is negative, a Cliquet option would expire worthless.

    Unlike other options, Cliquet options would not have a traditional exercise (strike) price. Rather, the exercise (strike) price field for a Cliquet option would represent the designated capped monthly return for the contract and would be expressed in dollars and cents. For example, a capped monthly return of 2.25% would be represented by the dollar amount of $2.25. The “strike” price for a Cliquet option could only be expressed in a dollar and cents amount and the “strike” price for a Cliquet option could only span a range between $0.05 and $25.95.31 In addition, the “strike” price for a Cliquet option could only be designated in $0.05 increments, e.g., $1.75, $2.50, $4.15.32 Increments of $0.01 in the “strike” price field (representing the capped monthly return) would not be permitted.

    31See proposed Rule 903G(b)(5).

    32See id.

    The first “monthly” return for a Cliquet option would be based on the initial reference value, which would be the closing value of the underlying broad stock index group on the date a new Cliquet option is listed. The time period measured for the first “monthly” return would be between the initial listing date and the first monthly observation date. For example, if a Cliquet option was opened on January 1 and the parties designated the 31st of each month as the monthly observation date, the measurement period for the first monthly return would span the time period from January 1 to January 31. The time period measured for the second monthly return, and all subsequent monthly returns, would run from the 31st of one month to the 31st of the next month (or the last Exchange business day of each month depending on the actual number of calendar days in each month covered by the contract).

    Cliquet options would have European exercise style and could not be exercised prior to the expiration date.33 The exercise settlement value for Cliquet options would be equal to the initial reference price of the underlying broad stock index group multiplied by the sum of the monthly returns (with the cap applied) on the 12 consecutive monthly observation dates, which include the expiration date of the option, provided that the sum is greater than 0. If the sum of the monthly returns (with the applied cap) is 0 or less, the option would expire worthless.

    33See proposed Rule 900G(b)(19).

    In its filing, the Exchange provided the following example of a Cliquet option. On January 21, 2015, an investor hedging the value of XYZ Index over a year purchases a Cliquet FLEX call option expiring on January 22, 2016 with a capped monthly return of 2% and a contract multiplier of $100. The initial reference price of XYZ Index (closing value) on January 21, 2015 is 2000. The option has monthly observation dates occurring on the 23rd of each month.

    34 Note that May 23, 2015 and August 23, 2015 fell on a weekend or holiday, so the business days immediately preceding those dates were used as the monthly observation dates.

    35 Note that on September 23, 2015, the observed actual monthly return was 2.17%. Because the actual monthly return exceeded the 2% cap, the calculation utilized a capped monthly return of 2% for this observation date.

    Monthly observation date 34 XYZ Index
  • closing value
  • Actual
  • monthly
  • return
  • (percent)
  • Capped
  • monthly
  • return
  • (percent) 35
  • Sum of
  • monthly
  • returns
  • (percent)
  • 23-Feb-15 2025.36 1.27 1.27 1.27 23-Mar-15 2049.34 1.18 1.18 2.45 23-Apr-15 2019.77 −1.44 −1.44 1.01 22-May-15 1989.65 −1.49 −1.49 −0.48 23-Jun-15 2005.64 0.80 0.80 0.32 23-Jul-15 2035.10 1.47 1.47 1.79 21-Aug-15 2032.15 −0.14 −0.14 1.65 23-Sep-15 2076.18 2.17 2.00 3.65 23-Oct-15 2099.01 1.10 1.10 4.75 23-Nov-15 2109.32 0.49 0.49 5.24 23-Dec-15 2085.42 −1.13 −1.13 4.11 22-Jan-16 2084.81 −0.03 −0.03 4.08 Exercise Settlement Value (4.08% * 2000.00) + 2 = 83.60

    In this example, the exercise settlement amount would be $8,160. This amount would be determined by adding the capped monthly return for the XYZ Index on the 12 monthly observation dates, multiplying that amount by the initial reference price (4.08% * 2000 = 81.60) and adding that amount to the strike price 36 (81.60 + 2 = 83.60), to arrive at an Exercise Settlement Value (“ESV”) that is the greater of zero (0) or the result of this calculation (83.60). Having determined the ESV, the payout at expiration would be based upon how much the ESV exceeds the strike price, similar to options that utilize standard settlement styles. Therefore the payout would be the amount by which the ESV exceeds the strike price (83.60 − 2 = 81.60), multiplied by the contract multiplier (81.60 × $100 = $8,160). In contrast, if the sum of the capped monthly returns had been negative, this option would have expired worthless.37

    36 The “strike price” for a Cliquet option would be determined by the agreed upon capped monthly return, which in this example is 2%.

    37See Notice, 81 FR at 47470-72.

    3. Surveillance for Asian and Cliquet Options

    The Exchange stated that it would utilize the same procedures for FLEX Options utilizing the proposed settlement styles as it currently utilizes for other FLEX Options with standard settlement. The Exchange also represented that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to monitor trading in these options products. The Exchange noted that, for surveillance purposes, it would have access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.38

    38See id. at 47472.

    C. Exercise Prices and Premiums

    The Exchange has proposed to modify how market participants may express exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Options. The Exchange noted that these modifications reflect changes in the marketplace and a move towards decimalization. The Exchange explained that when it adopted its rules for FLEX Options, strike prices were designated in one-eighth of a dollar and options were priced in fractions of a dollar, whereas now certain Exchange rules have been revised to reflect the decimal equivalent of the previously approved fractional amount.39 With respect to FLEX Equity Options, proposed Rule 903G(c)(2) would provide that exercise prices and premiums may be stated in terms of (i) a dollar amount; (ii) a method for fixing such a number at the time a FLEX Request for Quote or FLEX Order is traded; or (iii) a percentage of the price of the underlying security at the time of the trade or as of the close of trading on the Exchange on the trade date. The Exchange explained that this change would align the Exchange's treatment of FLEX Equity Options with its treatment of FLEX Index Options and also be consistent with the rules of another options exchange.40

    39See id.

    40See id. (citing CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2), (c)(2)).

    In addition, with respect to both FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options, proposed Rule 903G(b)(1) and (c)(2) would provide that exercise prices may be rounded to the nearest minimum tick or other decimal increment determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis that may not be smaller than $0.01 and exercise premiums will be rounded to the nearest minimum tick. Additionally, for exercise prices and premiums stated using a percentage based methodology, such values may be stated in a percentage increment determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis that may not be smaller than 0.01% and will be rounded as described above.41 The Exchange noted that this proposed change is consistent with the rules of another options exchange.42 Finally, the Exchange proposed to remove a reference to fractional pricing from Rule 903G(a)(3)(i).43 The Exchange stated that, in its view, this change would provide market participants with greater flexibility to create an options contract tailored to an investor's needs.44

    41See proposed Rule 903G(b)(1), (c)(2).

    42See Notice, 81 FR at 47472 (citing CBOE Rule 24A.4(b)(2), (c)(2)).

    43See proposed Rule 903G(a)(3)(i).

    44See Notice, 81 FR at 47472.

    D. FLEX Officials and Trading Posts

    Currently under the FLEX rules, the FLEX Specialist is responsible for handling various aspects of FLEX Options, including receiving and displaying the terms of Requests for Quotes. The Exchange has proposed to delete these references to a FLEX Specialist and replace them with a floor official, to be known as a “FLEX Official.”45 A “FLEX Official” would be an Exchange employee that has regulatory responsibility for reviewing FLEX trades for adherence to the terms and specifications in the FLEX rules.46

    45See proposed Rule 904G(a)(i)-(ii).

    46See Notice, 81 FR at 47472-73. Proposed Rule 900G(b)(21) would define “FLEX Official” as “an Exchange employee designated to perform the FLEX Official functions set forth in Rule 910G.”

    Under the proposal, the Exchange would be able, at any time, to designate an Exchange employee to act as a FLEX Official in one or more classes of FLEX Options and to designate other qualified employees to assist the FLEX Official as needed.47 This FLEX Official would be responsible for: (i) Reviewing the conforming of FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes to the terms and specifications contained in Rule 903G (Terms of FLEX Options); (ii) posting FLEX Requests for Quotes for dissemination; (iii) determining the BBO; (iv) ensuring that FLEX contracts are executed in conformance with the priority principles set forth in Rule 904G (FLEX Trading Procedures and Principles); and (v) calling upon Specialists to make FLEX Quotes in specific classes of FLEX Equity Options as provided in Rule 927NY(c), which sets forth the obligations of Specialists.48 The Exchange noted that these provisions relating to a FLEX Official are consistent with the rules of another options exchange that trades FLEX Options.49

    47See proposed Rule 910G(a).

    48See proposed Rule 910G(b). The Exchange also proposed to make a conforming change to change a reference from “FLEX Post Official” to “FLEX Official.” See proposed Rule 927NY(c)(7).

    49See Notice, 81 FR at 47472-73 (citing NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSEArca”) Rules 5.30(b)(7), 5.38 (defining role of FLEX Post Official)). See also CBOE Rule 24A.5(a)(i), (ii) (specifying role of FLEX Post Official in handling Requests for Quotes); CBOE Rule 24A.12(b) (setting forth duties of FLEX Official).

    Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to revise its rules to reflect that in its current trading environment, FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes are “disseminated,” rather than “displayed.” 50 The Exchange explained that at the time when it introduced FLEX Options, the Exchange displayed FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes at physical FLEX posts. However, according to the Exchange, as FLEX Option trading gained in popularity, it became apparent that liquidity for FLEX Options was more readily available at the trading posts where the standard options in the underlying security traded, rather than the specific FLEX post. The Exchange explained that, over time, floor participants asked floor brokers to use various means to communicate the existence of trading interest.51 Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to remove the modifier “FLEX” from before “post” in Rule 904G(b)(i) because there are no longer specific physical FLEX posts on the trading floor.52

    50See proposed Rule 904G(a)(ii), (c)(i)-(iii).

    51See Notice, 81 FR at 47473. The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that dissemination will permit market participants to transmit required information widely, including through wireless communications, cellular telephones, instant messaging, and other Exchange-approved communication devices. The Commission expects that the Exchange will properly surveil the use of such communications.

    52See proposed Rule 904G(b)(i). The Exchange also proposed to make a non-substantive change to Rule 904G(c)(ii) to replace a colon with a semi-colon.

    E. Additional Changes

    The Exchange has proposed several additional modifications to the FLEX Options Rules. First, the Exchange has proposed to amend the title of Section 15 to add the abbreviation “FLEX.” 53 In addition, the Exchange has proposed to replace references to “Registered Options Traders” in the FLEX rules with the term “Floor Market Makers.” 54 The Exchange explained that this change in terminology is consistent with a recent rule change approved by the Commission.55 Further, the Exchange has proposed to remove obsolete references to Deutsche Marks and French Francs because these foreign currencies are no longer in circulation.56 Additionally, the Exchange has proposed to modify Rule 909G(c) to update a cross-reference to rules pertaining to specialists' financial requirements by adding a reference to Rule 927NY(c)(1) and removing obsolete references to Rule 171 and Rule 950(h).57

    53See proposed Section 15. The Exchange has also proposed to delete an extraneous “t” from the word “the” in Rule 900G(a).

    54See proposed Rules 900G(b)(4), 906G(a)(iv) and (b), 908G, 909G (updating title), and 909G(b).

    55See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59472 (February 27, 2009), 74 FR 9843, 9843 n.11 (March 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-14) (noting that Exchange had indicated that Rules 900G through 909G would become outdated upon approval of the described rules and the Exchange represented it would review these rules and submit a separate filing to revise any outdated references).

    56See proposed Rules 900G(b)(12), 903G(b)(3), 904G(g). See also Notice, 81 FR at 47473. The Exchange also proposed to make non-substantive changes to certain references to British Pounds. See proposed Rules 900G(b)(12), 904G(g).

    57See proposed Rule 909G(c).

    The Exchange also has proposed to clarify that each FLEX Request for Quotes or FLEX contract must contain, as a contract term, either the underlying security in the case of FLEX Equity Options or (rather than “and”) an underlying index in the case of FLEX Index Options.58 In addition, the Exchange has proposed to make a non-substantive change to Rule 903G(c)(4) to clarify the reference to Rule 805 of the Options Clearing Corporation.59 Moreover, the Exchange has proposed to clarify that the minimum value size of one contract for FLEX Options applies to quotations, in addition to the transactions specified in the current rule text.60 Finally, the Exchange has proposed that FLEX Options will be permitted in puts and calls that do not have the same settlement style.61 The Exchange explained that it does not allow trading of a FLEX Option that has the exact same terms as a Non-FLEX Option, but that if the option's underlying security, exercise style, expiration date, exercise price, or, as proposed, settlement style differs then it may be traded as a FLEX Option.62

    58See proposed Rule 903G(a)(2)(i).

    59See proposed Rule 903G(c)(4).

    60See proposed Rule 903G(a)(2)(vii). The Exchange explained that this proposed change aligns the rule text with the Commission's adoption on a permanent basis of a pilot program regarding minimum value sizes for opening transactions in new series of FLEX Options and FLEX Quotes. See Notice, 81 FR at 47473 (citing Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72536 (July 3, 2014), 79 FR 39425 (July 10, 2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-21)).

    61See proposed Rule 903G, Commentary .01.

    62See Notice, 81 FR at 47473.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.63 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,64 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    63 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    64 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange has proposed several amendments to its rules related to FLEX Options. These amendments modify rules related to FLEX Options to offer new alternative terms for FLEX Options and to update rule text to more accurately reflect trading in FLEX Options on the Exchange. As is discussed in more detail below, the Commission finds these changes consistent with the Act.

    The proposal to allow ByRDs to trade as FLEX Equity Options on NYSE MKT will allow market participants to flex strike prices and expiration dates and thus obtain strike prices and expiration dates that are not available in the standardized market on the Exchange in ByRDs. In its approval order originally approving ByRDs for Exchange trading, the Commission noted that the heightened initial and continued listing standards, as well the settlement price based on an all-day VWAP, were reasonably designed to address potential manipulation concerns.65 Similarly, the Commission believes that specifying that FLEX ByRDs can only be traded on ByRDs-eligible underlying securities that meet the same heightened initial and continued listing standards as ByRDs, thereby helping to ensure that only highly capitalized, actively traded stocks and ETFs will underlie cash-settled FLEX ByRDs, as well as requiring settlement based on all-day VWAP (as required for standardized ByRDs), should help to mitigate concerns about manipulation in the underlying security to benefit a position in FLEX ByRDs.

    65See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56251 (August 14, 2007), 72 FR 46523, 76524 (August 20, 2007) (SR-Amex-2004-27) (“ByRDs Order”).

    The Commission also believes that establishing position limits for FLEX ByRDs to be the same as Non-FLEX ByRDs position limits, which are currently 25,000 contracts on the same side of the market,66 and aggregating positions in Flex ByRDs with Non-FLEX ByRDs on the same or similar underlying security for purposes of calculating position limits is reasonable and consistent with the Act. In approving position limits for ByRDs, the Commission noted that these position limits appeared to reasonably balance the promotion of a free and open market for these securities with minimization of incentives for market manipulation.67 By establishing the same position limits for FLEX ByRDs as for Non-FLEX ByRDs and, importantly, aggregating such positions on the same side of the market,68 the Commission similarly believes that the position limit requirements for FLEX ByRDs should help to ensure that the trading of FLEX ByRDs on the Exchange will not increase the potential for manipulation and could help to minimize such incentives. Finally, as noted above, because FLEX ByRDs must, like standardized ByRDs, be cash settled, European-style exercise, with a settlement price based on an all-day VWAP (and meet heightened listing and continued listing standards), unlike other FLEX Options, the only non-standardized terms that can be flexed are strike prices and expiration dates. The Commission notes that the Exchange has represented that it will be able to adequately surveil trading in FLEX ByRDs utilizing existing surveillance procedures pertaining to Non-FLEX ByRDs and FLEX Options.

    66 The exercise limits for FLEX ByRDs will be equivalent to the position limits for FLEX ByRDs described in Rule 906G(b)(ii). See Rule 907G.

    67See ByRDs Order, 72 FR at 76525.

    68 For purposes of these position limits, long positions in “Finish Low” and short positions in “Finish High” ByRDs would be considered to be on the same side of the market; and short positions in “Finish Low” and long positions in “Finish High” ByRDs would be considered to be on the same side of the market. See proposed Rule 906G(b)(ii).

    The Commission believes that the Asian and Cliquet style settlements for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups may provide investors with additional trading and hedging tools. The Commission also believes that the Exchange's proposal to allow Asian and Cliquet style settlement for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups may give investors and other market participants the ability to individually tailor, within specified limits, certain terms of those options. Furthermore, the Commission believes that, since both Asian and Cliquet settlement styles depend on multiple measurements in determining the settlement value, both settlement styles could help to mitigate the potential for manipulation in the underlying security(ies).

    The Commission notes that the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for the Exchange's FLEX Options with standard settlement to monitor trading in those options with Asian or Cliquet style settlement. The Exchange has represented that these surveillance procedures will be adequate to monitor trading in options on these option products. The Exchange has also stated that for surveillance purposes, the Exchange will have complete access to information regarding trading activity in the pertinent underlying securities.

    The Commission believes that the proposed modification in how exercise prices and premiums for FLEX Equity Options are stated may provide greater flexibility for market participants to tailor a contract to the needs of the investor. In addition, the Commission believes that the proposal to specify how exercise prices and premium for FLEX Index Options and FLEX Equity Options will be rounded and how they will be stated using a percentage-based methodology should provide greater clarity and allow market participants to specify contracts that meet their particular needs. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposal to remove a reference to fractional pricing is consistent with the shift to decimal pricing found elsewhere in the Exchange's rules and would promote internal consistency.

    The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal to replace certain duties of a FLEX Specialist with respect to FLEX Options transactions with duties assigned to a FLEX Official, who is an Exchange employee, is consistent with the FLEX rules of CBOE.69 Under current rules, the FLEX Specialist is responsible for assuring that a Request for Quotes is submitted properly as a FLEX Option and for displaying the terms and specifications of the Request for Quotes. The Exchange now proposes to change these duties to a FLEX Official rather than a FLEX Specialist due to market structure changes. The new rules will set forth with specificity the particular functions and requirements of a FLEX Official to, among other things, ensure adherence to FLEX rules and call in a Specialist to make FLEX Quotes. The Exchange has represented that the FLEX Official would be an Exchange employee that reports to the regulatory officer of the Exchange. The Commission would expect the Exchange to ensure that such FLEX Official, or any other designated qualified employees called in to assist the FLEX Official as permitted under the new rule, are properly qualified and meet any necessary requirements. The regulatory oversight of FLEX transactions by a properly qualified FLEX Official could help to ensure that FLEX transactions comply with the FLEX rules. Therefore we find this change is consistent with the Act. The proposed conforming changes to other provisions in the Exchange rules would enhance clarity and consistency. Moreover, the Commission believes that the proposed changes to refer to FLEX Requests for Quotes and FLEX Quotes as being disseminated and remove the concept of a post specific to the trading of FLEX options will align the rules with current trading practices on the Exchange's floor.70

    69See CBOE Rules 24A.5(a)(i) and (ii), 24A.12(b). See also NYSEArca Rules 5.30(b)(7), 5.38.

    70See supra note 51 and accompanying text.

    Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal's minor, conforming, and technical revisions to Section 15, Rules 900G through 909G are consistent with the Act.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48, and should be submitted on or before November 15, 2016. V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, the proposed changes regarding the operation of FLEX ByRDs, including the delineation of applicable position limits and statement that FLEX ByRDs will be settled similar to Non-FLEX ByRDs, using all-day VWAP settlement and European exercise style, will provide additional clarity to the Exchange's rules concerning FLEX ByRDs. Similarly, the proposed changes to specify that Asian and Cliquet style settlement will be available only for FLEX Index Options on broad stock index groups remove potential for ambiguity about the operation of these settlement styles for FLEX Options. Furthermore, the Commission believes it is appropriate to have these changes incorporated into the rules of the Exchange concurrently with the changes noticed for comment in the original filing. Additionally, deleting the proposal to permit cash settlement for all FLEX Equity Options other than FLEX ByRDs, and the corresponding provision that would permit the use of a VWAP settlement for FLEX Equity Options other than FLEX ByRDs, helps to ensure that the proposal does not raise investor protection and manipulation concerns and allows the Commission to no longer consider these provisions for consistency with the Act.

    Accordingly, for the reasons noted above, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.71

    71 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19b(2) of the Act,72 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-48), as modified by Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    72Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.73

    73 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25713 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Form F-1, SEC File No. 270-249, OMB Control No. 3235-0258

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Form F-1 (17 CFR 239.31) is used by certain foreign private issuers to register securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure that the information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such information. Form F-1 takes approximately 1,709 hours per response and is filed by approximately 63 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 1,709 hours per response (427.25 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of 26,917 hours (427.25 hours per response × 63 responses).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25706 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2 p.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the closed meeting.

    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

    The subject matter of the closed meeting will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

    Resolution of litigation claims;

    Adjudicatory matters; and

    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 20, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25827 Filed 10-21-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.

    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:

    • The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to the proxy rules relating to the use of universal proxy cards and disclosure about voting options and voting standards in director elections.

    • The Commission will consider whether to adopt rule amendments related to Securities Act Rules 147 and 504 to facilitate intrastate and regional securities offerings and whether to repeal Securities Act Rule 505.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact Brent J. Fields in:

    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25807 Filed 10-21-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Rule 17a-3; SEC File No. 270-026, OMB Control No. 3235-0033.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below. The Code of Federal Regulation citation to this collection of information is the following rule: 17 CFR 240.17a-3.

    Rule 17a-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishes minimum standards with respect to business records that broker-dealers registered with the Commission must make and keep current. These records are maintained by the broker-dealer (in accordance with a separate rule), so they can be used by the broker-dealer and reviewed by Commission examiners, as well as other regulatory authority examiners, during inspections of the broker-dealer.

    The collections of information included in Rule 17a-3 are necessary to provide Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners to conduct effective and efficient examinations to determine whether broker-dealers are complying with relevant laws, rules, and regulations. If broker-dealers were not required to create these baseline, standardized records, Commission, self-regulatory organization and state examiners could be unable to determine whether broker-dealers are in compliance with the Commission's antifraud and anti-manipulation rules, financial responsibility program, and other Commission, SRO, and State laws, rules, and regulations.

    As of April 1, 2016 there were 4,104 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. The Commission estimates that these broker-dealer respondents incur a total burden of 2,763,566 hours per year to comply with Rule 17a-3.

    In addition, Rule 17a-3 contains ongoing operation and maintenance costs for broker-dealers, including the cost of postage to provide customers with account information, and costs for equipment and systems development. The Commission estimates that under Rule 17a-3(a)(17), approximately 41,143,233 customers will need to be provided with information regarding their account on a yearly basis. The Commission estimates that the postage costs associated with providing those customers with copies of their account record information would be approximately $13,577,267 per year (41,143,233 × $0.33).1 The staff estimates that broker-dealers establishing liquidity, credit, and market risk management controls pursuant to Rule 17a-3(a)(23) incur one-time startup costs of $924,000, or $308,000 amortized over a three-year approval period, to hire outside counsel to review the controls. The staff further estimates that the ongoing equipment and systems development costs relating to Rule 17a-3 for the industry would be about $30,677,094 per year. Consequently, the total cost burden associated with Rule 17a-3 would be approximately $44,562,361 per year.

    1 Estimates of postage costs are derived from past conversations with industry representatives and have been adjusted to account for inflation and increases in postage costs.

    Rule 17a-3 does not contain record retention requirements. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. The required records are available only to the staffs of the Commission, self-regulatory organizations of which the broker-dealer is a member, and the states during examination, inspections and investigations.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25705 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736. Extension: Form S-1; SEC File No. 270-058, OMB Control No. 3235-0065.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) this request for an extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is used by domestic issuers who are not eligible to use other forms to register a public offering of their securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information collected is intended to ensure that the information required to be filed by the Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such information. Form S-1 takes approximately 667 hours per response and is filed by approximately 901 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 667 hours per response (166.75 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of 150,242 hours (166.75 hours per response × 901 responses).

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov . Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25707 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14911 and #14912] North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Amendment 6.

    SUMMARY:

    This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated 10/10/2016.

    Incident: Hurricane Matthew.

    Incident Period: 10/04/2016 and continuing.

    Effective Date: 10/17/2016.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/09/2016.

    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/10/2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 10/10/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Craven Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):

    All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Lisa Lopez-Suarez, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25687 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14911 and #14912] North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00081 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Amendment 5.

    SUMMARY:

    This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of NORTH CAROLINA (FEMA-4285-DR), dated 10/10/2016.

    Incident: Hurricane Matthew.

    Incident Period: 10/04/2016 and continuing.

    Effective Date: 10/17/2016.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/09/2016.

    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/10/2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 10/10/2016 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Martin, Tyrrell, Washington. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):

    All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Lisa Lopez-Suarez, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25689 Filed 10-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #14923 and #14924] Georgia Disaster # GA-00081 AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4284-DR), dated 10/17/2016.

    Incident: Hurricane Matthew.

    Incident Period: 10/04/2016 through 10/15/2016.

    Dates: Effective Date: 10/17/2016.

    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/16/2016.

    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/17/2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/17/2016, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Bryan, Bulloch, Chatham, Effingham, Glynn, McIntosh, Wayne. Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Georgia: Appling, Brantley, Camden, Candler, Emanuel, Evans, Jenkins, Liberty, Long, Pierce, Screven, Tattnall. South Carolina: Hampton, Jasper.

    The Interest Rates are:

    Percent For Physical Damage: Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 3.125 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 1.563 Businesses With Credit Available Elsehwhere 6.250 Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.625

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 149238 and for economic injury is 149240.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Lisa Lopez-Suarez, Act