Federal Register Vol. 81, No.215,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 215 (November 7, 2016)

Page Range78021-78495
FR Document

81_FR_215
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 78495 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to IranPDF
81 FR 78212 - Sunshine Act Meeting; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 78213 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of GovernorsPDF
81 FR 78209 - Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 78141 - Washington State Department of Ecology Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Receipt of Petition and Preliminary Affirmative DeterminationPDF
81 FR 78177 - Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program Fiscal Year 2017; RevisedPDF
81 FR 78177 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Moving to Work Research Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 78174 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0118PDF
81 FR 78176 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Training Evaluation FormPDF
81 FR 78041 - Special Local Regulation; San Diego Fall Classic; Mission Bay, San Diego, CAPDF
81 FR 78257 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Art and Nature in the Middle Ages” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 78257 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Marisa Merz: The Sky Is a Great Space” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 78048 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Revisions and Amendments to Regulations for Continuous Opacity Monitoring, Continuous Emissions Monitoring, and Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity MonitorsPDF
81 FR 78149 - California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines; Notice of DecisionPDF
81 FR 78154 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 78143 - California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements and Enforcement for 2004 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles and Engines; Notice of DecisionPDF
81 FR 78178 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis ReservationPDF
81 FR 78122 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78129 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78122 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 78261 - Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility User FeePDF
81 FR 78180 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation of WashingtonPDF
81 FR 78154 - Notice of the Termination of the Receivership of 10508, Frontier Bank, FSB Palm Desert, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 78115 - Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From South Africa: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 78111 - Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 78116 - Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 78114 - Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 78117 - Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention InquiryPDF
81 FR 78123 - Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon FisheryPDF
81 FR 78133 - Notice of Commission Staff AttendancePDF
81 FR 78134 - EcoEléctrica, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed LNG Terminal Sendout Capacity Increase Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF
81 FR 78138 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 78133 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 78137 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
81 FR 78141 - Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC; Enterprise Mill LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 78138 - TPE Alta Luna, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 78140 - King Forest Industries, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 78133 - Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective DatePDF
81 FR 78136 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 78136 - Utilization in the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services; Supplemental Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
81 FR 78110 - Export Trade Certificate of ReviewPDF
81 FR 78120 - Notice and Request for Comments: Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) Tribal ConsultationsPDF
81 FR 78155 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 78158 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 78156 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 78159 - Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2017PDF
81 FR 78209 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78062 - Role of Third Parties in Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 78207 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Proposed Renewal, With Change, of a Previously Approved Collection Attorney Student Loan Repayment Program Electronic FormsPDF
81 FR 78208 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Amendment Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 78107 - Kootenai National Forest: Lincoln County; Montana; Starry Goat Project EISPDF
81 FR 78181 - Road Closure and Restrictions on Public Lands in Fremont County, COPDF
81 FR 78210 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 78182 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan for the Redding and Arcata Field Offices and an Associated Environmental Impact Statement, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 78103 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting DevicesPDF
81 FR 78257 - Project Management Plan GuidancePDF
81 FR 78184 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78258 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Interstate 64/High Rise Bridge Corridor Study in Chesapeake, VirginiaPDF
81 FR 78181 - Notice of Public Meeting for the Coastal Oregon Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 78083 - Airworthiness Directives; United Instruments, Inc. Series AltimetersPDF
81 FR 78160 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78033 - Revision of Organization and Conforming Changes to RegulationPDF
81 FR 78132 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)PDF
81 FR 78238 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4512 (Customer Account Information) and Adopt FINRA Rule 2165 (Financial Exploitation of Specified Adults)PDF
81 FR 78233 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary .05 to Rule 6.91PDF
81 FR 78219 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Commentary .05 to Rule 980NYPDF
81 FR 78161 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Focus Groups About Drug Products as Used by the Food and Drug AdministrationPDF
81 FR 78163 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Character-Space-Limited Online Prescription Drug CommunicationsPDF
81 FR 78170 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry: Use of Serological Tests To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Whole Blood and Blood Components Intended for TransfusionPDF
81 FR 78224 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Options Clearing Corporation's Margin Coverage During Times of Increase VolatilityPDF
81 FR 78231 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of the Direxion Daily Municipal Bond Taxable Bear 1X Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)PDF
81 FR 78213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price ListPDF
81 FR 78217 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule Effective November 1, 2016PDF
81 FR 78228 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX Liquidity Taking Access DelayPDF
81 FR 78228 - Prudential ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 78230 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78169 - Establishment of the Patient and Care-Partner Connection; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 78167 - Clinical Considerations for Investigational Device Exemptions for Neurological Devices Targeting Disease Progression and Clinical Outcomes; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 78201 - United States v. Fayez Sarofim; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 78187 - United States v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 78186 - 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 78021 - Revision of Regulations Governing Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals, and Revision of Touhy Regulations Governing Release of Information in Response to Legal Proceedings; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 78109 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78108 - Notice Corrected Date of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 78110 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott ViolationsPDF
81 FR 78021 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 2PDF
81 FR 78173 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 78173 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78172 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78174 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78174 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78172 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78172 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78054 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
81 FR 78175 - DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 78259 - Daimler Trucks North America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 78129 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 78022 - NRC Enforcement PolicyPDF
81 FR 78208 - National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board; MeetingPDF
81 FR 78029 - Amendment and Establishment of Restricted Areas; Chincoteague Inlet, VAPDF
81 FR 78088 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Trinidad, COPDF
81 FR 78166 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Potential Tobacco Product Violations Reporting FormPDF
81 FR 78097 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; Attainment Demonstration for the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment AreaPDF
81 FR 78028 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 78042 - Trademark Fee Adjustment; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 78298 - Departmental Offices; Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of RecordsPDF
81 FR 78266 - Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of RecordsPDF
81 FR 78052 - Air Plan Approval; NH; Rules for Reducing Particulate EmissionsPDF
81 FR 78043 - Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 78132 - San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; Notice of Effectiveness of SurrenderPDF
81 FR 78104 - Federal Automated Vehicles PolicyPDF
81 FR 78085 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 78080 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 78063 - Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood InsurancePDF
81 FR 78456 - Tribal Transportation ProgramPDF
81 FR 78442 - DoD Grant and Agreement RegulationsPDF
81 FR 78356 - Revised Interim Implementation of Governmentwide Guidance for Grants and Cooperative AgreementsPDF
81 FR 78382 - Administrative Requirements Terms and Conditions for Cost-Type Awards to Nonprofit and Governmental EntitiesPDF
81 FR 78376 - National Policy Requirements: General Award Terms and ConditionsPDF
81 FR 78369 - Format for DoD Grant and Cooperative Agreement AwardsPDF
81 FR 78360 - Definitions for DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations in Subchapters A Through FPDF
81 FR 78057 - Amendments to Quality Systems Verification Programs and Conforming ChangesPDF
81 FR 78090 - Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned InventionsPDF

Issue

81 215 Monday, November 7, 2016 Contents Editorial Note:

In the Monday, October 31, 2016, issue of the Federal Register, FR Doc. 2016-26254 and 2016-26255 were inadvertently published as duplicate notices. The notice should have appeared once.

Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Quality Systems Verification Programs, 78057-78062 2016-25690 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. Fayez Sarofim, 78201-78207 2016-26782 United States v. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., 78187-78201 2016-26781 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations, 78184-78185 2016-26814 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78155-78159 2016-26829 2016-26830 2016-26831 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Provider Enrollment Application Fee Amount for Calendar Year 2017, 78159-78160 2016-26828 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Implementation Grants to Develop a Model Intervention for Youth/Young Adults with Child Welfare Involvement at Risk of Homelessness; Phase II, 78160-78161 2016-26806 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee; Correction, 78108-78109 2016-26777 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Special Local Regulations: San Diego Fall Classic; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA, 78041 2016-26869 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78174-78175 2016-26871 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

Minority Business Development Agency

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

Patent and Trademark Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78109-78110 2016-26778
Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: Private Flood Insurance, 78063-78080 2016-26411 Defense Department Defense Department PROPOSED RULES Cost-Type Awards to Nonprofit and Governmental Entities, 78382-78442 2016-25701 Definitions for DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations in Subchapters A through F, 78360-78369 2016-25698 DoD Grant and Agreement Regulations, 78442-78453 2016-25717 Format for DoD Grant and Cooperative Agreement Awards, 78369-78376 2016-25699 Governmentwide Guidance for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, 78356-78360 2016-25702 National Policy Requirements: General Award Terms and Conditions, 78376-78382 2016-25700 NOTICES Arms Sales, 78129-78132 2016-26763 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program, 78132 2016-26798 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Maryland; Revisions and Amendments to Regulations for Continuous Opacity Monitoring, Continuous Emissions Monitoring, and Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitors, 78048-78052 2016-26866 New Hampshire; Rules for Reducing Particulate Emissions, 78052-78054 2016-26598 Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued under the Clean Air Act, 78043-78048 2016-26593 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Puerto Rico; Attainment Demonstration for the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area, 78097-78103 2016-26729 NOTICES California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards: Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements and Enforcement for 2004 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles and Engines, 78143-78149 2016-26861 Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines, 78149-78154 2016-26865 Petitions: Washington State Department of Ecology Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage, 78141-78143 2016-26877 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration PROPOSED RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: Private Flood Insurance, 78063-78080 2016-26411 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Restricted Areas: Chincoteague Inlet, VA, 78029-78033 2016-26760 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 78085-78088 2016-26521 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 78080-78083 2016-26520 United Instruments, Inc. Series Altimeters, 78083-78084 2016-26807 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Trinidad, CO, 78088-78090 2016-26759 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation PROPOSED RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: Private Flood Insurance, 78063-78080 2016-26411 NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Frontier Bank, FSB Palm Desert, CA, 78154 2016-26852 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 78054-78056 2016-26766 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 78133-78134, 78136-78140 2016-26836 2016-26842 2016-26843 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: EcoElectrica, LP Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Sendout Capacity Increase Project, 78134-78136 2016-26844 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: King Forest Industries, Inc., 78140-78141 2016-26838 TPE Alta Luna, LLC, 78138 2016-26839 License Transfer Applications: Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC, Enterprise Mill LLC, 78141 2016-26840 Meetings: Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services, 78136 2016-26835 Permit Applications: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; Surrender, 78132-78133 2016-26589 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 78137-78138 2016-26841 Refund Effective Dates: Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, 78133 2016-26837 Staff Attendances, 78133 2016-26845 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions: Interstate 64/High Rise Bridge Corridor Study in Chesapeake, VA, 78258-78259 2016-26812 Project Management Plan Guidance, 78257-78258 2016-26815 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Speed Limiting Devices, 78103-78104 2016-26816 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System PROPOSED RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: Private Flood Insurance, 78063-78080 2016-26411 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 78154-78155 2016-26863 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Revision of Organization and Conforming Changes to Regulation, 78033-78041 2016-26799 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Character-Space-Limited Online Prescription Drug Communications, 78163-78166 2016-26793 Focus Groups About Drug Products as Used by the Food and Drug Administration, 78161-78163 2016-26794 Potential Tobacco Product Violations Reporting Form, 78166-78167 2016-26758 Use of Serological Tests to Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Whole Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion, 78170-78172 2016-26792 Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Establishment of the Patient and Care-Partner Connection, 78169-78170 2016-26784 Guidance: Clinical Considerations for Investigational Device Exemptions for Neurological Devices Targeting Disease Progression and Clinical Outcomes, 78167-78169 2016-26783 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Kootenai National Forest; Lincoln County, MT; Starry Goat Project, 78107-78108 2016-26821 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

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

NOTICES Meetings: DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee; Correction, 78175-78176 2016-26765
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Training Evaluation Form, 78176-78177 2016-26870 Final Fair Market Rents: Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program Fiscal Year 2017, 78177 2016-26874 Meetings: Moving to Work Research Advisory Committee, 78177-78178 2016-26872 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau RULES Tribal Transportation Program, 78456-78491 2016-26141 NOTICES Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, 78178-78180 2016-26858 Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation of Washington, 78180-78181 2016-26853 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations, 78110 2016-26776 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal, 78117-78120 2016-26847 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from South Africa, 78115-78116 2016-26851 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, 78114-78115 2016-26848 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea, 78111-78113 2016-26850 Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China, 78116-78117 2016-26849 Export Trade Certificates of Review: Northwest Fruit Exporters, 78110-78111 2016-26833 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (R-134a) from China, 78186-78187 2016-26780 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Attorney Student Loan Repayment Program Electronic Forms; Correction, 78207-78208 2016-26823 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 78208 2016-26822
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Resource Management Plan for the Redding and Arcata Field Offices, CA, 78182-78184 2016-26817 Meetings: Coastal Oregon Resource Advisory Council, 78181 2016-26811 Road Closure and Restrictions on Public Lands in Fremont County, CO, 78181-78182 2016-26819 Minority Business Minority Business Development Agency NOTICES Meetings: Tribal Consultations, 78120-78122 2016-26832 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board, 78208-78209 2016-26761 National Credit National Credit Union Administration RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 78028-78029 2016-26712 PROPOSED RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards: Private Flood Insurance, 78063-78080 2016-26411 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee, 78209 2016-26878 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Meetings: Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, 78104-78106 2016-26561 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Speed Limiting Devices, 78103-78104 2016-26816 NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Daimler Trucks North America, 78259-78261 2016-26764 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology PROPOSED RULES Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned Inventions, 78090-78097 2016-25325 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 78172-78174 2016-26768 2016-26769 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 78173 2016-26774 National Cancer Institute, 78174 2016-26771 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 78172-78173 2016-26772 2016-26773 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 78172 2016-26767 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Meetings: Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Fishery, 78123-78129 2016-26846 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2016-26855 2016-26856 78122-78123, 78129 2016-26857 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78209-78212 2016-26818 2016-26826 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 78212-78213 2016-26949 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Enforcement Policy, 78022-78028 2016-26762 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 2, 78021-78022 2016-26775 PROPOSED RULES Role of Third Parties in Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations, 78062-78063 2016-26825 Office Special Office of the Special Counsel RULES Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals; Release of Information in Response to Legal Proceedings; Correction, 78021 2016-26779 Patent Patent and Trademark Office RULES Trademark Fee Adjustment; Correction, 78042-78043 2016-26684 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility User Fee, 78261-78263 2016-26854 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 78213 2016-26895 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Iran; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of November 3, 2016), 78493-78495 2016-27033 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78230-78231 2016-26785 Applications: Prudential ETF Trust, et al., 78228-78230 2016-26786 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 78228 2016-26787 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 78238-78257 2016-26797 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 78213-78217 2016-26789 NYSE Arca, Inc., 78217-78219, 78231-78238 2016-26788 2016-26790 2016-26796 NYSE MKT LLC, 78219-78224 2016-26795 Options Clearing Corp., 78224-78228 2016-26791 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Art and Nature in the Middle Ages, 78257 2016-26868 Marisa Merz: The Sky Is a Great Space, 78257 2016-26867 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

Comptroller of the Currency

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 78266-78295, 78298-78354 2016-26662 2016-26663
Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, 78266-78295 2016-26662 Part III Treasury Department, 78298-78354 2016-26663 Part IV Defense Department, 78356-78453 2016-25701 2016-25698 2016-25717 2016-25699 2016-25702 2016-25700 Part V Interior Department, Indian Affairs Bureau, 78456-78491 2016-26141 Part VI Presidential Documents, 78493-78495 2016-27033 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.

81 215 Monday, November 7, 2016 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 5 CFR Part 1820 Revision of Regulations Governing Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals, and Revision of Touhy Regulations Governing Release of Information in Response to Legal Proceedings; Correction AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document corrects the Overview of Comments Received section to a final rule published in the Federal Register as of October 24, 2016, regarding Revision of Regulations Governing Freedom of Information Act Requests and Appeals, and Revision of Touhy Regulations Governing Release of Information in Response to Legal Proceedings. This correction addresses the final paragraph of Section II, Overview of Comments Received, which should be disregarded or removed.

DATES:

Effective November 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Beckett, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, (202) 254-3657.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In final rule FR Doc. 2016-23215, appearing on page 73015 in the issue of October 24, 2016, make the following correction in the Overview of Comments Received section of the final rule. On page 73016, in the second column, remove the last paragraph of the Comments Received section.

Dated: October 31, 2016. Bruce Gipe, Chief Operating Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-26779 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7405-01-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC-2016-0103] RIN 3150-AJ75 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI-STORM Flood/Wind Multipurpose Canister Storage System, Amendment No. 2 AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of November 7, 2016, for the direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2016. The direct final rule amended the NRC's spent fuel storage regulations by revising the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032 for the Holtec International (Holtec) HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multipurpose Canister (MPC) Storage System.

DATES:

Effective Date: The effective date of November 7, 2016, for the direct final rule published August 23, 2016 (81 FR 57442), is confirmed.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0103 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-2016-0103. 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 (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa Cox, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8342 or email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On August 23, 2016 (81 FR 57442), the NRC published a direct final rule amending § 72.214 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) by revising the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032 for the Holtec HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System. Amendment No. 2 adds new fuel types to the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, adds new criticality calculations, updates an existing fuel type description, includes changes previously incorporated in Amendment No. 0 to CoC No. 1032, Revision 1, and makes clarifying changes to a CoC condition. In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on November 7, 2016. As described more fully in the direct final rule, 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.

The NRC received two comments on the direct final rule (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16252A336 and ML16271A024). As described below, the NRC determined that these were not significant adverse comments and did not make any changes to the direct final rule as a result of the public comments.

One comment stated “good.” The NRC determined that this comment does not meet the criteria of significant and adverse because it does not explain why the rule is inappropriate. The other comment contained general statements and questions about dry cask storage systems manufactured by Holtec and used overseas, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, and the infrastructure for the transportation of spent fuel. The NRC determined that this general comment about spent fuel storage and transportation is not within the scope of the direct final rule, which is limited to the specific changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1032. Therefore, because no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule will become effective as scheduled. The final CoC, Technical Specifications, and Safety Evaluation Report can be viewed in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16280A008.

Dated: November 1, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-26775 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Chapter I [NRC-2014-0221] NRC Enforcement Policy AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Policy revision; issuance.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision to its Enforcement Policy (Policy) to incorporate changes approved by the Commission.

DATES:

This revision is effective on November 7, 2016. The NRC is not soliciting comments on this revision to its Policy at this time.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0221 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-2014-0221. 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 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 in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

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.

The NRC maintains the Enforcement Policy on its Web site at http://www.nrc.gov: under the heading “Popular Documents,” select “Enforcement Actions,” then under “Enforcement” in the left side column, select “Enforcement Policy.” The revised Enforcement Policy is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16271A446.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerry Gulla, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-287-9143; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear material to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. The NRC supports this mission through its use of its Policy. Adequate protection is presumptively assured by compliance with the NRC's regulations, and the Policy contains the basic procedures used to assess and disposition apparent violations of the NRC's requirements.

The NRC initially published the Policy in the Federal Register on October 7, 1980 (45 FR 66754). Since its initial publication, the Policy has been revised on a number of occasions to address changing requirements and lessons learned. The most recent Policy revision is dated August 1, 2016. That revision reflects the new maximum civil penalty amount that the NRC can assess for a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or any regulation or order issued under the AEA.

This current revision to the Policy incorporates lessons learned along with miscellaneous clarifications and additions. These revisions include a rewrite of Section 6.13, “Information Security,” to incorporate a risk-informed approach for assessing the significance of information security violations; the implementation of the Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP); and miscellaneous revisions to: (1) The Glossary; (2) violation examples; and (3) Section 2.3.4, “Civil Penalty.”

The NRC provided an opportunity for the public to comment on these Policy revisions in a document published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 61107). The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) was the only stakeholder that submitted comments (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A020).

II. Revisions to the Enforcement Policy 1. Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP) a. Table of Contents

The NRC is revising the Table of Contents to incorporate the implementation of the cROP into the Policy. This requires a revision to the titles of Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. In addition to the revision discussed below, there are also other miscellaneous cROP related reference revisions throughout the Policy.

b. Section 2.2 “Assessment of Violations”

Section 2.2 is modified to include the cROP, and remove the specificity which allows for the use of the significance determination process (SDP), not only for facilities under construction, but for independent spent fuel storage installations when an SDP is developed.

Revision

After a violation is identified, the NRC assesses its severity or significance (both actual and potential). Under traditional enforcement, the severity level (SL) assigned to the violation generally reflects the assessment of the significance of a violation. For most violations committed by power reactor licensees, the significance of a violation is assessed using the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) or the Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP), as discussed below in Section 2.2.3, “Assessment of Violations Identified Under the ROP or cROP.” All other violations at power reactors or power reactor facilities under construction will be assessed using traditional enforcement as described in Section 2.2.4, “Using Traditional Enforcement to Disposition Violations Identified at Power Reactors.” Violations identified at facilities that are not subject to an ROP or cROP are assessed using traditional enforcement.

c. Section 2.2.3 “Operating Reactor Assessment Program”

The NRC is revising this section to add the implementation of the cROP and will reference the NRC's Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program Results” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14269A107). IMC 2505 describes the construction assessment program and IMC 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program,” describes the ROP (ADAMS Accession No. ML15089A315).

Revision 2.2.3 Assessment of Violations Identified Under the ROP or cROP

The assessment, disposition, and subsequent NRC action related to inspection findings identified at operating power reactors are determined by the ROP, as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program,” and IMC 0612, “Power Reactor Inspection Reports.” The assessment, disposition, and subsequent NRC action related to inspection findings identified at power reactors under construction are determined by the cROP, as described in IMC 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program Results” and in IMC 0613, “Power Reactor Construction Inspection Reports.”

Inspection findings identified through the ROP are assessed for significance using the SDP described in IMC 0609, “Significance Determination Process.” Inspection findings identified through the cROP are assessed for significance using the SDP described in IMC 2519, “Construction Significance Determination Process.” The SDPs use risk insights, where possible, to assist the NRC staff in determining the significance of inspection findings identified within the ROP or cROP. Inspection findings processed through the SDP, including associated violations, are documented in inspection reports and are assigned one of the following colors, depending on their significance.

d. Section 2.2.4 “Exceptions To Using Only the Operating Reactor Assessment Program”

The NRC is revising this section to add the implementation of the cROP and will reference IMC 2505.

Revision 2.2.4 Using Traditional Enforcement to Disposition Violations Identified at Power Reactors

Some aspects of violations at power reactors cannot be addressed solely through the SDP. In these cases, violations must be addressed separately from any associated ROP or cROP findings (when findings are present). Accordingly, these violations are assigned severity levels and can be considered for civil penalties in accordance with this Policy while the significance of the associated ROP or cROP finding (when present) must be dispositioned in accordance with the SDP. In determining the severity level assigned to such violations, the NRC will consider information in this Policy and the violation examples in Section 6.0 of this Policy, as well as SDP-related information, when available.

e. Section 2.2.6 “Construction”

Section 2.2.6, “Construction,” will be revised to provide clarifying guidance regarding enforcement and the Changes during Construction (CdC) Preliminary Amendment Request (PAR) process. The policy will now note that enforcement actions will not be taken for construction pursuant to a PAR No-Objection Letter, issued by the NRC, even if that construction is outside of the current licensing basis (CLB) while a corresponding license amendment request (LAR) is under review. This will allow the licensee to continue construction at-risk if the construction is consistent with the associated LAR and the No-Objection Letter. In addition, this section will also be revised to conform the policy to be consistent with the revised regulations promulgated by the NRC in “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licenses” (76 FR 56951; September 15, 2011).

Revision 2.2.6 Construction

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.10, no person may begin the construction of a production or utilization facility on a site on which the facility is to be operated until that person has been issued either a construction permit under 10 CFR part 50, a combined license under 10 CFR part 52, an early site permit authorizing the activities under 10 CFR 50.10(d), or a limited work authorization under 10 CFR 50.10(d). In an effort to preclude unnecessary regulatory burden on 10 CFR part 52 combined license holders while maintaining safety, the Changes during Construction (CdC) Preliminary Amendment Request (PAR) process was developed in Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-025, “Interim Staff Guidance on Changes During Construction Under 10 CFR part 52.” The license condition providing the option for a PAR as detailed in ISG-025 allows the licensee to request to make physical changes to the plant that are consistent with the scope of the associated license amendment request (LAR). The NRC staff may issue a No-Objection Letter with or without specific limitations, in response to the PAR. Enforcement actions will not be taken for construction pursuant to a PAR No-Objection Letter that is outside of the Current Licensing Basis (CLB) while the corresponding LAR is under review as long as the construction is consistent with the associated LAR and the No-Objection Letter (the latter of which may contain limitations on construction activities). The PAR No-Objection Letter authorization is strictly conditioned on the licensee's commitment to return the plant to its CLB if the requested LAR is subsequently denied or withdrawn. Failure to timely restore the CLB may be subject to separate enforcement, such as an order, a civil penalty, or both.

f. Section 2.3.1 “Minor Violation”

This revision will remove redundant language (IMC titles) from previously identified IMCs and will add references to examples of minor violation issues found in IMCs 0613 and 0617.

Revision

Violations of minor safety or security concern generally do not warrant enforcement action or documentation in inspection reports but must be corrected. Examples of minor violations can be found in the NRC Enforcement Manual, IMC 0612, Appendix E, “Examples of Minor Issues,” IMC 0613, Appendix E, “Examples of Minor Construction Issues,” and IMC 0617, Appendix E, “Minor Examples of Vendor and Quality Assurance Implementation Findings.” Provisions for documenting minor violations can be found in the NRC Enforcement Manual, IMC 0610, IMC 0612, IMC 0613, IMC 0616, and IMC 0617.

g. Section 2.3.2 “Noncited Violation”

This revision incorporates “plain writing” into the Policy regarding noncited violations. It will also revise the opening paragraph of Section 2.3.2 to be consistent with a previous approved revision to this section associated with crediting licensee corrective action programs.

Revision 2.3.2 Noncited Violation

If a licensee or nonlicensee has implemented a corrective action program that is determined to be adequate by the NRC, the NRC will normally disposition SL IV violations and violations associated with green ROP or cROP findings as noncited violations (NCVs) if all the criteria in Paragraph 2.3.2.a. are met.

For licensees and nonlicensees that are not credited by the NRC as having adequate corrective action programs, the NRC will normally disposition SL IV violations and violations associated with green ROP or cROP findings as NCVs if all of the criteria in Paragraph 2.3.2.b are met. If the SL IV violation or violation associated with Green ROP or cROP finding was identified by the NRC, the NRC will normally issue a Notice of Violation.

Inspection reports or inspection records document NCVs and briefly describe the corrective action the licensee or nonlicensee has taken or plans to take, if known. Licensees and nonlicensees are not required to provide written responses to NCVs; however, they may provide a written response if they disagree with the NRC's description of the NCV or dispute the validity of the NCV.

2. Section 2.3.4 “Civil Penalty”

Recent cases involving the willful failure to file for reciprocity or to obtain an NRC specific license have led to discussions about the agency's ability to deter future noncompliance in these areas and lessen the perceived potential economic benefit of working in NRC jurisdiction without the required notification or license.

Although the Policy (Section 3.6, “Use of Discretion in Determining the Amount of a Civil Penalty”) allows the NRC to exercise discretion to propose or escalate a civil penalty for cases involving willfulness, the NRC will add clarifying language to Section 2.3.4, “Civil Penalty.” To aid in implementation and ensure consistency, the Enforcement Manual will include specific guidance on the typical or “starting” civil penalty amount (e.g., 2 times the base civil penalty).

Revision

The following language appears in Section 2.3.4 after the paragraph starting: “The NRC considers civil penalties for violations . . .”

For cases involving the willful failure to either file for reciprocity or obtain an NRC specific license, the NRC will normally consider a civil penalty to deter noncompliance for economic benefit. Therefore, notwithstanding the normal civil penalty assessment process, in cases where there is any indication (e.g., statements by company employees regarding the nonpayment of fees, previous violations of the requirement including those not issued by the NRC, or previous filings without a significant change in management) that the violation was committed for economic gain, the NRC may exercise discretion and impose a civil penalty. The resulting civil penalty will normally be no more than 3 times the base civil penalty; however, the agency may mitigate or escalate the amount based on the merits of a specific case.

3. Addition of Section 3.10 “Reactor Violations With No Performance Deficiencies”

The NRC is revising Section 2.2.4.d to clarify that violations with no ROP findings are dispositioned by using traditional enforcement. Section 3.10, “Reactor Violations with No Performance Deficiencies,” has been added for NRC guidance to properly disposition these violations. This clarification involves no actual change in policy.

Revisions 2.2.4.d: Violations not Associated With ROP or cROP Findings 3.10 Reactor Violations With No Performance Deficiencies

The NRC may exercise discretion for violations of NRC requirements by reactor licensees for which there are no associated performance deficiencies (e.g., a violation of a TS which is not a performance deficiency).

4. Section 6.0 “Violation Examples” a. 6.3 “Materials Operations”

Section 6.3, “Materials Operations,” of the Policy addresses the failure to secure a portable gauge as required by 10 CFR 30.34(i). Specifically, under the current Policy, paragraph 6.3.c.3, a Severity Level (SL) III violation example, states, “A licensee fails to secure a portable gauge with at least two independent physical controls whenever the gauge is not under the control and constant surveillance of the licensee as required by 10 CFR 30.34(i).” Accordingly, a violation of 10 CFR 30.34(i) constitutes a SL III violation for gauges having either no security or one level of security. The SL III significance is based largely on licensees' control of portable gauges to reduce the opportunity for unauthorized removal or theft and is the only example currently provided in the Policy for this type of violation.

When assessing the significance of a violation involving the failure to secure a portable gauge, the NRC considers that both physical controls must be defeated for the portable gauge to be removed. This deters a theft by requiring a more determined effort to remove the gauge. Considering that there is a reduced risk associated with having one barrier instead of no barrier, the NRC has determined that a graded approach is appropriate for 10 CFR 30.34(i) violations of lower significance. Therefore, the NRC believes that failures of one level of physical control to secure portable gauges warrant a SL IV designation. This graded approach was piloted in Enforcement Guidance Memoranda 11-004, dated April 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111170601). After over 2 years of monitoring, the NRC determined that the addition of the SL IV example did not increase the number of losses/thefts reported. Therefore, the NRC is revising violation example 6.3.c.3 and adding violation example 6.3.d.10:

Revisions

6.3.c.3: Except as provided for in section 6.3.d.10 of the policy, a licensee fails to secure a portable gauge as required by 10 CFR 30.34(i);

6.3.d.10: A licensee fails to secure a portable gauge as required by 10 CFR 30.34(i), whenever the gauge is not under the control and constant surveillance of the licensee, where one level of physical control existed and there was no actual loss of material, and that failure is not repetitive.

b. Section 6.5.c.4 and 5 SL III Violations Involve, for Example

The NRC modifies these examples (4 and 5) to reference the appropriate regulation governing changes to a facility referencing a certified design (i.e., 10 CFR 52.98). This regulation refers to applicable change processes in the applicable design certification rule, which are currently contained in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix A-D.

Revisions

4. A licensee fails to obtain prior Commission approval required by 10 CFR 50.59 or 10 CFR 52.98 for a change that results in a condition evaluated as having low-to-moderate or greater safety significance; or

5. A licensee fails to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), and the FSAR is used to perform a 10 CFR 50.59 or 10 CFR 52.98 evaluation for a change to the facility or procedures, implemented without Commission approval, that results in a condition evaluated as having low-to-moderate or greater safety significance.

c. Section 6.5.d.5 SL IV Violations Involve, for Example

Example 6.5.d.5 was added to Section 6.9.d “Inaccurate and Incomplete Information or Failure to Make a Required Report.”

d. Section 6.9 Inaccurate and Incomplete Information or Failure to Make a Required Report

Section 50.55(e)(3) requires holders of a construction permit or combined license (until the Commission makes the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g)) to adopt procedures to evaluate deviations and failures to comply to ensure identification of defects and failures to comply associated with substantial safety hazards as soon as practicable. This section is similar to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR part 21. A SL II violation example was added; violation example 6.9.c.2.(a) was deleted; and the reference to 10 CFR 50.55(e) was moved to the revised 6.9.c.5 examples.

Revisions b. SL II Violations Involve, for Example

8. A deliberate failure to notify the Commission as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).

c. SL III Violations Involve, for Example

2.(a) Deleted “failure to make required notifications and reports pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e);”

5. A failure to provide the notice required by 10 CFR part 21 or 10 CFR 50.55(e), for example:

(a) An inadequate review or failure to review such that, if an appropriate review had been made as required, a 10 CFR part 21 or 10 CFR 50.55(e) report would have been required; or

(b) A withholding of information or a failure to make a required interim report by 10 CFR 21.21, “Notification of Failure to Comply or Existence of a Defect and Its Evaluation,” or 10 CFR 50.55(e) occurs with careless disregard.

d. SL IV Violations Involve, for Example

12. A licensee fails to make an interim report required by 10 CFR 21.21(a)(2) or under 10 CFR 50.55(e);

13. Failure to implement adequate 10 CFR part 21 or 10 CFR 50.55(e) processes or procedures that has more than minor safety or security significance; or

14. A materials licensee fails to . . .

e. Section 6.9 “Inaccurate and Incomplete Information or Failure to Make a Required Report”

The NRC is removing the reference to 10 CFR 26.719(d) in violation example 6.9.c.2.(c) because 10 CFR 26.719(d) is not a reporting requirement.

Revision

6.9.c.2.(b): Failure to make any report required by 10 CFR 73.71, “Reporting of Safeguards Events,” or Appendix G, “Reportable Safeguards Events,” to 10 CFR part 73 “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,” or 10 CFR part 26, “Fitness-For-Duty Programs;”

f. Section 6.11 “Reactor, Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Fuel Facility, and Special Nuclear Material Security”

The current Policy examples for a SL IV violation in Section 6.11.d are focused on the loss of special nuclear material (SNM) of low strategic significance. The loss of SNM is too narrow of a focus on the loss of material and not the other aspects of the Materials Control & Accountability (MC&A) program that could be a precursor to a loss of SNM. The Policy should include an example for the MC&A program at fuel facilities that covers the reduction in the ability to detect a loss or diversion of material which could lead to a more significant event. Therefore, the NRC is adding violation example 6.11.d.3 as follows.

Violation Example

6.11.d.3: A licensee fails to comply with an element of its material and accounting program that results in a fuel cycle facility procedure degradation regarding adequate detection or protection against loss, theft, or diversion of SNM.

g. Section 6.14 “Fitness-For-Duty” Violation Example 6.14.a.2

The NRC is incorporating violation example 6.14.a.2 into example 6.14.b.1. An employee assistance program (EAP) is one provision of many contained in 10 CFR part 26, subpart B, for which 6.14.a.1 applies. Therefore, the “severity” associated with an inadequate EAP is significantly less than that of a licensee not meeting “two or more subparts of 10 CFR part 26.” An ineffective implementation of an EAP does not directly result in an immediate safety or security concern and should not represent a SL I violation. Therefore, the NRC is deleting violation example 6.14.a.2 and modifying violation example 6.14.b.1.

Revision

6.14.a.2: Deleted.

6.14.b.1: A licensee fails to remove an individual from unescorted access status when this person has been involved in the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs within the protected area, or a licensee fails to take action in the case of an on-duty misuse of alcohol, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, or over-the-counter medications or once the licensee identifies an individual that appears to be impaired or that their fitness is questionable, the licensee fails to take immediate actions to prevent the individual from performing the duties that require him or her to be subject to 10 CFR part 26;

h. Section 6.14 “Fitness-For-Duty” Violation Example 6.14.b.2

In violation example 6.14.b.2, the NRC is removing the language “unfitness for duty based on drug or alcohol use.” Regulations in 10 CFR part 26 do not define unfitness and the behavioral observation program is not limited to drug and alcohol impairment.

Revision

6.14.b.2: A licensee fails to take action to meet a regulation or a licensee behavior observation program requirement when observed behavior within the protected area or credible information concerning the activities of an individual indicates impairment by any substance, legal or illegal, or mental or physical impaired from any cause, which adversely affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties.

i. Section 6.14 “Fitness-For-Duty” Violation Example 6.14.c.1

The NRC is revising violation example 6.14.c.1 to encompass more than positive drug and alcohol tests; it should include other aspects of the fitness-for-duty program such as subversions.

Revision

6.14.c.1: A licensee fails to take the required action for a person who has violated the licensee's Fitness-For-Duty Policy, in cases that do not amount to a SL II violation;

j. Section 6.14 “Fitness-For-Duty” Violation Example 6.14.c.5

Due to the revision to violation example 6.14.b.1, the NRC is revising violation example 6.14.c.5 to maintain a graded approach method to its violation example.

Revision

6.14.c.5: A licensee's employee assistance program (EAP) staff fails to notify licensee management when the EAP staff is aware that an individual's condition, based on the information known at the time, may adversely affect safety or security of the facility and the failure to notify did not result in a condition adverse to safety or security; or

5. Section 6.13 “Information Security”

The NRC is revising Section 6.13, “Information Security.” This revision will replace the current examples, which are based on the classification levels of the information, with a risk-informed approach for assessing the severity of information security violations. This approach of evaluating the severity of information security violations by using a risk-informed process is based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the information security violation and will more accurately reflect the severity of these types of violations and improve regulatory consistency.

This process is the result of lessons learned from a number of violations that the NRC has processed over the last few years based on varying significance levels. This process will use a flow chart and table approach, along with defined terms.

Once a noncompliance is identified, a four-step approach will be applied to determine the severity level of the violation. The four steps are: (1) Determine the significance of the information (i.e., high, moderate, or low), (2) determine the extent of disclosure (i.e., individual deemed trustworthy and reliable, unknown disclosure, or confirmed to an unauthorized individual), (3) determine the accessibility of the information (i.e., how limited was access to the information), and (4) determine the duration of the noncompliance (i.e., how long was the information available).

Once all steps are completed, the user will obtain a recommended severity level for the violation. The staff recognizes this approach as a change from the traditional violation examples; however, the process will be risk-informed and will consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the information disclosure. The risk-informed approach to information security violations adopted by the NRC should not be read to contradict the national policy on classified information as set forth in Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” This first revision is located in the beginning of the last paragraph of Section 4.3 of the Policy. Two conforming revisions are being made to Section 6.12 of the Policy to delete examples that conflict with the revised approach.

Revisions a. Section 4.3 Civil Penalties to Individuals

Section 6.13, “Information Security,” of this Policy provides a risk-informed approach for assessing the significance of information security violations.

b. Section 6.12 Materials Security

6.12.c.3: Deleted

6.12.d.10: Deleted

b. Violation example 6.13 Information Security BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ER07NO16.008 BILLING CODE 7590-01-C

Step 1: Significance1 —Describes the decision point to determine the significance of the disclosure as it relates to national security and/or common defense and security.

1 The significance guidance provided in Step 1 is only applicable within the context of the NRC's Enforcement Policy and its application. The significance guidance is not intended to define the “harm” that an unauthorized disclosure of SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL information is reasonably expected to cause as those definitions are set forth in Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” Nothing in section 6.13 of the Enforcement Policy should be read to contradict the National Policy on classified information.

High Significance: The totality of information disclosed provides a significant amount of information about a technology (i.e., key elements of a technology or system) or combinations of the following elements related to protective strategies: Response Strategy, Target Sets, Physical Security Plan, Contingency Plan or Integrated Response Plan. The information can be either SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL (National Security or Restricted Data) or Safeguards.

Moderate Significance: The totality of information disclosed provides limited information that may be useful to an adversary about technology information or physical security plan of a facility. The information can be either SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL (National Security or Restricted Data), Safeguards, or information requiring protection under 10 CFR part 37.

Low Significance: The totality of information disclosed, taken by itself, would not aid an adversary in gaining information about a technology or physical security plan of a facility. The information can be either SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL (National Security or Restricted Data), Safeguards, or information requiring protection under 10 CFR part 37.

Step 2: Disclosure—Describes the decision point to determine if: (a) The information was accessible to any individual(s) via hard copy format or electronic (e.g. computers) form, (b) you can determine who the individual(s) are, and (c) those individual(s) would meet the definition of Trustworthy and Reliable.

Trustworthy and Reliable (T&R): Are characteristics of an individual considered dependable in judgment, character, and performance, such that disclosure of information to that individual does not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety or common defense and security. A determination of T&R for this purpose is based upon the results from a background investigation or background check in accordance with 10 CFR 37.5 or 10 CFR 73.2, respectively. To meet the T&R requirement, the individual must possess a T&R determination before the disclosure of the information, regardless of the “need to know” determination. Note: In accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 or 73.59, there are designated categories of individuals that are relieved from fingerprinting, identification and criminal history checks and other elements of background checks.

Unknown Disclosure: Instances when controlled information has been secured, protected, or marked improperly but there is no evidence that anyone has accessed the information while it was improperly handled.

Confirmed: Instances where a person who does not have authorization to access controlled information gains access to the information.

Electronic Media/Confirmed: For electronic media it is considered confirmed once the information is no longer on an approved network for that type of information.

Unauthorized Individual: A person who does not possess a T&R determination and a need to know.

Step 3: Limited Access—Describes the decision point to determine the amount of controls (e.g., doors, locks, barriers, firewalls, encryption levels) needed to enter or gain access to an area or computer system in order to obtain the disclosed security information.

Hard Copy Format: A location provides limited access if it meets all of the following conditions:

a. The area was locked or had access control measures, and;

b. individuals that frequented the area were part of a known population, and;

c. records of personnel entry were maintained to the area via key control or key card access.

Electronic Media: A computer network provides limited access if it meets all of the following conditions:

a. The information is stored in a location that is still within the licensee's computer network's firewall, and

b. the licensee has some type of control system in place which delineates who can access the information.

Step 4: Duration—Describes the decision point in which a time period determination is made regarding the number of days the information was not controlled properly in accordance with the respective handling and storage requirements of the security information.

Long: Greater than or equal to 14 days from the date of infraction to discovery of the non-compliance.

Short: Less than 14 days from the date of infraction to discovery of the non-compliance.

6. Glossary a. Confirmatory Action Letter

Some agency procedures have not consistently described all Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) recipients, according to an audit of the NRC's use of CALs. To date, all affected procedures have been revised to incorporate a consistent definition with the exception of the Policy. Therefore, the NRC is revising the Glossary term CAL to specifically state the recipients of a CAL.

Revision

Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) is a letter confirming a licensee's, contractor's, or nonlicensee's (subject to NRC jurisdiction) voluntary agreement to take certain actions to remove significant concerns about health and safety, safeguards, or the environment.

c. Interim Enforcement Policy

The term Interim Enforcement Policy was added to the Glossary.

Revision

Interim Enforcement Policies (IEPs) refers to a policy that is developed by the NRC staff and approved by the Commission for specific topics, typically for a finite period. Generally, IEPs grant the staff permission to refrain from taking enforcement action for generic issues which are not currently addressed in the Policy and are typically effective until such time that formal guidance is developed and implemented or other resolution to the generic issue. IEPs can be found in Section 9.0 of the Policy.

d. Traditional Enforcement

The NRC is revising the definition of traditional enforcement for clarification purposes.

Revision

Traditional Enforcement, as used in this Policy, refers to the process for the disposition of violations of NRC requirements, including those that cannot be addressed only through the Operating Reactor Assessment Program. Traditional enforcement violations are assigned severity levels and typically include, but may not be limited to, those violations involving (1) actual safety and security consequences, (2) willfulness, (3) impeding the regulatory process, (4) discrimination, (5) violations not associated with ROP or cROP findings, (6) materials regulations, and (7) deliberate violations committed by individuals.

7. Miscellaneous Corrections/Modifications

Note: The page numbers cited correspond with the newly revised Enforcement Policy.

a. Page 8: Subject to the same oversight as the regional offices, the Directors of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), the Office of New Reactors (NRO), and the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) may also approve, sign, and issue certain enforcement actions as delegated by the Director, OE. The Director, OE, has delegated authority to the Directors of NRR, NMSS, NRO, and NSIR to issue Orders not related to specific violations of NRC requirements (i.e., nonenforcement-related Orders.)

b. Page 9: The NRC reviews each case being considered for enforcement action on its own merits to ensure that the severity of a violation is characterized at the level appropriate to the safety or security significance of the particular violation.

Whenever possible, the NRC uses risk information in assessing the safety or security significance of violations and assigning severity levels. A higher severity level may be warranted for violations that have greater risk, safety, or security significance, while a lower severity level may be appropriate for issues that have lower risk, safety, or security significance.

c. Page 15: a. Licensees and Nonlicensees with a credited Corrective Action Program

d. Page 19: The flow chart (Figure 2) is a graphic representation of the civil penalty assessment process and should be used in conjunction with the narrative in this section.

e. Page 33: The NRC may refrain from issuing an NOV for a SL II, III, or IV violation that meets the above criteria, provided that the violation was caused by conduct that is not reasonably linked to the licensee's present performance (normally, violations that are at least 3 years old or violations occurring during plant construction) and that there had not been prior notice so that the licensee could not have reasonably identified the violation earlier.

f. Page 34: In addition, the NRC may refrain from issuing enforcement action for violations resulting from matters not within a licensee's control, such as equipment failures that were not avoidable by reasonable licensee QA measures or management controls (e.g., reactor coolant system leakage that was not within the licensee's ability to detect during operation, but was identified at the first available opportunity or outage).

g. Page 43: 6.1.c.2 A system that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a DBA or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of the fission product barrier not being able to perform its licensing basis safety function because it is not fully qualified (per the IMC 0326, “Operability Determinations & Functional Assessment for Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety”) (e.g., materials or components not environmentally qualified);

h. Page 43: 6.1.d.3 A licensee fails to update the FSAR as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) and the lack of up-to-date information has a material impact on safety or licensed activities; or

i. Page 59: 6.7.d.3 “A radiation dose rate in an unrestricted or controlled area exceeds 0.002 rem (0.02 millisieverts) in any 1 hour (2 mrem/hour) or 50 mrem (0.5 mSv) in a year;”

III. Procedural Requirements Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This policy statement does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0136.

Public Protection Notification

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

Congressional Review Act

This policy is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of November, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-26762 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 747 RIN 3133-AE59 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On June 21, 2016, the NCUA Board (Board) published an interim final rule amending its regulations to adjust the maximum amount of each civil monetary penalty (CMP) within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action, including the amount of the adjustments, is required under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. This final rule confirms those amendments while making a clarification regarding the prospective effect of the 2015 legislation.

DATES:

Effective date: November 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Marenna, Senior Trial Attorney, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone: (703) 518-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background II. Regulatory Procedures I. Background A. June 2016 Interim Final Rule

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 1 (DCIA) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 2 (FCPIA Act) to require every federal agency to enact regulations that adjust each CMP provided by law under its jurisdiction by the rate of inflation at least once every four years. In November 2015, Congress further amended the CMP inflation requirements in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,3 which contains the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 amendments).4 This legislation provides for an initial “catch-up” adjustment of CMPs in 2016, followed by annual adjustments. The catch-up adjustment re-sets CMP maximum amounts by setting aside the inflation adjustments that agencies made in prior years and instead calculating inflation with reference to the year when each CMP was enacted or last modified by Congress. For 2017 and subsequent years, the Board will be required to adjust maximum levels to account for annual inflation.5

1 Public Law 104-134, sec. 31001(s), 110 Stat. 1321-373 (Apr. 26, 1996). The law is codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (Oct. 5, 1990), also codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

3 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (Nov. 2, 2015).

4 129 Stat. 599.

5 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (Nov. 2, 2015).

On June 21, 2016, in compliance with the 2015 amendments, the Board published an interim final rule with a request for comments in the Federal Register.6 In calculating the adjustments, the Board reviewed and applied government-wide guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).7 In accordance with the procedures and calculations prescribed by the 2015 amendments and OMB's guidance, the Board adjusted the maximum level of each of the CMPs that NCUA has authority to assess. NCUA is not, however, required to assess at the new maximum levels and retains discretion to assess at lower levels, as it has done historically.8

6 81 FR 40152 (June 21, 2016).

7 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2016).

8 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016).

The interim final rule became effective on July 21, 2016. The Board received no comments on the rule.

B. Prospective Effect of Adjustments

Although the Board received no comments on the interim final rule, it wishes to clarify its intended use of adjusted maximums for violations that occurred prior to the adjustment. As described in the interim final rule, the 2015 amendments provide that increased maximum CMP amounts apply to penalties assessed after the adjustments take effect, including those for which the associated violation occurred before the adjustment became effective.9 The Board adopted this provision in the interim final rule consistent with the statute.10

9 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 600 (Nov. 2, 2015), codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

10 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016).

The Board has observed that agencies have appeared to vary in their adoption of this provision. Some agencies' interim final rules provide that the adjusted maximums apply only to violations occurring after November 2, 2015, when the 2015 amendments became law.11 Other agencies' rules, like the NCUA's interim final rule, do not specify whether the adjusted maximums would apply to violations that occurred before the 2015 amendments were enacted.12 To avoid confusion, the Board clarifies that it interprets the 2015 amendments as applying only prospectively. If NCUA assesses CMPs at the maximum level, it would not apply the new maximums to violations that occurred before the statute was amended on November 2, 2015. As noted above, nothing in the 2015 amendments or the final rule requires application of maximum-level CMPs. Further, as explained in the interim final rule, NCUA generally must consider mitigating factors, including financial resources, in assessing a CMP.13

11 See, e.g., Dep't of Justice, Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment, 81 FR 42491, 42499 June 30, 2106).

12 See, e.g., Dep't of Defense, Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 81 FR 33389, 33390 (May 26, 2016).

13 81 FR 40152, 40156 (June 21, 2016).

Apart from this clarification, the Board adopts the interim final rule as final without changes.

II. Regulatory Procedures

Section III of the Supplementary Information in the June 2016 interim final rule sets forth the Board's analyses under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act, Executive Order 13132, and the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act. See 81 FR 40156-40157. Because the final rule confirms the interim final rule and does not alter the substance of the analyses and determinations accompanying the interim final rule, the Board continues to rely on those analyses and determinations for purposes of this rulemaking. The Board notes that OMB determined that the interim final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Enforcement Fairness Act.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 747

Credit unions, Civil monetary penalties.

By the National Credit Union Administration Board on October 27, 2016. Gerard S. Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

For the reasons stated above, the interim final rule amending 12 CFR part 747, published at 81 FR 40152 (June 21, 2016), is adopted as a final rule without change.

[FR Doc. 2016-26712 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2015-2776; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-5] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment and Establishment of Restricted Areas; Chincoteague Inlet, VA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action expands the restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, VA, to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Wallops Island Flight Facility (WFF) test requirements. This action adds 3 new restricted areas, designated R-6604C, R-6604D, and R-6604E. Additionally, a minor change is made to 2 points in the boundary of existing area R-6604A to match the updated 3-nautical mile (NM) line from the shoreline of the United States (U.S.) as provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

DATES:

Effective date 0901 UTC, January 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

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 the 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 restructures the restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, VA to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential NASA testing programs.

History

On September 10, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice proposing to expand the restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, VA, to support NASA's WFF test requirements (80 FR 54444), Docket No. FAA-2015-2776. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Due to an error, a chart depicting the proposed areas was not posted to the regulations.gov Web site for public viewing until November 5, 2015 (10 days after the close of the comment period). Consequently, on January 21, 2016, the FAA published a notice reopening the comment period for 30 additional days (81 FR 3353), Docket No. FAA-2015-2776, to provide the public the opportunity to view the chart and submit comments.

Discussion of Comments

A total of 17 comments were received, including 2 duplicate submissions. Eight commenters expressed support for the proposal. Several of the supporters wrote that restricted areas R-6604D and R-6604E abut, but do not include, VOR Federal airway V-139, concluding, when those areas are in use, air traffic can continue to flow unimpeded on the airway.

FAA Response. VOR Federal airways, such as V-139 consist of that airspace within 4-NM either side of the airway centerline. R-6604D and R-6604E essentially abut the centerline of V-139, which means they infringe upon the 4-NM width on the east side of the airway centerline. Therefore, the airway would be unusable below 4,000 feet MSL when either R-6604D or R-6604E is active. When the restricted areas are active, instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic must use the airway at or above 4,000 feet MSL. Otherwise, they must be vectored to remain clear of the active restricted areas or navigate by other airways. As an alternative, pilots flying northeast- bound could use V-1 or V-139 to the Cape Charles VORTAC (CCV), VA, then fly V-1 to the Waterloo VOR/DME (ATR), DE, then V-308 to the Sea Isle VORTAC (SIE), NJ, then rejoin V-139. This alternative would only add about 2-NM to the route of flight. Conversely, southwest-bound traffic could fly V-139 to the Sea Isle VORTAC, then follow the reverse of the routing shown above and rejoin V-139 at the Cape Charles VORTAC. Air Traffic Control (ATC) will ensure IFR traffic filed via V-139 is separated from active restricted airspace by means of altitude assignment, route clearance, or radar vectors.

VFR pilots who elect to navigate via V-139 would have to fly above the restricted areas at the appropriate VFR cruising altitude for the direction of flight. VFR cruising altitudes are “odd thousands plus 500 feet for northeast-bound traffic and even thousands plus 500 feet for southwest-bound traffic. Therefore, for VFR traffic navigating on V-139 (when the restricted areas are active), the lowest available altitudes would be 5,500 feet MSL for northeast-bound traffic; and 4,500 feet MSL for southwest-bound traffic. VFR aircraft may also elect to deviate around the restricted airspace or use the alternate routing described above. ATC will continue to provide VFR flight advisories throughout the airspace on a workload permitting basis. When the restricted areas are not active, V-139 is fully available for air traffic. These restricted areas are expected to receive limited usage on an annual basis.

Seven commenters stated additional concerns about the proposal, which are discussed below.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) wrote that the published feeder route from the Snow Hill VORTAC to the GOBYO initial approach fix, serving the GPS approach to runway 32 at Ocean City Municipal Airport, MD, (KOXB), would be unavailable during the time R-6604D is activated. This would reduce the efficiency provided by the feeder route increasing the likelihood of pilots flying longer distances with increased fuel consumption and costs to the operator.

FAA Response. ATC will offset this impact by either clearing the aircraft to GOBYO at 4,000 feet MSL or above, or vectoring the aircraft a short distance around the restricted areas.

AOPA noted that the need to circumnavigate the restricted areas, when active, would also affect pilots operating under VFR. When active, the new restricted areas would render as unavailable key VFR landmarks, such as U.S. Route 13, railroad tracks and the seashore, that are used by VFR pilots who navigate without GPS or navigation aids and who fly at lower altitudes. AOPA said that avoiding the restricted areas by flying to the east, over open water, would be dangerous for single-engine, shoreline-following pilots, and it would be time consuming for those diverting around the complex to the west. AOPA requested that stand-alone VFR waypoints be charted in the Chincoteague area to assist pilots unfamiliar with the area to safely navigate around the restricted areas.

The FAA agrees and will develop charted VFR waypoints to assist VFR aircraft in avoiding the restricted areas. When the restricted areas are not in use, the above mentioned landmarks would remain available for VFR navigation.

AOPA advised that, since the new restricted areas are close to numerous final approach courses of surrounding airports, they must be depicted on applicable Instrument Approach Procedure Charts to increase pilot awareness.

The FAA agrees and is taking action to depict the new restricted areas on applicable instrument procedure charts.

AOPA noted that the proposed restricted areas would be activated “By NOTAM,” but the NPRM did not indicate how far in advance the NOTAM should be issued. AOPA recommended at least 12 hours notice is necessary to assist pilots in flight planning.

NASA agreed to revise the time of designation for R-6604C, D and E to read “By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.”

The Helicopter Association International (HAI) wrote that it was unable to support the proposed changes. HAI said that the restricted area expansion would impact both IFR and VFR operators. Helicopter operators would be required to either fly further offshore for longer periods to circumnavigate the area, or fly further west into a more tightly congested corridor. HAI is concerned with the offshore option, especially during winter when lower sea temperatures would greatly reduce aircrew survivability times if an emergency resulted in a water entry. Further, the increased minimum altitudes to overfly R-6604D and R-6604E could force helicopter operators higher and subject them to increased encounters with icing conditions.

FAA Response. Helicopter operators would have the option to avoid the restricted areas via the alternate routing discussed above or by use of the VFR waypoints being developed for that purpose. Additionally, the limited projected annual use of the areas described previously should lessen the potential impacts on helicopter operations. Further, NASA has agreed to promptly release the restricted areas to ATC for active medevac or search and rescue helicopter operations.

One commenter contended that a requirement for restricted airspace was not established and suggested the use of a less restrictive type of special use airspace (SUA) such as a warning area. The commenter believes that the proposal did not justify why SUA must be established over land for this purpose and that establishing test airspace over water adjacent to Wallops should be considered before establishing SUA over land.

FAA Response. NASA proposed the restricted area expansion to accommodate a variety of test activities that pose a hazard to nonparticipating aircraft. These activities include, but are not limited to, high-risk test profiles by heavily modified test aircraft, testing of emitters that could induce harmful electromagnetic interference effects on nonparticipating aircraft, non-eye-safe laser firings, and external stores separation testing. Warning areas may also contain hazardous activities and they are established offshore. However, while warning areas serve notice of the possible existence of hazardous activities, they do not restrict access by nonparticipating aircraft that elect to transit the airspace. There is an existing warning area, W-386, located offshore near WFF, but this area is delegated to the U.S. Navy which has its own requirements and scheduling priorities. NASA does use the overwater SUA to the extent possible, but some test operations require overland airspace in close proximity to an airfield. NASA's restricted area proposal was designed for this specific purpose.

During the design of the proposal, other types of SUA were considered but deemed insufficient for ensuring safety during NASA's flight test operations. Use of nearby existing restricted areas were not an option due to technical requirements (co-use airspace versus exclusive-use airspace; travel distance to the SUA) as well as the dynamic nature of NASA's flight test program. For example, the vast majority of the Patuxent River Naval Air Station's restricted areas are not exclusive use. The parts of the Patuxent River restricted area complex that could be scheduled as exclusive use are in high demand and used for priority Department of Defense requirements. It would be highly unlikely that NASA would be granted access to this airspace, especially given the dynamic operations schedule.

In this case, the FAA has determined that the restricted area expansion is the appropriate SUA designation to contain NASA's hazardous activities in order to ensure segregation of those activities from nonparticipating aircraft.

Several commenters pointed out that this is very busy airspace used by commercial and private flights. They contended that there is sufficient airspace for testing in other parts of the country.

FAA Response. NASA operates a wide variety of highly modified aircraft at WFF in support of various test missions. The configuration of each aircraft changes often as dictated by the specific test program and the engineering and physical modification work that takes place at WFF. Further, in addition to facilities supporting aircraft operations, the infrastructure in place at WFF includes the communications, telemetry, radar tracking, and flight path guidance necessary to fulfill NASA's testing commitments. It would be impractical and not cost effective to relocate infrastructure and testing operations to another location. In addition, at other locations, NASA testing would be competing for access to airspace and that would adversely impact NASA test programs. The design and projected use of the expanded restricted areas should minimize the impacts on other users of the National Airspace System.

One commenter expressed concern about pilots being able to reliably and quickly determine the activity status of the restricted areas from air traffic control.

FAA Response. In the NPRM, Patuxent River Approach Control was proposed as the controlling agency for R-6604C, D and E. The FAA has since decided that Washington ARTCC, which is the controlling agency for the existing R-6604A and B, should also be the controlling agency for the new restricted areas. The controlling agency typically coordinates SUA status with the using agency and is the primary source for pilots to determine activity status of the airspace at any given time. The “Special Use Airspace Tabulation” on the Washington Sectional Aeronautical Chart currently lists Washington ARTCC as the controlling agency for R-6604A and B. The tabulation also includes area altitudes, time of use and contact frequencies. The tabulation will be updated to include information for R-6604C, D and E. In addition, the requirement that R-6604C, D and E must be activated by a NOTAM issued at least 12 hours in advance should assist pilots in flight planning.

Other Impacts

The FAA identified several other potential impacts. First, when R-6604E is active, it would encroach into the protected airspace for the RNAV (GPS) approach to runway 21 at Accomack County Airport, Melfa, VA, (KMFV). There are several options to address this issue: ATC can provide radar vectors to runway 21; the aircraft could be cleared for the VOR/DME RWY 3 or the LOC RWY 3 approach with a circle to land runway 21; or ATC can temporarily recall a portion of R-6604E to restrict NASA aircraft to a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet MSL or above, allowing aircraft on the approach to fly underneath. Once the traffic on approach is clear, the airspace would be returned to the user. This latter provision would be included in the Letter of Procedure between the FAA and NASA that governs use of the restricted areas.

Second, the protected airspace for the missed approach procedure for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach at Accomack County Airport would be impacted when R-6604E is active.

FAA plans to amend the missed approach procedure for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach. In the interim, the VOR/DME RWY 3 approach is available. The missed approach for that procedure does not conflict with the restricted area. Also, as described above, ATC can restrict aircraft operating in R-6604E to a minimum altitude that permits IFR traffic to fly the approach beneath.

Third, Midway Airport (VG56), a private-use airport near Bloxom, VA, would be impacted by the expansion. Midway is located below R-6604E. The VFR traffic patterns and access to and from the airport would be affected unless operations are coordinated. NASA has agreed to establish a Letter of Agreement with airport operators to minimize impact to the private airports south of the WFF.

Differences From the NPRM

The time of designation for R-6604C, D and E was proposed in the NPRM as “By NOTAM.” In response to comments received, the time of designation is changed to read “By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.”

The controlling agency for R-6604C, D and E was proposed as Patuxent River Approach Control. The FAA determined that Washington ARTCC will be the controlling agency for all R-6604 subareas (A through E).

The Rule

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by establishing 3 new restricted areas, designated R-6604C, R-6604D and R-6604E, at NASA's WFF in Virginia. The new areas abut the existing restricted areas (R-6604A and R-6604B) and will be used to contain a variety of test activities deemed to pose a hazard to nonparticipating aircraft. The following is a general description of the areas.

R-6604C overlies the WFF airfield and is contained entirely within the WFF property boundary. It extends from the surface up to 3,500 feet mean sea level (MSL). Expected usage will be approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45-minute periods) on approximately 120 days per year, totaling approximately 180 hours per year.

R-6604D is extends from 100 feet above ground level (AGL) up to 3,500 feet MSL. It is located between the western boundary of R-6604B and the centerline of VOR Federal airway V-139, extending approximately 15-NM to the northeast of the R-6604A/R-6604B northern boundary. Expected usage will also be approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45-minute periods) on approximately 120 days per year, totaling approximately 180 hours per year.

R-6604E extends from 700 feet AGL up to 3,500 feet MSL. It is located between the western boundaries of R-6604A and R-6604B and the centerline of VOR Federal airway V-139. Expected usage will be approximately 1.5 hours per day (in 45-minute periods) on approximately 40 days per year, totaling approximately 60 hours per year.

All 3 areas would be activated by a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to be issued at least 12 hours in advance. Specific times of designation were not assigned for R-6604C, D and E due to the variable nature of test programs.

In addition to the above, 2 points in the boundary of R-6604A that intersect a line 3-NM from the shoreline of the U.S. are adjusted to reflect NOAA's updated calculation of the U.S. shoreline. The rest of the R-6604A description is unchanged.

The configuration of the restricted areas was designed to allow for activation of only that portion of the complex required for the specific test profile being conducted. As is the current practice with R-6604A and R-6604B, when the new restricted areas are not required by the using agency, the airspace will be returned to the controlling agency for access by other aviation users.

Note that the existing areas (R-6604A and R-6604B) will continue to be used, as in the past, for missile and rocket launches, aircraft systems development, expendable launch vehicles, lasers, RPV, and other test programs.

The FAA is taking this action because the existing restricted airspace is too small to fully contain hazardous test profiles conducted by NASA's WFF.

Operational Note: Considering their location, it is important that the new areas be depicted on both the IFR en route chart (L-36) and the VFR chart covering the affected area before they are activated for use. Due to aeronautical chart publication cycles, the publication dates for the applicable IFR and VFR charts are not the same. The effective date of this rule is January 5, 2017, to ensure the airspace will also be depicted on the IFR en route chart, which publishes on that date. However, the new areas will not be available for use or activation by NASA until they also appear on the next edition of the Washington Sectional Aeronautical Chart, which publishes on February 2, 2017.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 conducted an environmental review for this rulemaking in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, the National Environmental Policy Act, and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. FAA's environmental impact review included an independent evaluation and adoption of NASA's Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of Restricted Area Airspace (R-6604C/D/E) at Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Virginia, dated October 2016 (hereinafter “the FEA”), for which the FAA was a cooperating agency, and which included the environmental analysis of the expanded restricted airspace at Chincoteague Inlet, VA, to support NASA's Wallops Island Flight Facility (WFF) test requirements consisting of the addition of three new restricted areas, designated R-6604C, R-6604D, and R-6604E, and a minor change to two points in the boundary of existing area R-6604A to match the updated 3-nautical mile (NM) line from the shoreline of the U.S. as provided by NOAA, and as described above. Based on its environmental review, the FAA has determined that the action that is the subject of this rule does not present the potential for significant impacts to the human environment. The FAA's Adoption EA and FONSI-ROD are included in the docket for this rulemaking. The FEA is available at https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/Establishment_R-6604CDE_DEA.html.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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.

§ 73.66 [Amended]
2. Section 73.66 is amended as follows: R-6604A Chincoteague Inlet, VA [Amended]

By removing the current boundaries and inserting the following in its place:

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37°55′25″ N., long. 75°24′54″ W.; to lat. 37°51′31″ N., long.75°17′16″ W.; then along a line 3-NM from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 37°39′20″ N., long. 75°31′19″ W.; to lat. 37°47′00″ N., long. 75°31′18″ W.; to lat. 37°51′00″ N., long. 75°29′36″ W.; to the point of beginning.

R-6604C Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New]

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37°56′57″ N., long. 75°28′37″ W.; to lat. 37°56′54″ N., long. 75°26′56″ W.; to lat. 37°56′23″ N., long. 75°26′46″ W.; to lat. 37°56′45″ N., long. 75°27′29″ W.; to lat. 37°55′15″ N., long. 75°28′23″ W.; to lat. 37°55′15″ N., long. 75°28′39″ W.; to lat. 37°56′32″ N., long. 75°29′18″ W.; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. Surface to 3,500 feet MSL.

Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.

R-6604D Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New] Boundaries

Beginning at lat. 38°01′42″ N., long. 75°29′28″ W.; to lat. 38°07′12″ N., long. 75°14′48″ W.; to lat. 38°04′36″ N., long. 75°08′07″ W.; thence along a line 3-NM from and parallel to the shoreline to lat. 37°51′31″ N., long. 75°17′16″ W.; to lat. 37°56′45″ N., long. 75°27′29″ W.; to lat. 37°53′55″ N., long. 75°29′11″ W.; to lat. 37°55′40″ N., long. 75°33′27″ W.; to the point of beginning; excluding R-6604C.

Designated altitudes. 100 feet AGL to 3,500 feet MSL.

Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.

R-6604E Chincoteague Inlet, VA [New]

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 37°55′40″ N., long. 75°33′27″ W.; to lat. 37°53′55″ N., long. 75°29′11″ W.; to lat. 37°50′24″ N., long. 75°31′19″ W.; to lat. 37°39′20″ N., long. 75°31′19″ W.; to lat. 37°38′57″ N., long. 75°31′31″ W.; to lat. 37°46′55″ N., long. 75°39′13″ W.; to the point of beginning.

Designated altitudes. 700 feet AGL to 3,500 feet MSL.

Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 12 hours in advance.

Controlling agency. FAA, Washington ARTCC.

Using agency. Chief, Wallops Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, VA.

Issued in Washington, DC on November 1, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-26760 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0222] Revision of Organization and Conforming Changes to Regulation AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this final rule to amend the regulations to reflect organization change in the Agency and to make other conforming changes. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 7, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vanessa Starks, Management Analysis Services Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 11601 Landsdown St., 3WFN—5th Floor, Rm. 05D12, North Bethesda, MD 20857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

FDA is issuing this final rule to amend its regulations by updating the organizational information in part 5 (21 CFR part 5).

The portion of this final rule updating the organizational information in part 5, subpart M, is a rule of Agency organization, procedure, or practice. FDA is issuing these provisions as a final rule without publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking because such notice is not required for rules of Agency organization, procedure, or practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). For the conforming changes to the other regulations, the Agency finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to dispense with prior notice and comment, and good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make these conforming changes effective less than 30 days after publication because such notice and comment and delayed effective date are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. These changes do not result in any substantive change in the regulations.

II. Economic Analysis of Impacts

We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the final rule. We believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule simply updates the organizational information, it does not impose any additional costs on industry. Consequently, the Agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Federalism

We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that 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. Accordingly we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 5

Authority delegations (Government agencies), Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 5 is revised to read as follows:

PART 5—ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 552; 21 U.S.C. 301-397.

2. Revise § 5.1100 to read as follows:
§ 5.1100 Headquarters. Office of the Commissioner.1

1 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Chief Counsel. Office of the Executive Secretariat. Freedom of Information Staff. Dockets Management Staff. Office of the Chief Scientist. 1 Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emerging Threats. Office of Scientific Integrity. Office of Regulatory Science and Innovation. Division of Science Innovation and Critical Path. Division of Scientific Computing and Medical Information. Office of Scientific Professional Development. Office of Health Informatics. Office of Women's Health. Office of External Affairs. Office of Media Affairs. Office of Communications. Office of Health and Constituent Affairs. Office of Minority Health. National Center for Toxicological Research. 2

2 Mailing address: Food and Drug Administration, 3900 NCTR Rd., Jefferson, AR 72079.

Office of the Center Director. Office of Management. Office of Research. Division of Biochemical Toxicology. Division of Genetic and Molecular Toxicology. Division of Microbiology. Division of Systems Biology. Division of Neurotoxicology. Division of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics. Office of Scientific Coordination. Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine. 3

3 Mailing address: Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Communications and Public Engagement Staff. Executive Secretariat Staff. Office of Resource Planning and Strategic Management. Strategic Planning and Budget Formulation Staff. Risk Analytics Staff. Office of Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation Network.4

4 Mailing address: 4300 River Rd., University Station (HFS-015), College Park, MD 20740.

Prevention Staff. Response Staff. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 5

5 Mailing address: Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740.

Office of the Center Director. International Affairs Staff. Executive Operations Staff. Office of Management. Safety Staff. Division of Budget & Planning. Division of Program Services. Office of Analytics and Outreach. Food Defense and Emergency Coordination Staff. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Staff. Division of Education, Outreach and Information. Education and Outreach Branch. Information Center Branch. Web Branch. Division of Public Health Informatics and Analytics. Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. Signals Management Branch. Consumers Studies Branch. Division of Risk and Decision Analysis. Risk Analysis Branch. Contaminant Assessment Branch. Exposure Assessment Branch. Office of Food Safety. Retail Food Production Staff. Multi-Commodity Foods Staff. Division of Seafood Science and Technology. Chemical Hazard Science Branch. Microbiological Hazards Science Branch. Division of Food Processing Science & Technology. Process Engineering Branch. Food Technology Branch. Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety. Plant Products Branch. Dairy and Egg Branch. Division of Seafood Safety. Shellfish and Aquaculture Policy Branch. Seafood Processing and Technology Policy Branch. Division of Produce Safety. Fresh Produce Branch. Processed Produce Branch. Division of Dairy, Egg, and Meat Products. Milk and Milk Products Branch. Egg and Meat Products Branch. Division of Plant Products and Beverages. Plant Products Branch. Beverages Branch. Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Division of Color Certification and Technology. Division of Cosmetics. Office of Regulatory Science. Division of Analytical Chemistry. Methods Development Branch. Spectroscopy and Mass Spectrometry Branch. Division of Microbiology. Microbial Methods and Development Branch. Molecular Methods and Subtyping Branch. Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry. Chemical Contaminants Branch. Bioanalytical Methods Branch. Office of Food Additive Safety. Division of Food Contract Notifications. Division of Biotechnology and GRAS Notice Review. Division of Petition Review. Office of Compliance. Division of Enforcement. Division of Field Programs and Guidance. Office of Applied Research and Safety Assessment. Division of Molecular Biology. Division of Virulence Assessment. Virulence Mechanisms Branch. Immunobiology Branch. Division of Toxicology. Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences. Regulations and Special Government Employee Management Staff. Division of Social Sciences. Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling. Food Labeling and Standards Staff. Nutrition Programs Staff. Office of Dietary Supplement Program. Evaluation and Research Staff. Regulatory Implementation Staff. Center for Veterinary Medicine. 6

6 Mailing address: Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville MD 20855.

Office of the Center Director. Office of Management. Program and Resources Management Staff. Human Capital Management Staff. Talent Development Staff. Management Logistics Staff. Budget Planning and Evaluation Staff. Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation. Division of Therapeutic Drugs for Food Animals. Division of Production Drugs. Division of Therapeutic Drugs for Non-Food Animals. Division of Human Food Safety. Division of Manufacturing Technologies. Division of Scientific Support. Division of Generic Animal Drugs. Division of Business Information Science and Management. Office of Surveillance and Compliance. Division of Surveillance. Division of Animal Feeds. Division of Compliance. Division of Veterinary Product Safety. Office of Research. Division of Residue Chemistry. Division of Applied Veterinary Research. Division of Animal and Food Microbiology. Office of Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Drug Development. OFFICE OF MEDICAL PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO Office of Medical Products and Tobacco—Immediate Office. 7

7 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of Special Medical Programs—Immediate Office. 8

8 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff. Good Clinical Practice Staff. Office of Pediatric Therapeutics. Office of Orphan Products Development. Office of Combination Products. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. 9

9 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Center Director. Executive Operations Staff. Regulatory Information Management Staff. Regulations and Policy Staff. Records Management Staff. Bioinformatics Support Staff. Business Operations Staff. Office of Management. Planning and Performance Management Staff. Division of Program Services. Program Operations Branch. Program Services Branch. Division of Budget and Resource Management. Budget Analysis and Formulation Branch. Resource Management Branch. Division of Program Services. Building Operations Staff. Program Management Services Branch. Program Operations Branch. Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants. Division of Veterinary Services. Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality. Division of Case Management. Blood and Tissue Compliance Branch. Advertising and Promotional Labeling Branch. Biological Drug and Device Compliance Branch. Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality. Product Release Branch. Manufacturing Review Branch I. Manufacturing Review Branch II. Applications Review Branch. Division of Inspections and Surveillance. Program Surveillance Branch. Bioresearch Monitoring Branch. Division of Biological Standards and Quality Control. Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry and Blood Related Products. Quality Assurance Branch. Laboratory of Microbiology, In-vivo Testing and Standards. Office of Blood Research and Review. Administrative Staff. Policy and Publication Staff. Regulatory Project Management Staff. Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases. Laboratory of Molecular Virology. Laboratory of Emerging Pathogens. Laboratory of Bacterial and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Agents. Product Review Branch. Division of Hematology Clinical Review. Hematology Product Review Branch. Clinical Review Branch. Division of Blood Components and Devices. Blood and Plasma Branch. Devices and Review Branch. Division of Hematology Research and Review. Laboratory of Cellular Hematology. Laboratory of Hemostasis. Laboratory of Plasma Derivatives. Laboratory of Biochemistry and Vascular Biology. Office of Vaccine Research and Review. Program Operations Staff. Division of Bacterial, Parasitic, and Allergenic Products. Laboratory of Immunobiochemistry. Laboratory of Respiratory and Special Pathogens. Laboratory of Bacterial Polysaccharides. Laboratory of Mucosal Pathogens and Cellular Immunology. Division of Viral Products. Laboratory of Pediatric and Respiratory Viral Diseases. Laboratory of Hepatitis Viruses. Laboratory of Retroviruses. Laboratory of DNA Viruses. Laboratory of Vector-Borne Diseases. Laboratory of Method Development. Laboratory of Immunoregulation. Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications. Clinical Review Branch 1. Clinical Review Branch 2. CMC Review Branch 1. CMC Review Branch 2. CMC Review Branch 3. Review Management Support Branch. Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development. Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management. Congressional and Oversight Branch. Access Litigation and Freedom of Information Branch. Division of Manufacturers Assistance and Training. Career Development and Directed Training Branch. Manufacturers Assistance and Technical Training Branch. Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs. Communication Technology Branch. Consumer Affairs Branch. Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology. Division of Biostatistics. Vaccine Evaluation Branch. Therapeutics Evaluation Branch. Division of Epidemiology. Pharmacovigilance Branch. Analytic Epidemiology Branch. Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies. Regulatory Management Staff. Division of Cellular and Gene Therapies. Cell Therapies Branch. Gene Therapies Branch. Gene Transfer and Immunogencity Branch. Tumor Vaccine and Biotechnology Branch. Cellular and Tissue Therapy Branch. Division of Clinical Evaluation and Pharmacological Toxicology Review. General Medicine Branch. Pharmacology/Toxicology Branch. Oncology Branch. Division of Human Tissues. Human Tissue and Reproduction Branch. Center for Tobacco Products. 10

10 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Center Director. Office of Management. Acquisitions and Assistance Staff. Information and Technology Staff. Management and Logistics Staff. Division of Financial Management. Division of Human Capital. Office of Regulations. Office of Science. Regulatory Science and Management Staff. Research Staff. Division of Regulatory Project Management. Regulatory Project Management Branch I. Regulatory Project Management Branch II. Regulatory Project Management Branch III. Regulatory Project Management Branch IV. Division of Regulatory Science Informatics. Division of Product Science. Division of Individual Health Science. Division of Population Health Science. Division of Non-Clinical Science. Office of Health Communication and Education. Division of Public Health Education. Division of Health, Scientific, and Regulatory Communication. Office of Compliance and Enforcement. Division of Enforcement and Manufacturing. Division of Promotion, Advertising and Labeling. Division of State Programs. Division of Business Operations. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. 11

11 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Center Director. Controlled Substance Staff. Professional Affairs and Stakeholder Engagement Staff. Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Coordination Staff. Drug Shortages Staff. Office of Regulatory Policy. Division of Regulatory Policy I. Division of Regulatory Policy II. Division of Regulatory Policy III. Division of Information Disclosure Policy. Proactive Disclosure Branch. Freedom of Information Branch. Office of Management. Strategic Programs and Initiatives Staff. Ethics Liaison Staff. Division of Budget Execution and Resource Management. Budget Execution Branch. Acquisitions Support Branch. Financial Accountability Branch. Division of Management Services. Human Capital Management Branch. Human Capital Programs Branch. Facilities Operations Branch. Property and Travel Services Branch. Leave and Performance Management Branch. Division of User Fee Management and Budget Formulation. Generics Branch. Policy and Operations Branch. Brands Branch. Office of Communications. Division of Online Communications. Division of Health Communications. Division of Drug Information. Office of Compliance. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Office of Manufacturing Quality. Manufacturing Guidance and Policy Staff. Division of Drug Quality I. Global Compliance Branch I. Global Compliance Branch II. Division of Drug Quality II. Global Compliance Branch III. Global Compliance Branch IV. Office of Unapproved Drugs and Labeling Compliance. Division of Prescription Drugs. Prescription Drugs Branch. Compounding and Pharmacy Practices Branch. Division of Non-Prescription Drugs and Health Fraud. Over-the-Counter Drugs Branch. Health Fraud Branch. Office of Scientific Investigations. Policy Staff. Division of Enforcement and Postmarket Safety. Compliance Enforcement Branch. Postmarketing Safety Branch. Division of Clinical Compliance Evaluation. Good Clinical Practice Compliance Oversight Branch. Good Clinical Practice Assessment Branch. Office of Drug Security, Integrity and Response. Division of Import Exports and Recalls. Recalls and Shortages Branch. Import Export Compliance Branch. Division of Supply Chain Integrity. Supply Chain Strategy and Policy Branch. Supply Chain Response and Enforcement Branch. Office of Program and Regulatory Operations. Project Management and Coordination Staff I. Project Management and Coordination Staff II. Drug Registration and Listing Staff. Office of Medical Policy. Office of Prescription Drug Promotion. Division of Consumer Drug Promotion. Division of Professional Drug Promotion. Office of Medical Policy Initiatives. Division of Medical Policy Development. Division of Medical Policy Programs. Division of Clinical Trial Quality. Office of Translational Science. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Office of Biostatistics. Division of Biometrics I. Division of Biometrics II. Division of Biometrics III. Division of Biometrics IV. Division of Biometrics V. Division of Biometrics VI. Division of Biometrics VII. Division of Biometrics VIII. Office of Clinical Pharmacology. Division of Clinical Pharmacology I. Division of Clinical Pharmacology II. Division of Clinical Pharmacology III. Division of Clinical Pharmacology IV. Division of Clinical Pharmacology V. Division of Pharmacometrics. Division of Applied Regulatory Science. Office of Computational Science. Office of Study Integrity and Surveillance. Division of New Drug Bioequivalence Evaluation. Division of Generic Drug Bioequivalence Evaluation. Office of Executive Programs. Division of Learning and Organizational Development. Scientific and Regulatory Education Branch. Training Design and Delivery Branch. Leadership and Organizational Development Branch. Division of Executive Operations. Division of Advisory Committee and Consultant Management. Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology. Regulatory Science Staff. Regulatory Affairs Staff. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Project Management Staff. Office of Medication Error Prevention and Risk Management. Division of Medication Error Prevention and Analysis. Division of Risk Management. Office of Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology. Division of Epidemiology I. Division of Epidemiology II. Division of Pharmacovigilance I. Division of Pharmacovigilance II. Office of New Drugs. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Pharmacology/Toxicology Staff. Regulatory Affairs Staff. Office of Drug Evaluation I. Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products. Division of Neurology Products. Division of Psychiatry Products. Office of Drug Evaluation II. Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Rheumatology Products. Division of Anesthesia, Analgesia, and Addiction Products. Office of Drug Evaluation III. Division of Gastroenterology and Inborn Effects Products. Division of Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Products. Division of Dermatology and Dental Products. Office of Antimicrobial Products. Division of Anti-Infective Products. Division of Anti-Viral Products. Division of Transplant and Ophthalmology Products. Office of Drug Evaluation IV. Division of Nonprescription Drug Products. Division of Medical Imaging Products. Division of Pediatrics and Maternal Health. Office of Hematology and Oncology Drug Products. Division of Oncology Products I. Division of Oncology Products II. Division of Hematology Products. Division of Hematology Oncology Toxicology. Office of Strategic Programs. Office of Program and Strategic Analysis. Program Evaluation and Implementation Staff. Economics Staff. Performance Analysis and Data Services Staff. Lean Management Staff. Office of Business Informatics. Division of Regulatory Review and Drug Safety Services and Solutions. Division of Business Management Services and Solutions. Division of Data Management Services and Solutions. Division of Drug Quality and Compliance Services and Solutions. Office of Generic Drugs. Clinical Safety Surveillance Staff. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Communications Staff. Office of Research and Standards. Division of Therapeutic Performance. Division of Quantitative Methods and Modeling. Office of Bioequivalence. Division of Bioequivalence I. Division of Bioequivalence II. Division of Bioequivalence III. Division of Clinical Review. Office of Generic Drug Policy. Division of Legal and Regulatory Support. Division of Policy Development. Office of Regulatory Operations. Division of Labeling Review. Division of Filing Review. Division of Project Management. Division of Quality Management Systems. Office of Pharmaceutical Quality. Scientific Staff. Program Management and Analysis Staff. Office of Biotechnology Products. Division of Biotechnology Review and Research I. Division of Biotechnology Review and Research II. Division of Biotechnology Review and Research III. Division of Biotechnology Review and Research IV. Office of New Drug Products. Division of Life Cycle API. Life Cycle Branch I. Life Cycle Branch II. Life Cycle Branch III. Division of New Drug API. New Drug Branch I. New Drug Branch II. Division of New Drug Products I. New Drug Products Branch I. New Drug Products Branch II. New Drug Products Branch III. Division of New Drug Products II. New Drug Products Branch IV. New Drug Products Branch V. New Drug Products Branch VI. Division of Biopharmaceutics. Biopharmaceutics Branch I. Biopharmaceutics Branch II. Biopharmaceutics Branch III. Office of Policy for Pharmaceutical Quality. Division of Regulations, Guidance and Standards. Policy Development and Evaluation Branch I. Policy Development and Evaluation Branch II. Compendial Operations and Standards Branch. Division of Internal Policies and Programs. Policy Development and Evaluation Branch I. Policy Development and Evaluation Branch II. Office of Process and Facilities. Division of Process Assessment I. Process Assessment Branch I. Process Assessment Branch II. Process Assessment Branch III. Division of Process Assessment II. Process Assessment Branch IV. Process Assessment Branch V. Process Assessment Branch VI. Division of Process Assessment III. Process Assessment Branch VII. Process Assessment Branch VIII. Process Assessment Branch IX. Division of Microbiology Assessment. Microbiology Assessment Branch I. Microbiology Assessment Branch II. Microbiology Assessment Branch III. Microbiology Assessment Branch IV. Division of Inspectional Assessment. Inspectional Assessment Branch I. Inspectional Assessment Branch II. Inspectional Assessment Branch III. Office of Surveillance. Division of Quality Intelligence, Risk Analysis, and Modeling. Data Integrity Branch. Quality Intelligence Branch. Analysis and Modeling Branch. Division of Quality Surveillance Assessment. Quality Deviation and Assessment Branch. Inspection Assessment Branch. Office of Testing and Research. Division of Product Quality Research. Product Quality Branch I. Product Quality Branch II. Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis. Pharmaceutical Analysis Branch I. Pharmaceutical Analysis Branch II. Office of Program and Regulatory Operations. Division of Regulatory and Business Process Management I. Regulatory and Business Process Management Branch I. Regulatory and Business Process Management Branch II. Division of Regulatory and Business Process Management II. Regulatory and Business Process Management Branch III. Regulatory and Business Process Management Branch IV. Division of Operational Excellence, Learning, and Professional Development. Learning and Professional Development Branch. Organizational Excellence Branch. Office of Lifecycle Drug Products. Division of Immediate Release Products I. Immediate Release Branch I. Immediate Release Branch II. Immediate Release Branch III. Division of Immediate Release Products II. Immediate Release Branch IV. Immediate Release Branch V. Immediate Release Branch VI. Division of Modified Release Products. Modified Release Branch I. Modified Release Branch II. Modified Release Branch III. Division of Liquid-Based Products. Liquid-Based Branch I. Liquid-Based Branch II. Liquid-Based Branch III. Division of Post-Marketing Activities I. Post-Marketing Branch I. Post-Marketing Branch II. Division of Post-Marketing Activities II. Post-Marketing Branch III. Post-Marketing Branch IV. Post-Marketing Branch V. Center for Devices and Radiological Health.12

12 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Center Director. Regulations Staff. Office of Management Operations. Division of Ethics and Management Operations. Human Resources and Administrative Management Branch. Integrity, Conference and Committee Management Branch. Division of Planning, Analysis and Finance and Property. Planning Branch. Financial Management Branch. Office of Compliance. Program Management Staff. Division of Bioresearch Monitoring. Bioresearch Compliance Branch I. Bioresearch Compliance Branch II. Division of Analysis and Program Operations. Quality Management System and Executive Secretary Staff. Field Inspections Support Branch. Recall Branch. Registration and Risk Branch. Allegations of Regulatory Misconduct Branch. Division of Manufacturing and Quality. Physical Medicine, Orthopedic, Neurology, and Dental Devices Branch. Cardiovascular Devices Branch. Abdominal and Surgical Devices Branch. Respiratory, Ear/Nose/Throat, General Hospital, and Ophthalmic Devices Branch. Division of Premarket and Labeling Compliance. Surveillance and Enforcement Branch I. Surveillance and Enforcement Branch II Division of International Compliance Operations. Foreign Enforcement Branch. Imports Branch. Exports Branch. Office of Device Evaluation. Program Management Staff. Program Operations Staff. Pre-Market Approval Staff. Investigational Device Exemption Staff. Pre-Market Notification Section. Division of Cardiovascular Devices. Circulatory Support Devices Branch. Cardiac Diagnostics Devices Branch. Implantable Electrophysiology Devices Branch. Vascular Surgery Devices Branch. Structural Heart Devices Branch. Interventional Cardiology Devices Branch. Cardiac Electrophysiology Devices Branch. Peripheral Interventional Devices Branch. Division of Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, and Urological Devices. Obstetrics/Gynecology Devices Branch. Urology and Lithotripsy Devices Branch. Renal Devices Branch. Gastroenterology Devices Branch. Division of Orthopedic Devices. Restorative and Repair Devices Branch. Joint and Fixation Branch I. Joint and Fixation Branch II. Anterior Spine Devices Branch. Posterior Spine Devices Branch. Division of Ophthalmic and Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices. Intraocular and Corneal Implant Devices Branch. Diagnostic and Surgical Devices Branch. Contact Lenses and Retinal Devices Branch. Ear, Nose and Throat Devices Branch. Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Respiratory Infection Control, and Dental Devices. General Hospital Devices Branch. Infection Control Devices Branch. Dental Devices Branch. Anesthesiology Devices Branch. Respiratory Devices Branch. Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices. Neurostimulation Devices Branch. Neurodiagnostic and Neurosurgical Devices Branch. Physical Medicine Devices Branch. Division of Surgical Devices. General Surgery Devices Branch I. General Surgery Devices Branch II. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Devices Branch I. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Devices Branch II. Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories. Division of Biology, Chemistry, and Materials Science. Division of Biomedical Physics. Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability. Division of Applied Mechanics. Division of Administrative and Laboratory Support. Office of Communication and Education. Program Management Operations Staff. Digital Communication Media Staff. Division of Health Communication. Web Communication Branch. Strategic Communication Branch. Division of Industry and Consumer Education. Postmarket and Consumer Branch. Premarket Programs Branch. Division of Information Disclosure. Freedom of Information Branch A. Freedom of Information Branch B. Division of Employee Training and Development. Employee Development Branch. Technology and Learning Management Branch. Office of Surveillance and Biometrics. Program Management Staff. Informatics Staff. Signal Management Staff. Division of Biostatistics. Therapeutic Statistics Branch I. Therapeutic Statistics Branch II. Therapeutic Statistics Branch III. Diagnostic Statistics Branch I. Diagnostic Statistics Branch II. Division of Postmarket Surveillance. Product Evaluation Branch I. Product Evaluation Branch II. Product Evaluation Branch III. Information Analysis Branch. MDR Policy Branch. Division of Patient Safety Partnership. Clinical Outreach Branch I. Clinical Outreach Branch II. Division of Epidemiology. Epidemiologic Evaluation and Research Branch I. Epidemiologic Evaluation and Research Branch II. Epidemiologic Evaluation and Research Branch III. Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health. Division of Chemistry and Toxicology Devices. Chemistry Branch. Diabetes Branch. Toxicology Branch. Cardio-Renal Diagnostics Branch. Division of Immunology and Hematology Devices. Hematology Branch. Immunology and Flow Cytometry Branch. Division of Microbiology Devices. Viral Respiratory and HPV Branch. General Viral and Hepatitis Branch. General Bacterial and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Branch. Bacterial Respiratory and Medical Countermeasures Branch. Division of Radiological Health. Magnetic Resonance and Electronic Products Branch. Diagnostic X-Ray Systems Branch. Nuclear Medicine and Radiation Therapy Branch. Mammography, Ultrasound and Imaging Software Branch. Division of Mammography Quality Standards. Program Management Branch. Information Management Branch. Division of Program Operations and Management. Division of Molecular Genetics and Pathology. Molecular Pathology and Cytology Branch. Molecular Genetics Branch. Office of Global Regulatory Operations and Policy.  13

13 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of International Programs. 14

14 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Office of Regulatory Affairs. 15

15 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Office of the Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. Executive Secretariat Staff. Information Technology Staff. Office of Resource Management. 16

16 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Division of Planning Evaluation and Management. Program Planning and Workforce Management Branch. Program Evaluation Branch. Division of Budget Formulation and Execution. Division of Human Resources Development. Division of Management Operations. Office of Criminal Investigations. 17

17 Mailing address: 7500 Standish Pl., MPN2 Building, Rockville, MD 20855.

Mid-Atlantic Area Office. Philadelphia Resident Unit. Midwest Area Office. Northeast Area Office. Boston, MA Resident Unit. Pacific Area Office. San Francisco, CA Resident Unit. Southeast Area Office. San Juan, PR Resident Unit. Atlanta, GA Resident Unit. New Orleans, LA Resident Unit. Southwest Area Office. Dallas, TX Resident Unit. Office of Communications and Quality Program Management. Quality Management Systems Staff. Project Coordination Staff. Division of Communications. Public Affairs and Editorial Services Branch. Web and Digital Media Strategies Branch. Office of Partnerships. 18

18 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Standards Implementation Staff. Contracts and Grants Staff. Office of Policy and Risk Management. 19

19 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Food and Feed Policy Staff. Medical Products and Tobacco Policy Staff. Risk Management Staff. Division of Planning Evaluation and Management. Program Evaluation Branch. Work Planning Branch. Office of Operations. 20

20 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Audit Staff. Office of Enforcement and Import Operations. 21

21 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Division of Enforcement. Division of Compliance Systems. Enforcement Systems Branch. Import Compliance Systems Branch. Division of Import Operations. Import Operations and Maintenance Branch. Import Program Development and Implementation Branch. Office of Regulatory Science. 22

22 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Food and Feed Scientific Staff. Medical Products and Tobacco Scientific Staff. Laboratory Operations and Support Staff. Office of Food and Feed Operations. 23

23 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Division of Food Defense Targeting. Division of Food and Feed Program Operations and Inspections. Food and Feed Program Operations Branch. Food and Feed Inspection Branch. Food and Feed Trip Planning Branch. Office of Medical Products and Tobacco Operations. 24

24 Mailing address: 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Building, Rockville, MD 20857.

Division of Products and Tobacco Program Operations. Medical Device and Tobacco Program Operations Branch. Team Biological Branch. Division of Medical Products and Tobacco Inspections. Medical Products and Tobacco Inspection Branch. Drug Inspection Branch. Medical Products and Tobacco Trip Planning Branch. Regional Field Office, Northeast Region, Jamaica, NY. 25

25 Mailing address: 158-15 Liberty Ave., Jamaica, NY 11433.

Operations Staff. Intergovernmental Affairs Staff. District Office New York.26

26 Mailing address: 158-15 Liberty Ave., Jamaica, NY 11433.

Domestic Compliance Branch. Domestic Investigations Branch. Resident Post Long Island, NY. Resident Post White Plains, NY. Resident Post Albany, NY. Resident Post Binghamton, NY. Resident Post Rochester, NY. Resident Post Newburgh, NY. Resident Post Syracuse, NY. Import Operations Branch (Downstate). Resident Post Port Elizabeth, NJ. Import Operations Branch (Upstate). Resident Post Champlain, NY. Resident Post Alexandra Bay, NY. Resident Post Massena, NY. Resident Post Ogdensburg, NY. Northeast Regional Laboratory.27

27 Mailing address: 158-15 Liberty Ave., Jamaica, NY 11433.

Microbiological Science Branch. Chemistry Branch 1. Chemistry Branch 2. New England District Office.28

28 Mailing address: 1 Montvale Ave., 4th Floor, Stoneham, MA 02180-3500.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Augusta, ME. Resident Post Bridgeport, CT. Resident Post Concord, NH. Resident Post Hartford, CT. Resident Post Providence, RI. Resident Post Worcester, MA. Resident Post Calais, ME. Resident Post Houlton, ME. Resident Post Highgate, VT. Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center.29

29 Mailing address: 109 Holton St., Winchester, MA 01890.

Analytical Branch. Engineering Branch. Regional Field Office, Southwest Region, Dallas, TX. 30

30 Mailing address: 4040 North Central Expressway, Dallas, TX 75204-3128.

State Cooperative Programs Staff. Resident Post Pharr. Dallas District Office.31

31 Mailing address: 4040 North Central Expressway, Suite 300, Dallas, TX 75204-3128.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Austin, TX. Resident Post Fort Worth, TX. Resident Post Houston, TX. Resident Post San Antonio, TX. Resident Post Oklahoma City, OK. Resident Post Little Rock, AR. Kansas City District Office.32

32 Mailing address: 8050 Marshal Dr., Suite 250, Lenexa, KS 66214.

Investigations Branch. Resident Post Wichita, KS. Resident Post Omaha, NE. Resident Post Des Moines, IA. Resident Post Springfield, MO. Resident Post St Louis, MO. Resident Post Davenport, IA. Compliance Branch. Denver District Office.33

33 Mailing address: Sixth Avenue and Kipling Street, Building 20, P.O. Box 25087, Denver, CO 80255-0087—Denver Federal Center.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Salt Lake City, UT. Resident Post Albuquerque, NM. Arkansas Regional Laboratory.34

34 Mailing address: 3900 NCTR Rd., Bldg. 26, Jefferson, AR 72079.

General Chemistry Branch. Pesticide Chemistry Branch. Microbiology Branch. Southwest Import District Office Dallas, TX.35

35 Mailing address: 4040 North Central Expressway, Suite 300, Dallas, TX 75204-3128.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Calexico. Resident Post Eagle Pass. Resident Post El Paso Bota. Resident Post El Paso Bota Westmoreland. Resident Post El Paso Ysleta Bridge. Resident Post Houston (SWID). Resident Post Laredo #2 Bridge. Resident Post Laredo Columbia Bridge. Resident Post Laredo World Trade Bridge. Resident Post Los Tomates. Resident Post Nogales #1. Resident Post Nogales #2. Resident Post Otay Mesa #1. Resident Post Otay Mesa #2. Resident Post Pharr. Resident Post Rio Grande City. Resident Post San Luis. Kansas City Laboratory.36

36 Mailing address: 11510 West 80th St., Lenexa, KS 66214.

Denver Laboratory.37

37 Mailing address: Sixth Avenue and Kipling Street, Building 20, Denver, CO 80255-0087—Denver Federal Center.

Central Regional Field Office Chicago IL. 38

38 Mailing address: 20 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 510, Chicago, IL 60602.

State Cooperative Programs Staff I. State Cooperative Programs Staff II. Regional Operations Staff. Baltimore District Office Baltimore, MD.39

39 Mailing address: 6000 Metro Dr., Suite 101, Baltimore, MD 21215.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Charleston, WV. Resident Post Falls Church, VA. Resident Post Seva. Resident Post Richmond, VA. Resident Post Roanoke, VA. Resident Post Dundalk Marine Terminal, MD. Resident Post Morgantown, WV. District Office Cincinnati, OH.40

40 Mailing address: 6751 Steger Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45237.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Brunswick, OH. Resident Post Columbus, OH. Resident Post Toledo, OH. Resident Post Louisville, KY. Forensic Chemistry Center.41

41 Mailing address: 6751 Steger Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45237.

Inorganic Chemistry Branch. Organic Chemistry Branch. District Office Parsippany, NJ.42

42 Mailing address: 10 Waterview Blvd., 3rd Floor, Parsippany, NJ 07054—Waterview Corporate Center.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Voorhees, NJ. Resident Post North Brunswick, NJ. District Office Philadelphia, PA.43

43 Mailing address: 200 Chestnut St., Room 900, Philadelphia, PA 19106—U.S. Customs House.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Harrisburg, PA. Resident Post Pittsburgh, PA. Resident Post Wilkes-Barre, PA. Resident Post Wilmington, PA. District Office Chicago, IL.44

44 Mailing address: 550 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60661.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Peoria, IL. Resident Post Hinsdale, IL. Resident Post Gurnee, IL. Resident Post Springfield, IL. Resident Post O'Hare Airport. District Office Minneapolis, MN.45

45 Mailing address: 250 Marquette Ave., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post La Crosse, WI. Resident Post Green Bay, WI. Resident Post Milwaukee, WI. Resident Post Madison, WI. Resident Post Fargo, ND. Resident Post Stevens Point, WI. Resident Post Sioux, SD. District Office Detroit, MI.46

46 Mailing address: 300 River Pl., Suite 5900, Detroit, MI 48207.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Kalamazoo, MI. Resident Post South Bend, IN. Resident Post Indianapolis, IN. Resident Post Evansville, IN. Resident Post Philadelphia Laboratory.47

47 Mailing address: 200 Chestnut St., Room 900, Philadelphia, PA 19106—U.S. Customs House.

Detroit Laboratory.48

48 Mailing address: 300 River Pl., Suite 5900, Detroit, MI 48207.

Southeast Regional Field Office Atlanta, GA. 49

49 Mailing address: 60 Eighth St. NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.

State Cooperative Programs Staff Atlanta District Office.50

50 Mailing address: 60 Eighth St. NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Savannah, GA. Resident Post Tifton, GA. Resident Post Charlotte, NC. Resident Post Greensboro, NC. Resident Post Greenville, NC. Resident Post Raleigh, NC. Resident Post Charleston, SC. Resident Post Columbia, SC. Resident Post Greenville, SC. Resident Post Asheville, NC. Florida District Office.51

51 Mailing address: 555 Winderley Pl., Suite 200, Maitland, FL 32751.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Jacksonville, FL. Resident Post Miami, FL. Resident Post Tallahassee, FL. Resident Post Tampa, FL. Resident Post Boca Raton, FL. Resident Post Ft. Meyers, FL. Resident Post Port Everglades, FL. New Orleans, LA, District Office.52

52 Mailing address: 404 BNA Dr., Building 200, Suite 500, Nashville, TN 37217.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Baton Rouge, LA. Resident Post Lafayette, LA. Resident Post Covington, LA. Resident Post Jackson, MS. Resident Post Mobile, AL. Nashville Branch. Resident Post Knoxville, TN. Resident Post Memphis, TN. Resident Post Birmingham, AL. Resident Post Montgomery, AL. San Juan District Office.53

53 Mailing address: 466 Fernandez Juncos Ave., San Juan, PR 00901.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Aquada, PR. Resident Post Ponce, PR. Southeast Regional Laboratory Atlanta, GA.54

54 Mailing address: 60 Eighth St., Atlanta, GA 30309.

Chemistry Branch I. Microbiology Branch. Atlanta Center for Nutrient Analysis. Chemistry Branch II. San Juan Laboratory.55

55 Mailing address: 466 Fernandez Juncos Ave., San Juan, PR 00901.

Regional Field Office, Pacific Region, Oakland, CA. 56

56 Mailing address: 1301 Clay St., Room 1180N, Oakland, CA 94612.

State Cooperative Programs Staff. District Office San Francisco, CA.57

57 Mailing address: 1431 Harbor Bay Pkwy., Alameda, CA 94502.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Las Vegas, NV. Resident Post Fresno, CA. Resident Post Sacramento, CA. Resident Post Honolulu, HI. Resident Post San Jose, CA. Resident Post Stockton, CA. Resident Post South San Francisco. District Office Los Angeles, CA.58

58 Mailing address: 19701 Fairchild Rd., Irvine, CA 92612.

Compliance Branch. Import Operations Branch. Resident Post Los Angeles Airport. Resident Post Ontario, CA—Import. Domestic Investigations Branch. Resident Post Woodland Hills, CA. Resident Post San Diego, CA. Resident Post Tempe, AZ. Resident Post Ontario, CA—Domestic. District Office Seattle, WA.59

59 Mailing address: 22215 26th Ave. SE., Suite 210, Bothell, WA 98021.

Compliance Branch. Investigations Branch. Resident Post Anchorage, AK. Resident Post Boise, ID. Resident Post Portland, ID. Resident Post Spokane, WA. Resident Post Oroville, WA. Resident Post Portland, OR—Airport. Resident Post Blaine, WA. Resident Post Helena, MT. Resident Post Sweetgrass, MT. Resident Post Tacoma, WA. Resident Post Puget Sound, WA. Pacific Regional Laboratory Southwest.60

60 Mailing address: 19701 Fairchild Rd., Irvine, CA 92612.

Food Chemistry Branch. Drug Chemistry Branch. Microbiology Branch. Pacific Regional Laboratory Northwest.61

61 Mailing address: 22201 23rd Dr. SE., Bothell, WA 98021-4421.

Chemistry Branch. Microbiology Branch. Seafood Products Research Center. Office of Operations. Office of Business Services. Business Operations Staff. Employee Resource and Information Center. Division of Ethics and Integrity. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity. Compliance Staff. Office of Finance, Budget, and Acquisitions. Office of Budget. Division of Budget Formulation. Division of Budget Execution and Control. Office of Acquisition and Grant Services. Division of Acquisition Operations. Division of Acquisition Programs. Division of Acquisition Support and Grants. Division of Information Technology. Office of Financial Operations. Office of Financial Management. Office of Financial Services. Office of Human Resources. Commission Corps Affairs Staff. Management Analysis Services Staff. Business Operations Staff. Division of Workforce Relations. Division of Policy, Programs, and Executive Resources. Division of Human Resource Services for Office of the Commissioner/Office of Operations. Division of Human Resource Services for Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine/Office of Global Operations and Policy. Division of Human Resource Services for Office of Medical Products and Tobacco. FDA University. Office of Facilities, Engineering and Mission Support Services. Jefferson Laboratories Complex Staff. Division of Operations Management and Community Relations. Division of Planning, Engineering and Safety Management. Office of Information Management and Technology. Office of Information Management. Office of Technology and Delivery. Division of Infrastructure Operations. Division of Application Services. Division of Delivery Management and Support. Office of Business and Customer Assurance. Division of Business Partnership and Support. Division of Management Services. Office of Enterprise and Portfolio Management. Office of Safety, Security, and Crisis Management. Office of Security Operations. Office of Crisis Management. Office of Emergency Operations. Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis. 62

62 Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.

Management and Operations Staff. Intergovernment Affairs Staff. Office of Policy. Regulations Policy and Management Staff. Policy Development and Coordination Staff. Office of Planning. Planning Staff. Program Evaluation and Process Improvement Staff. Economics Staff. Risk Communication Staff. Office of Legislation. Office of Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
Dated: November 1, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-26799 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0922] Special Local Regulation; San Diego Fall Classic; Mission Bay, San Diego, CA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notification of enforcement regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation on the waters of Mission Bay, California during the San Diego Fall Classic boat racing event from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on November 13, 2016. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 6 a.m. through 12 p.m. on November 13, 2016 for Item 1 in Table 1 of § 100.1101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278-7656, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the San Diego Fall Classic in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 1 of that section from 6 a.m. until 12 p.m. on November 13, 2016. This enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the races. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area of Mission Bay, to include South Pacific Passage, Fiesta Bay and the waters surrounding Vacation Isle, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: October 21, 2016. J.R. Buzzella, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-26869 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 [Docket No. PTO-T-2016-0005] RIN 0651-AD08 Trademark Fee Adjustment; Correction AGENCY:

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document contains corrections to tables included in the preamble of the final rule implementing changes to trademark fees published in the Federal Register of Friday, October 21, 2016.

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at (571) 272-8946.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction: As published, the regulatory and explanatory text in the final rule implementing changes to trademark fees (81 FR 72694; October 21, 2016) are correct. However, certain tables included in the preamble contain minor errors. In the tables entitled “Fees for Paper Filings” and “New Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB,” the descriptions for certain fees listed were mistakenly transposed. In the table entitled “Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Extension of time to file a statement of use],” a CFR citation contained a typographical error. Good cause exists to issue this rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment as the corrections are non-substantive and are being implemented to avoid inconsistencies and any confusion that may occur when comparing the items in the tables with the regulatory text. The USPTO corrects the errors as discussed below.

In FR Doc. 2016-25506, appearing on page 72694 in the Federal Register of Friday, October 21, 2016, make the following corrections:

1. On page 72697, in the table entitled “Fees for Paper Filings,” revise the following:

a. In the entry for 2.6(a)(22)(i), the Description is corrected to read “Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper,” and

b. In the entry for 2.6(a)(23)(i), the Description is corrected to read “Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper.”

2. On page 72700, the table entitled “Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Extension of time to file a statement of use]” is corrected to read as follows:

Other Trademark-Processing Fees [Extension of time to file a statement of use] 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Final rule fee Change 2.6(a)(4)(i) 6004 Filing a Request under § 1(d)(2) of the Act for a Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the Act on Paper, per Class $150 $225 $75 2.6(a)(4)(ii) 7004 Filing a Request under § 1(d)(2) of the Act for a Six-Month Extension of Time for Filing a Statement of Use under § 1(d)(1) of the Act through TEAS, per Class 150 125 (25)

3. On page 72701, the table entitled “New Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB” is corrected to read as follows:

New Fees for Extensions of Time at the TTAB 37 CFR Fee code Description Current fee Final rule fee Change 2.6(a)(22)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) on Paper $200 n/a 2.6(a)(22)(ii) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(1)(ii) or (c)(2) through ESTTA n/a 100 n/a 2.6(a)(23)(i) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) on Paper n/a 300 n/a 2.6(a)(23)(ii) New Filing a Request for an Extension of Time to File a Notice of Opposition under § 2.102(c)(3) through ESTTA n/a 200 n/a Dated: October 28, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-26684 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 49 and 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0782; FRL-9954-88-OAR] RIN 2060-AS56 Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued Under the Clean Air Act AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating amendments to the EPA's federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations to remove a date restriction from the Permit Rescission provision. Other than removing the date restriction, this final rule does not alter the criteria under which a new source review (NSR) permit may be rescinded. This final rule also clarifies that a rescission of a permit is not automatic and corrects an outdated cross-reference to another part of the PSD regulations. The EPA is also adding a corresponding Permit Rescission provision in the federal regulations that apply to major sources in nonattainment areas of Indian country.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on December 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0782. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further general information on this rulemaking, contact Ms. Jessica Montanez, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, by phone at (919) 54l-3407, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated entities. The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine”). These are amendments to existing regulations and could affect any facility that is eligible for a PSD permit rescission for any such permit issued by the EPA, reviewing authorities that implement the EPA's regulations through delegation or reviewing authorities that incorporate the federal PSD regulations by reference.

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

Entities potentially affected by this final rulemaking include reviewing authorities responsible for the permitting of stationary sources of air pollution, including the following: The EPA Regional offices; air agencies that have delegated authority to implement the EPA regulations; and air agencies that administer EPA-approved air programs that incorporate the federal NSR rules by reference. Entities also potentially affected by this final rulemaking include owners and operators of stationary sources subject to NSR permitting programs under the CAA that are administered by the entities described previously.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice will be posted at: https://www.epa.gov/nsr/nsr-regulatory-actions. Upon publication in the Federal Register, only the published version may be considered the final official version of the notice, and will govern in the case of any discrepancies between the Federal Register published version and any other version.

C. How is this document organized?

The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. How is this document organized? II. Background for Final Rulemaking III. Overview of the Final Revisions A. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 52 Permit Rescission provision? B. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 49 Indian country nonattainment NSR provisions? C. What is the basis for the EPA's final revisions? IV. Environmental Justice Considerations V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) L. Judicial Review VI. Statutory Authority II. Background for Final Rulemaking

On June 14, 2016, the EPA proposed revisions to the Permit Rescission provision in the EPA's federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(w). The proposed revisions remove a date restriction from this provision, clarify that a rescission of a permit is contingent on the reviewing authority's concurrence with a rescission applicant's demonstration that the PSD permit provisions “would not apply to the source or modification,” and correct an outdated cross-reference to another part of the PSD regulations. The EPA also proposed to add a corresponding Permit Rescission provision in the federal regulations that apply to major sources in nonattainment areas of Indian country.

The preamble to the proposal provided an overview of the NSR permitting program and a brief history of the previous revisions to the Permit Rescission provision regulations. The preamble also explained the EPA's basis for the proposed changes and rationale. Because the EPA is finalizing this rule as it was proposed, this final rulemaking notice does not repeat that discussion.

The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 14, 2016. In Section III of this document, we summarize and respond to the comments received and explain the basis for the regulatory text revisions made by this final rule.

III. Overview of the Final Revisions A. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 52 Permit Rescission provision?

In this final rule, we are making three specific revisions to the Permit Rescission provision in the PSD regulations at 40 CFR part 52. First, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) to remove the July 30, 1987, date restriction. Second, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to change the word “shall” to “may” to make clear that this provision does not create a mandatory duty on the Administrator to grant a rescission request. Lastly, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) to appropriately cross reference paragraph (r) and not paragraph (s) of our PSD regulations.

The PSD Permit Rescission provision is applicable for the EPA Regions and other reviewing authorities that are delegated authority by the EPA to issue PSD permits on behalf of the EPA (via a delegation agreement). The provision also applies to reviewing authorities that have their own PSD rules approved by the EPA in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) where the SIP incorporates 40 CFR 52.21(w) by reference.

B. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 49 Indian country nonattainment NSR provisions?

This final rule adds a provision to 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide authority to rescind nonattainment new source review (NA NSR) permits in Indian country. This provision mirrors the provision being finalized at 40 CFR 52.21(w) by providing the EPA and delegated permit reviewing authorities the authority to rescind NA NSR permits where the application for rescission adequately shows that the NA NSR rules for Indian country at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173 would not apply to the source or modification. This provision also includes methods for adequate notice of the rescission determination in accordance with the public noticing requirements for NA NSR permits in Indian country.

C. What is the basis for the EPA's final revisions? 1. Removal of the July 30, 1987, Date Restriction in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) a. Summary of the EPA's Basis for This Action

As stated in the proposal, experience has shown that there can be circumstances where the EPA believes rescission of a permit issued under the PSD rules in effect after July 30, 1987, may be appropriate under the criteria in paragraph (w)(3) of the Permit Rescission provision. In one recent instance, the EPA determined a need for rescission authority after the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) determined that the EPA may not treat greenhouse gases (GHGs) as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014) (“UARG”). However, because of the date restriction in the former PSD Permit Rescission provision, the EPA had to revise this Permit Rescission regulation to expressly allow rescission of permits granted for sources based solely on the emissions of GHGs. May 7, 2015; 80 FR 26183. The EPA believes removal of the date restriction is appropriate to improve implementation efficiency and eliminate the need to conduct similar targeted rulemakings in the future.

b. Summary of Comments

Two commenters generally supported the removal of the date restriction. One commenter believes that the right for a source to request a permit rescission should be ongoing. The other commenter noted that the amendment is intended to allow a CAA permit holder the ability to request that the EPA rescind permits that would no longer be required under the current regulations. Nevertheless, another commenter questioned why the revision was necessary since (1) the EPA already amended the Permit Rescission provision to accommodate rescission of permits affected by the UARG decision and (2) the EPA has made only two other minor adjustments to rescind certain permits over the past 36 years.

c. EPA Response

We agree with those commenters that support removal of the July 30, 1987, date restriction from the PSD Permit Rescission provision. As we discussed in the proposed rule preamble, the EPA has periodically found a need to amend this provision. Although the instances under which PSD permit rescissions are appropriate are limited and the EPA has made a limited number of amendments to 40 CFR 52.21(w) since it was initially adopted, the purpose for these rule amendments is forward-looking. We expect future instances under which rescission of PSD permits issued after July 30, 1987, would be appropriate under the criteria in paragraph (w)(3) of the current Permit Rescission provision. Therefore, in this final rule the EPA is finalizing the removal of the July 30, 1987, date to obviate the need to make further changes to this regulation in the future.

2. Revision to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) To Clarify That the EPA Administrator Does Not Have a Mandatory Duty To Grant a Rescission Request a. Summary of the EPA's Basis

The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to make it clear that the provision does not create a mandatory duty on the Administrator to grant a rescission request. Specifically, the EPA proposed to replace the word “shall” with the word “may” in this provision to make clear that the Administrator may deny a permit rescission request if he or she does not concur with the analysis by the permit applicant that 40 CFR 52.21 “would not apply to the source or modification.”

b. Summary of Comments

One commenter recommended that we retain the existing language in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) as “shall” instead of “may.” The commenter believed that the existing language in the regulation provides the Administrator discretion to grant a rescission request since the “if” in that regulatory text shows that a source has the burden of proof to establish that a source is eligible for the permit rescission and there is no guaranteed EPA approval.

c. EPA Response

The EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to change the word “shall” to “may” in this provision to clarify that the Administrator may deny a permit rescission request if he or she does not concur with the analysis by the permit applicant that 40 CFR 52.21 “would not apply to the source or modification.” The word “shall” is commonly used in statutes and regulations to describe a mandatory requirement. Even if other words in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) convey that a reviewing authority has discretion to deny a request, the EPA believes the regulation should be clear. We believe it is clearer to use discretionary language that conveys the meaning more directly so one does not have to rely on context to determine the meaning. As stated in the proposal, the EPA does not believe this revision changes the meaning or intent of the existing provision, but rather clarifies the discretion held by the Administrator. Thus, the EPA is finalizing this revision in this final rule.

3. Corrected Cross-Reference in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) a. Summary of the EPA's Basis

We proposed to correct 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) because it currently references 40 CFR 52.21(s), which pertains to environmental impact statements. 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) pertains to permit expiration and rescission, so the correct reference should be 40 CFR 52.21(r), which pertains to permit expiration in our federal PSD regulations.

b. Summary of Comments and Final EPA Action

The EPA received no comments on this proposed correction and is finalizing this correction as proposed. We believe 40 CFR 52.21(r) is the correct reference for 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1).

4. Addition of Permit Rescission Authority to the Nonattainment NSR Regulations for Indian Country a. Summary of the EPA's Basis

We also proposed to add a provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide rescission authority for major NA NSR permits in Indian country. This new regulatory text includes public notice requirements consistent with the noticing requirements applicable to major NA NSR permits in Indian country. 40 CFR 49.171. The EPA has determined it is appropriate to allow rescission of NA NSR permits in Indian country in limited, case-specific circumstances for the same reasons it is appropriate to allow rescission of PSD permits in narrow circumstances. Creating a Permit Rescission provision in 40 CFR part 49 for major NA NSR permits in Indian country would ensure that all federal programs for major source permitting have permit rescission authority.

b. Summary of Comments and Final EPA Action

The EPA received no comments on this proposed provision. The EPA is finalizing the addition of permit rescission authority for major NA NSR permits in Indian country as proposed.

5. Other Issues Raised in Comments a. Establishing Specific Criteria for Granting or Denying a Permit Rescission Request i. Summary of Comments

Various commenters requested that the EPA establish specific criteria under which the EPA would grant or deny a permit rescission request. Commenters noted that without such criteria, implementation of the Permit Rescission provision may be inconsistent between reviewing authorities with EPA-approved SIPs incorporating 40 CFR 52.21(w) and reviewing authorities that, for example, implement the federal PSD rules through delegation.

One commenter stated that the EPA should withdraw its proposal and re-propose the amendment to the PSD Permit Rescission provision and the addition of this provision to the major NA NSR program in Indian country with specific criteria for when a permittee would be eligible for rescission

Another commenter argued that in the preamble and through other discussions between the EPA and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies members, the EPA staff have indicated that our intent is to limit permit rescissions to cases in which court decisions have changed the PSD rules or situations in which the PSD rules have changed and gone through all comment periods and reconsiderations. The commenter added that the proposed rule language does not state this.

ii. EPA Response

As stated in the proposal, the EPA believes there are a limited number of circumstances where a permit rescission is justified and that permit rescission requests are very case-specific. Review of a rescission request requires an in-depth evaluation of the source, the rules in place at the time, and the court decisions or other events affecting the source before it can be determined that the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 “would not apply to the source or modification.” 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3). The principal aim of this targeted rulemaking action is to remove an unnecessary impediment to rescissions of permits issued after the date specified in the existing version of 40 CFR 52.21(w) and therefore avoid the need for future revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(w). Although the EPA generally believes permit rescissions are warranted in a limited category of circumstances, specifically defining that category of circumstances would be contrary to the goals of this rule to provide flexibility going forward to address circumstances that may not have been previously anticipated or experienced. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to develop specific a priori criteria for when a permit rescission would be granted or denied, nor do we agree with the commenter that argued that permit rescissions are limited only to cases in which court decisions have changed the PSD rules or situations in which the PSD rules have changed and gone through all comment periods and reconsiderations. Thus, the EPA is not including specific criteria for PSD permit rescissions and NA NSR permit rescissions in Indian country in this final rule.

b. Clarifying Whether the EPA Would Grant Permit Rescission Requests Under Specific Circumstances i. Summary of Comments

A few commenters provided specific examples of circumstances where they believe PSD permit rescissions or rescission of PSD related terms and conditions in other types of air permits could qualify for permit rescission. These circumstances include:

1. Requesting PSD permit rescissions when situations such as energy efficiency improvements and changes in operations cause a source to no longer be a major PSD stationary source.

2. Allowing a permit rescission when a pollutant is no longer regulated under the PSD program because the EPA established a CAA section 112 emission limitation, as long as existing limitations in the PSD permits are less restrictive than the applicable section 112 limitations and no increase in emission of another NSR regulated pollutant would be caused by the rescission.

3. Allowing PSD permits to be rescinded after a source takes limits at a future date to restrict emissions below the major source thresholds.

One commenter also stated that the EPA should allow a source to request removal of related obligations including synthetic minor PSD permit limits or no longer applicable or obsolete PSD conditions in its federal or PSD-approved state or local construction permit(s) and/or title V operating permits.

ii. EPA Response

The EPA's longstanding policy has been to evaluate permit rescission requests on a case-by-case basis since there are multiple factors that need to be considered when evaluating whether a source is eligible for a PSD permit rescission. As we stated previously, PSD permit rescissions require an in-depth evaluation of the source, the rules in place at the time, and the court decisions or other events affecting the source before it can be determined that the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 “would not apply to the source or modification.” 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3). As such, the EPA cannot say a priori whether the circumstances raised by the commenters would always be eligible or not for permit rescission. In addition, based on past experience, the EPA believes that it would not be typical for major sources to seek PSD permit rescissions.

Furthermore, the scope of this rule is limited to PSD and NA NSR permitting and does not address the revision or rescission of permits that are not major NSR permits. Therefore, whether to allow a source to request removal of related obligations in non-major NSR permits, such as synthetic minor permits or title V operating permits, is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

c. Specifying That PSD Permits Issued Before the Promulgation of the 2007 Final Ethanol Rule Can Be Rescinded Under the Revised Permit Rescission Provision i. Summary of Comments

A couple of commenters asked the EPA to clarify that the revised PSD Permit Rescission provision would apply to PSD permits for fuel ethanol plants that were issued before July 2, 2007, specifically fuel ethanol plants that are no longer considered “major” under the revised major source applicability threshold for “chemical processing plants.” According to one of these commenters, the EPA acknowledged in the Ethanol Rule that PSD permits issued under the 100 tons per year (tpy) major source threshold for sources that would not trigger the revised 250 tpy threshold would be eligible to take advantage of the PSD Permit Rescission provision. 72 FR 24060, 24071.

In addition, this same commenter claims that the situation presented by the Ethanol rule is analogous to the situations described in the preamble where the EPA previously revised the Permit Rescission provision to respond to the United States District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) Court decision in Alabama Power and when the EPA transitioned from the Total Suspended Particulates to the Particulate Matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less indicator for the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

Finally, the commenter claims that the equal protection clause, found in 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section I of the Wisconsin State Constitution, supports rescission of pre-2007 PSD permits issued for fuel ethanol facilities. According to the commenter, treating ethanol facilities built prior to the adoption of the Ethanol Rule (“Pre-2007) and those built after the adoption of the Ethanol Rule differently is a disparity between two similarly situated classes distinguished only by year.

ii. EPA Response

For the reasons stated in Sections III.C.5.a and III.C.5.b of this rule, we do not believe it is appropriate in this rule to address specific circumstances when a permit rescission may be granted or denied. In addition and as one commenter argues, the EPA did not acknowledge in the Ethanol Rule that PSD permits issued under the 100 tpy major source threshold for sources that would not trigger the revised 250 tpy threshold would be eligible to take advantage of the PSD Permit Rescission provision discussed in this rule.

Historically, corn milling facilities that produced ethanol only for fuel use were considered by the EPA to be part of the “chemical process plants” category while facilities that produced ethanol only for human consumption were not considered by the EPA to be in that category. Under the PSD definition of major stationary source, “chemical process plants” is one of the source categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i) for which a source with a potential to emit a regulated NSR pollutant 1 in an amount equal to or higher than 100 tpy is subject to PSD permitting. All other non-listed source categories are subject to permitting if the source has the potential to emit a regulated NSR pollutant in an amount equal to or higher than 250 tpy. On May 1, 2007, the EPA modified the definition of the “chemical process plants” category of sources by removing corn milling facilities that produce ethanol only for fuel use from this definition. This change established the same 250 tpy major source applicability threshold for ethanol producing facilities regardless of whether a source produces ethanol for human consumption, for fuel, or for an industrial purpose.

1 As defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50).

On July 2, 2007, the EPA received a petition for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, which the EPA denied in its entirety on March 27, 2008.2 On March 2, 2009, the EPA received a second petition for reconsideration, and we are currently in the process of considering that petition. Furthermore, this rule and the EPA's denial of the first petition for reconsideration have been challenged in the D.C. Circuit. That litigation is currently being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the second petition for reconsideration.

2 Details of the EPA's denial of the petition for reconsideration can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/20080327letter.pdf.

Since this second petition for reconsideration is currently under evaluation by the EPA, we believe it is premature to say in this rule whether pre-2007 fuel ethanol PSD permits would meet the regulatory criteria for a permit rescission under 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3).

d. Comments on the Scope of the Proposed Revisions to the Permit Rescission Provision i. Summary of Comments

One commenter would like the EPA to confirm that the amendment does not allow either the EPA or other reviewing authorities to use the Permit Rescission provision to unilaterally rescind or suspend a duly issued CAA NSR permit without the request of the permittee. Specifically, the commenter would like the EPA to clarify that officials do not intend for the proposed amendment to authorize any permit reviewing authority to: (1) Use this provision to either require updates of state SIPs, or rescind existing SIPs or disapprove future updates of SIPs (i.e., there is no obligation based on this rule change for states to modify SIPs); (2) Use the proposed amendment to rescind any permit without a written request from the owner/operator of the source; (3) Use the proposed amendment to trigger any changes to existing permitted emission limits (e.g., Potential to Emit, Plantwide Applicability Limits, applicable New Source Performance Standards, or unit-specific permit limits); or (4) Use the proposed amendment provision in any way that would alter the calculation (for an affected source) of significant emissions increase or net significant emission increase.

ii. EPA Response

The amended regulatory text in the Permit Rescission provision does not allow either the EPA or any other reviewing authorities to unilaterally rescind or suspend a duly issued CAA NSR permit without the request of the permittee. These provisions also do not alter other CAA requirements, such as state SIP provisions on topics other than NSR permitting. As discussed in the next section, the revisions also should not affect NSR permitting requirements in approved SIPs unless those SIPs incorporate § 52.21(w) by reference. The Permit Rescission provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) and 40 CFR 51.21(w) only applies for the rescission of PSD permits under the federal PSD permitting regulations and NA NSR permits in Indian country, respectively, upon request for rescission application of a permittee when the Administrator deems such rescission is consistent with the regulatory terms.

e. Comments on State Requirements for PSD Permit Rescissions i. Summary of Comments

One commenter would like the EPA to clarify if this final action applies to states with EPA-approved SIPs. A different commenter argued that the EPA should allow states with EPA-approved SIP programs to use existing EPA-approved permitting procedures to rescind PSD permits and not require states with EPA-approved SIP programs to develop new rules that mirror 40 CFR 51.21(w)(2).

ii. EPA's Response

As we stated in the proposal, this final action does not apply to states with EPA-approved SIPs unless they incorporate 40 CFR 52.21(w) by reference. We did not propose amendments to 40 CFR part 51 to revise the permitting provisions applicable to state and local programs. Therefore, these revisions to the PSD Permit Rescission provision do not apply to SIP-approved programs unless they incorporate the federal PSD Permit Rescission provision by reference. States will not be required to make any changes to their SIP-approved programs as a result of this rule.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

The revisions being finalized in this rule improve implementation efficiency for the Permit Rescission provision by eliminating the date restriction, correcting an outdated cross-reference and clarifying that a rescission of a permit is not automatic (the Administrator may grant a PSD permit rescission only if the application shows that the PSD rules would not apply to the source or modification). In addition, we are adding a provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide rescission authority for major NA NSR permits in Indian country for the same reasons it is appropriate to allow rescission of PSD permits and to ensure that all federal programs for major source permitting have permit rescission authority. Reviews of permit rescission requests after the finalization of this rule will continue to require an in-depth evaluation of the source, the rules in place at the time, and the court decisions or other events affecting the source before it can be determined that the requirements of 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173 for the NA NSR program in Indian country or 40 CFR 52.21 for the PSD program “would not apply to the source or modification.” Thus, we do not believe that these revisions and additions to the rescission of federal major NSR permits will have any effect on environmental justice communities.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003 for the PSD and NA NSR permit programs. We believe that the burden associated with rescinding federal NSR permits is already accounted for under the approved information collection requests.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include state, local and tribal governments and none of these governments would qualify as a small entity. Other types of small entities are not directly subject to the requirements of this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded federal mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Specifically, these revisions do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This action only extends the EPA's permit rescission authority to the EPA regions that currently implement the NA NSR program in Indian country or tribes that would like to implement the NA NSR program through a delegation of these federal rules. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not directly involve an environmental health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This action does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decision is contained in Section IV of this document titled, “Environmental Justice Considerations.”

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of any nationally applicable regulation, or any action the Administrator “finds and publishes” as based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of the date the promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register. This action is nationally applicable, as it adds Permit Rescission provisions to 40 CFR part 49 and revises the rules governing procedures permit rescissions in 40 CFR part 52. As a result, petitions for review of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 6, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action.

VI. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 49

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: October 26, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

Subpart C—General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions 2. Section 49.172 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 49.172 Final permit issuance and administrative and judicial review.

(f) Can my permit be rescinded? (1) Any permit issued under this section or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect until it is rescinded under this paragraph (f).

(2) An owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who holds a permit issued under this section for the construction of a new source or modification that meets the requirement in paragraph (f)(3) of this section may request that the reviewing authority rescind the permit or a particular portion of the permit.

(3) The reviewing authority may grant an application for rescission if the application shows that §§ 49.166 through 49.173 would not apply to the source or modification.

(4) If the reviewing authority rescinds a permit under this paragraph (f), the public shall be given adequate notice of the rescission determination in accordance with one or more of the following methods:

(i) The reviewing authority may mail or email a copy of the notice to persons on a mailing list developed by the reviewing authority consisting of those persons who have requested to be placed on such a mailing list.

(ii) The reviewing authority may post the notice on its Web site.

(iii) The reviewing authority may publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the source. Where possible, the notice may also be published in a Tribal newspaper or newsletter.

(iv) The reviewing authority may provide copies of the notice for posting at one or more locations in the area affected by the source, such as Post Offices, trading posts, libraries, Tribal environmental offices, community centers or other gathering places in the community.

(v) The reviewing authority may employ other means of notification as appropriate.

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 3. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A—General Provisions 4. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (w)(1) through (3) to read as follows:
§ 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

(w) * * *

(1) Any permit issued under this section or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires under paragraph (r) of this section or is rescinded under this paragraph (w).

(2) An owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who holds a permit issued under this section for the construction of a new source or modification that meets the requirement in paragraph (w)(3) of this section may request that the Administrator rescind the permit or a particular portion of the permit.

(3) The Administrator may grant an application for rescission if the application shows that this section would not apply to the source or modification.

[FR Doc. 2016-26593 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0042; FRL-9954-40-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Revisions and Amendments to Regulations for Continuous Opacity Monitoring, Continuous Emissions Monitoring, and Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitors AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The revision pertains to changes and amendments to Maryland regulations for continuous opacity monitoring (COM or COMs) and continuous emissions monitoring (CEM or CEMs) and to an amendment adding requirements for Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) as they pertain to COMs. EPA is approving these revisions to the COMs and CEMs requirements in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective on December 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0042. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

On June 17, 2016 (81 FR 39605), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of revisions and amendments to COMAR 26.11.01 General Administrative Requirements related to requirements for COMs and CEMs and the addition of new COMAR 26.01.31 Quality Assurance Requirements for Continuous Opacity Monitors (COMs). The formal SIP revision (#15-05) was submitted by Maryland through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on November 24, 2015. On February 26, 2016, MDE provided a supplemental letter indicating MDE was excluding portions of COMAR 26.11.01.10 submitted in the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal from EPA's review and consideration as a SIP revision. The February 26, 2016 letter from MDE is available in the docket for this rulemaking and is available online at http://www.regulations.gov. 1

1 Specifically, in the February 26, 2016 letter from MDE to EPA, MDE withdrew from EPA's review and consideration the text in COMAR 26.11.01.10.A(4), in COMAR 26.11 .01.10.B(4), in COMAR 26.11.01.10D(2)(c), and in COMAR 26.11.01.10.F which had initially been included in the November 25, 2015 SIP submittal. MDE excluded provisions in COMAR 26.11.01.10 that refer to sections or subsections of COMAR 26.11.09 that are not yet in the State's SIP. MDE plans to submit the COMAR 26.11.09 revisions along with these related provisions for approval into the SIP at a later date.

EPA had previously approved Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.01.10 Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Requirements into the Maryland SIP on February 28, 1996. 61 FR 7418. COMAR 26.11.01.10 required large fuel-burning equipment burning coal and residual oil to install COMs and demonstrate compliance using COM data. The regulation established monitoring requirements, CEM installation requirements, CEM installation and certification schedules, quality assurance procedures for opacity monitors, and record keeping and reporting requirements. The regulation had previously incorporated by reference Maryland's Technical Memorandum 90-01 (TM 90), and required compliance determinations for the State's visible emissions limits and QA/QC for COMs in accordance with the procedures therein. The terms CEMs and COMs were used interchangeably in COMAR 26.11.01.10; therefore, MDE determined it was necessary to establish separate requirements for each.

The November 24, 2015 SIP submittal, as clarified and amended on February 26, 2016 by MDE, includes revisions to COMs and CEMs definitions in COMAR 26.11.01.01, administrative changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements in COMAR 26.11.01.05, a revised COMAR 26.11.01.10 for COMs, a new COMAR 26.11.01.11 for CEMs, and new COMAR 26.11.31 for QA/QC procedures related to COMs. The November 24, 2015 submittal, as amended by MDE's February 26, 2016 letter, removes the requirement to use TM 90 for enforcement actions and for QA/QC requirements on applicable fuel-burning equipment and removes references to TM 90.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

The SIP revision is comprised of four state actions pertaining to adjusted requirements for COMs and CEMs in COMAR 26.11.01.01, COMAR 26.11.01.05 and COMAR 26.11.01.10, new CEMs provisions in COMAR 26.11.01.11, and new QA/QC requirements in COMAR 26.11.31. These four actions are a series of regulatory actions that result in a recodification of some existing requirements for COMs and CEMs, establishment of separate regulations and requirements for COMs and CEMs, removal of applicability of TM 90 for certain fuel-burning equipment and removal of references to TM 90, and codification of the QA/QC requirements for COMs that were formerly incorporated by reference in TM 90 into a new COMAR 26.11.31. Other specific requirements of the revised and amended COMAR regulations, and the rationale for EPA's approval action finding the regulations in accordance with section 110 of the CAA are explained in the NPR and in EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) dated April 5, 2016, and will not be restated here. The NPR and TSD can be found in the docket for this rulemaking action available online at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA received one set of comments on the proposal from the Environmental Integrity Project and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (collectively referred to herein as “Commenter”). This set of these comments is provided in the docket for today's final rulemaking action.

Comment 1: The Commenter stated that it thought the SIP revision would improve the Maryland SIP because it separates the requirements for COMs from the requirements for CEMs. However, because of its concern regarding some of Maryland's permitting and enforcement actions on opacity and particulate matter (PM) issues, the Commenter submitted comments “to explain our understanding of the effect of the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve.” The Commenter expressed concern with allowing “ineffective technical methods” in compliance demonstrations for opacity limits. The Commenter stated that a COM is an effective method of measuring compliance with Maryland's SIP opacity limits and reserved judgment on whether it is ever appropriate to substitute another technology for COMs to demonstrate compliance with opacity limits. The Commenter stated that if a technology is to be substituted for COMs, it should include PM CEMS paired with an approved method that accounts for the condensable portion of PM. The Commenter stated that, for various reasons, EPA Reference Method 9, by itself, is not a sufficient substitute for COMs due to infrequency and weather condition issues. The Commenter acknowledged that the proposed action to approve revisions to COMAR 26.11.01.10, 26.11.01.11 and 26.11.01.01 for the Maryland SIP does not “allow Method 9 observations as a substitute for COM in compliance demonstrations for opacity.” The Commenter noted that COMAR 26.11.01.10(A)(4), which allows fuel-burning sources to discontinue use of COMs under certain circumstances is not part of the November 24, 2015 SIP revision, as amended February 26, 2016, which EPA proposed to approve. Finally, the Commenter stated that no part of COMAR 26.11.09.05 [which contains Maryland's opacity limitation] was submitted with the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal, and thus no provision in the November 24, 2015 SIP submission allows discontinuation of COM at fuel burning sources.

Response 1: EPA thanks the Commenter for its statements. EPA confirms Commenter's statement that the NPR did not propose any action on COMAR 26.11.09.05, which contains opacity limitations in Maryland, as no part of that regulation was included in the November 24, 2015 submittal. The version of COMAR 26.11.09.05 which EPA approved in 2007 remains in the SIP. See 72 FR 41891 (August 1, 2007) (approving version of COMAR 26.11.09.05 for SIP with State effective date of November 24, 2003). EPA also confirms that the NPR did not include proposed action on the provisions in COMAR 26.11.01.10(A)(4), addressing removal of COMS, as that portion of COMAR 26.11.01.10 was removed from EPA's consideration by a February 26, 2016 supplemental letter from MDE requesting that certain sections be struck from the submittal. In EPA's TSD which supported the NPR, EPA clearly explained the exclusions from our proposed approval action, stating that none of the newly adopted changes to COMAR 26.11.09 Control of Fuel-Burning Equipment, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, and Certain Fuel-Burning Installations were included in the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal as MDE stated it intended to make further revisions to COMAR 26.11.09 before separately submitting for inclusion into the State's SIP. EPA also confirms that the NPR and TSD clearly indicated COMAR 26.11.01.10A(4), B(4), D(2)(c), and F were excluded from the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal by MDE's February 26, 2016 supplemental submission.

As to the Commenter's statement regarding the use of substitutes for COMs or the appropriateness of alternatives to use of COMs, EPA first notes that the comment is not germane to the regulation EPA proposed to approve in the NPR as COMAR 26.11.01.10 in the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal, as amended February 26, 2016, does not address alternatives to use of COMs to demonstrate compliance nor address substitutes. Thus, EPA provides no further response to the Commenter's general statement regarding appropriateness of substituting for COMs.

However, EPA notes generally that choice of compliance methods is left to State's for due consideration. Congress established the CAA such that each state has primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the state and such that each state determines an emission reduction program for its areas to attain and maintain air quality, subject to EPA approval, with such approval dependent upon whether the SIP as a whole meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). While the requirement for Method 9 for compliance determinations is not part of the Maryland regulation for which EPA proposed approval, EPA notes that states have flexibility in devising and developing their choices as to the means of achieving attainment and maintenance of a NAAQS. This flexibility has been affirmed by the courts. Id. See also Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975). EPA cannot disapprove a SIP revision simply based upon a state's choice of a particular emission monitoring requirement, such as a COM or CEM, as long as the SIP revision otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA. As explained in the NPR and the TSD, Maryland's November 24, 2015 SIP submission meets the requirements of the CAA under section 110.

With respect to the use of COMs, EPA Reference Method 9, or PM CEMs for determining compliance with opacity requirements, the choice of compliance methodology is a choice for the state as long as the state does not prohibit the use of credible evidence. EPA's credible evidence rule (62 FR 8314 (February 24, 1997)) provided clarifications regarding the use of any relevant credible evidence or information for determining compliance with an applicable emission limit or requirement. The credible evidence revisions consisted of various changes to 40 CFR 51.212, 52.12, 52.30, 60.11 and 61.12. These revisions provided minor modifications to existing regulatory provisions to clearly allow for the use of any credible evidence—that is, both reference test and comparable non-reference test data—to prove or disprove violations of the CAA in enforcement actions. These revisions make clear that EPA, states and citizens acting pursuant to section 304 of the CAA can prosecute actions for violations of CAA provisions and federally approved SIPs based exclusively on any credible evidence, without the need to rely on any data from a particular reference test (such as EPA Reference Method 9). The revisions also have the effect of eliminating any potential ambiguity regarding the use of non-reference test data, including COMs and CEMs, as a basis for supporting violations. 40 CFR 51.212 specifically provides that “[f]or the purpose of . . . establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any standard in this part, the plan must not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test or procedure had been performed.” 40 CFR 51.212(c). In this rulemaking, EPA is approving a revision to COMAR 26.11.01.10 into the Maryland SIP which requires the use of COMs for determining compliance with SIP requirements. However, nothing in COMAR 26.11.01.10 precludes the use of credible evidence such as PM CEMs data or EPA Reference Method 9 readings to determine compliance with regulatory requirements including opacity limitations. Thus, the regulation at COMAR 26.11.01.10 submitted for SIP approval addresses and meets 40 CFR 51.212 as it does not preclude the use of credible evidence and addresses section 110 of the CAA for the Maryland SIP. The revisions to COMAR 26.11.01.01 and 26.11.01.10 and new provisions in COMAR 26.11.01.11 and 26.11.31 are approvable for the SIP. Because the Maryland regulation at COMAR 26.11.01.10 submitted for SIP approval does not specifically address substitution of other compliance methods or discontinuation of COMs at stationary sources, EPA provides no further response to Commenter's concerns regarding compliance methodologies.

Comment 2: The Commenter expressed concern about attempts to weaken the opacity limits in the Maryland SIP and about State regulatory changes that created exemptions to the opacity limits. However, the Commenter acknowledged that the exceptions to the opacity limits are contained in COMAR 26.11.09.05 and COMAR 26.11.01.10(A)(4), both of which are not a part of the SIP revision submittal that EPA proposed to approve in the NPR. Commenter acknowledged EPA's approval of the November 24, 2015 SIP submittal (as amended February 26, 2016) would not incorporate these “exceptions into the SIP.”

Response 2: EPA thanks the Commenter for its acknowledgments. As the Commenter clearly stated, EPA's NPR does not propose action on any revised provisions in COMAR 26.11.09.05 nor propose any action on COMAR 26.11.01.10(A)(4), as MDE withdrew that provision from EPA's consideration with the February 26, 2016 supplemental letter. Thus, no further response is necessary to Commenter's statements.

III. Final Action

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving for the Maryland SIP the revisions to requirements for COMs and CEMs in COMAR 26.11.01.01, COMAR 26.11.01.05 and COMAR 26.11.01.10, approving new provisions for COMs and CEMs at COMAR 26.11.01.11 and approving new requirements for quality assurance for CEMs at COMAR 26.11.31.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revised requirements for COMs and CEMs in COMAR 26.11.01.01, 26.11.01.05, 26.11.01.10, and 26.11.01.11 and QA/QC requirements for COMs in new regulation COMAR 26.11.31. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving COMs and CEMs revisions to Maryland regulations may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 29, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V—Maryland 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by: a. Revising the entries for COMAR 26.11.01.01, COMAR 26.11.01.05, and COMAR 26.11.01.10; and b. Adding the entries COMAR 26.11.01.11 and COMAR 26.11.31.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP Code of Maryland
  • Administrative
  • Regulations (COMAR) citation
  • Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/
  • citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.01 General Administrative Provisions 26.11.01.01 Definitions 5/17/2010 11/7/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] New definition for COMs and clarify definition for CEMs. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.01.05 Records and Information 5/17/2010 11/7/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(172) Administrative changes to reporting and recordkeeping requirements. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.01.10 Continuous Opacity Monitoring 8/22/2010 11/7/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] (c)(106) Requirement to use TM 90-01 is removed. Exceptions: A(4), B(4), D(2)(c), and F. 26.11.01.11 Continuous Emissions Monitoring 8/22/2010 11/7/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 26.11.31 Quality Assurance Requirements for Opacity Monitors (COMs) 6/13/2011 11/7/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-26866 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0285; FRL-9953-83-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; NH; Rules for Reducing Particulate Emissions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 31, 2011 and on July 23, 2013. These SIP revisions establish particulate matter (PM) and visible emissions (VE) standards for the following sources: foundries, smelters, and investment casting operations; hot mix asphalt plants; and sand and gravel sources, non-metallic mineral processing plants, and cement and concrete sources. In addition, EPA is approving a part of a SIP revision submitted by New Hampshire on March 12, 2003 that establishes procedures for testing opacity of emissions (i.e., VE). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0285. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alison C. Simcox, Environmental Scientist, Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109-3912; (617) 918-1684; [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    I. Background and Purpose II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    On August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56556), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of New Hampshire.

    The NPR proposed approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 31, 2011 and July 23, 2013. The NPR also proposed approval of a part of a SIP revision submitted by the state on March 12, 2003. The March 2011 submittal included a regulation entitled “Sand and Gravel Sources; Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete Sources” (New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Chapter (Env-A 2800)). The July 2013 submittal included the following three regulations: “Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Standards” (Env-A 2100); “Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundries, Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations” (Env-A 2400); and “Hot Mix Asphalt Plants” (Env-A 2700).

    The four submitted regulations (Env-A 2100, 2400, 2700, and 2800) state that opacity shall be determined in accordance with test methods established in Env-A 807. Therefore, the NPR also proposed to approve Env-A 807, which was part of a SIP revision submitted by New Hampshire on March 12, 2003.

    Two of the submitted regulations (Env-A 2100 and 2400) included affirmative defense provisions for malfunction, which is defined as a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or control equipment. The New Hampshire regulations were submitted to EPA after EPA issued a start-up, shut-down, and malfunction (SSM) SIP Call proposal in February 2013 (78 FR 12460), which would have allowed narrowly drawn affirmative defense provisions in SIPs for malfunction. However, following issuance of our SSM SIP Call proposal in February 2013 (78 FR 12460), a federal court ruled that the Clean Air Act precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative defense provisions. On April 13, 2016, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) sent a letter to EPA withdrawing the affirmative defense provisions in Chapter Env-A 2100 and 2400 (i.e., 2103.03, and 2405). Therefore, EPA is approving all of the SIP revisions without the withdrawn portions.

    Rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

    II. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the New Hampshire SIP, four regulations and part of one regulation, except for affirmative defense provisions in two of the regulations which NH DES has withdrawn. The four regulations include one regulation submitted by the State of New Hampshire on March 31, 2011, Sand and Gravel Sources; Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete Sources (Env-A 2800), effective October 1, 2010; and three regulations submitted on July 23, 2013, Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Standards (Env-A 2100), effective April 23, 2013; Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundries, Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations (Env-A 2400), effective April 23, 2013; and Hot Mix Asphalt Plants (Env-A 2700), effective February 16, 2013. As noted earlier, the affirmative defense provisions, which NH DES has withdrawn from its SIP submittals, are not included in this approval action and are contained in state law only in Env-A 2103.03 and 2405. EPA is also approving and incorporating into the New Hampshire's SIP, New Hampshire's Env-A 807 (“Testing for Opacity of Emissions”), effective October 31, 2002.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 6, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart EE—New Hampshire 2. In § 52.1520, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding five entries for state citation “Env-A 807”, “Env-A 2100”, “Env-A 2400”, “Env-A 2700”, and “Env-A 2800” in alphanumeric order to read as follows:
    § 52.1520 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved New Hampshire Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date 1 Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 807 Testing and Monitoring Procedures October 31, 2002 November 7, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approve Part Env-A 807 “Testing for Opacity of Emissions.” *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 2100 Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Standards April 23, 2013 November 7, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approve Chapter Env-A 2100, except Part Env-A 2103.03 “Affirmative Defense to Penalty Action,” which NH DES did not submit for approval. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 2400 Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Foundries, Smelters, and Investment Casting Operations April 23, 2013 November 7, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Approve Chapter Env-A 2400, except PART Env-A 2405 “Affirmative Defenses for Violations of Visible Emission Standards,” which NH DES did not submit for approval. Env-A 2700 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants February 16, 2013 November 7, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * Env-A 2800 Sand and Gravel Sources; Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants; Cement and Concrete Sources October 1, 2010 November 7, 2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26598 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8455] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs Region II New York: Denning, Town of, Ulster County 361439 February 13, 1976, Emerg; May 25, 1984, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp November 18, 2016. November 18, 2016. Hardenburgh, Town of, Ulster County 361578 December 26, 1975, Emerg; July 20, 1984, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hurley, Town of, Ulster County 360857 June 20, 1975, Emerg; July 3, 1985, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Marbletown, Town of, Ulster County 361219 September 26, 1975, Emerg; October 22, 1982, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Olive, Town of, Ulster County 360860 July 7, 1975, Emerg; November 1, 1984, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Shandaken, Town of, Ulster County 360864 December 18, 1974, Emerg; January 17, 1985, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Wawarsing, Town of, Ulster County 360867 September 15, 1975, Emerg; September 15, 1983, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Woodstock, Town of, Ulster County 360868 May 28, 1975, Emerg; September 27, 1991, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region IV Tennessee: Franklin County, Unincorporated Areas 470344 June 12, 1991, Emerg; January 2, 1992, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Lincoln County, Unincorporated Areas 470104 June 3, 1991, Emerg; October 1, 1992, Reg; November 18, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. *do = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension. Dated: October 27, 2016. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26766 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    81 215 Monday, November 7, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 56, 62, and 70 [Doc. # AMS-LPS-15-0057] Amendments to Quality Systems Verification Programs and Conforming Changes AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposes to amend its regulations to better reflect the current needs of Quality Systems Verification Program (QSVP) activities and to implement changes created by the merger of the AMS Livestock and Seed Program and the AMS Poultry Programs. These proposed changes include amending the Livestock, Meat, and Other Agricultural Commodities QSVP to expand the commodities under the QSVP to include those authorized under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”), remove reference to “Livestock, Meat, and Other Commodities” in the title, more clearly identify and define the types of programs and services offered under QSVP, and make other technical and administrative changes. Simultaneously, AMS proposes to make conforming changes to the regulations pertaining to the Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs and Voluntary Grading of Poultry Products and Rabbit Products to remove references to audit activities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by January 6, 2017. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this rulemaking must be received by January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments should be submitted electronically at www.regulations.gov. Comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. All comments should reference the docket number AMS-LPS-15-0057, the date of submission, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register. Comments may also be submitted to: Jeffrey Waite, Branch Chief, Auditing Services Branch, Quality Assessment Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 3932S, STOP 0258, 1400 Independence Avenue SW.; Washington, DC 20250-0258. Comments will be made available for public inspection at the above address during regular business hours or electronically at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Waite, Branch Chief, Auditing Services Branch, Quality Assessment Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 3932S, STOP 0258, 1400 Independence Avenue SW; Washington, DC 20250-0258; telephone (202) 720-4411; or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process.

    Executive Order 13175

    This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposed regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    AMS has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), because the services are voluntary and provided on a fee-for-service basis and are not subject to scalability based on the business size. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. As such, these changes will not impose a significant impact on applicants requesting service under the program.

    Currently, approximately 950 applicants subscribe to AMS' voluntary, fee-for-services that are subject to the requirements of this regulation. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of Small Business Size Standards matched to the North American Industry Classification System Codes identifies small business size by average annual receipts or by the average number of employees at a firm. This information can be found in the CFR at 13 CFR parts 121.104, 121.106, and 121.201.

    AMS requires that all applicants for service provide information about their company for the purpose of processing bills. Information collected from an applicant includes company name, address, billing address, and similar information. AMS does not collect information about the size of the business. However, based on working knowledge of these operations, AMS estimates that roughly 25 percent of current applicants may be classified as small entities. It is not anticipated that this action would impose additional costs to applicants, regardless of size. Current applicants will not be required to provide any additional information to receive service. The effects of this proposed rule are not expected to be disproportionately greater or less for small applicants than for larger applications. As described above, these are voluntary, fee-for-service activities.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 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.

    USDA has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this proposed rule will not change the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved, and will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping burden on users of these voluntary services; however, the overall reporting and recordkeeping burden would increase due to the anticipated increase in number of respondents.

    The information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this part have been approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0128.

    In September 2014, three separate OMB collections—OMB 0581-0127, OMB 0581-0124, and OMB 0581-0128—were merged, such that the current OMB 0581-0128 pertains to Regulations for Voluntary Grading, Certification, and Standards and includes 7 CFR parts 54, 56, 62, and 70.

    In the past fiscal year, AMS' Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program (LPS) has received approximately 50 inquiries related to the verification of non-genetically engineered products. Of these inquiries, 72 percent identified with industries outside the scope of LPS commodities, including the manufacture of dairy, fruits, vegetables, grains, wood products, and food and feed supplements; 8 percent identified with current industries serviced by LPS (meat and poultry manufacturing or processing, laboratories, feed manufactures); and 20 percent were identified as a service provider or an association not directly related to a service category. AMS does not expect the last group to submit an application for service; thus, the group was not included as a potential applicant.

    USDA has considered the reporting and recordkeeping burden on applicants under this program. Currently, applicants are required to complete an application for service and submit documentation. Recordkeeping requirements would remain the same, though the overall burden is expected to increase due to an increase in applications. As previously stated, of approximately 50 inquiries for an existing service received by LPS, approximately three-fourths of these inquiries represented new commodities, which could potentially increase the overall reporting and recordkeeping burden. Accordingly, if the proposed rule is adopted, and if two-thirds of the inquirers seek service, then LPS estimates the number of respondents will increase by 25, thereby increasing the overall reporting and recordkeeping burden by 602.50 hours, from 1205.80 hours to 1808.30 hours annually.

    Since this action proposes to expand the scope of covered commodities, which is expected to increase the number of respondents, the already approved OMB 0158-0128 must be revised to reflect the increased reporting and recordkeeping burden. Therefore, AMS will submit a Justification for Change to OMB for approval to increase these burden hours to OMB number 0158-0128.

    A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons an opportunity to respond to this proposal. All written comments received will be considered before a final determination is made on this matter.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. The Act prohibits States or political subdivisions of a State to impose any requirement that is in addition to, or inconsistent with, any requirement of the Act. There are no civil justice implications associated with this proposed rule.

    Civil Rights Review

    AMS has considered the potential civil rights implications of this proposed rule on minorities, women, or persons with disabilities to ensure that no person or group shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital or family status, political beliefs, parental status, or protected genetic information. This proposed rule does not require affected entities to relocate or alter their operations in ways that could adversely affect such persons or groups. Further, this proposed rule will not deny any persons or groups the benefits of the program or subject any persons or groups to discrimination.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This Order directs agencies to construe, in regulations and otherwise, a federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision. There are no federalism implications associated with this proposed rule.

    Background and Proposed Revisions

    The Act directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate the competitive and efficient marketing of agricultural products. AMS programs support a strategic marketing perspective that adapts product and marketing decisions to consumer demands, changing domestic and international marketing practices, and new technology. AMS provides impartial verification services that ensure agricultural products meet specified requirements. These services include AMS' grading program, which verifies that product meets USDA grade standards. In addition, AMS provides direct certification of products in the facilities that manufacture them. Product characteristics such as manner of cut, color, and other attributes can be directly examined by an AMS employee to determine if a specification has been met, and the product can be stamped and marketed as “USDA Certified” or “USDA Accepted as Specified.” These services are voluntary, with users paying for the cost of the requested service.

    Over time, industry began to request AMS verification of factors that were not apparent through an examination of the livestock or products at a processing facility. Industry desired the ability to market factors related to raising of the livestock, such as feeding regimen, in relation to the resulting products, and to do so with assurance to their customers.

    To accommodate these requests for verification, AMS began conducting audits of livestock production facilities as a part of its third-party verification services. Ultimately, in 2001, AMS developed the QSVP, a suite of audit-based programs that can provide confidence that process points, such as livestock feeding regimen, are being adhered to at the farm or ranch before the livestock are processed and enter commerce as a meat product with an associated marketing claim.

    The USDA Process Verified Program (PVP) is one program under QSVP. PVP provides producers and marketers of livestock, seed products, and poultry products a way to assure customers of their ability to provide consistent quality products by having written production and manufacturing processes confirmed through independent, third-party audits. Under PVP, companies outline their own specific requirements, and AMS ensures adherence to those processes via routine audits. This is in contrast to other QSVP services offered by AMS, such as the Quality Systems Assessment Program (QSA), which have program requirements outlined by AMS or a party other than the producers or marketer. For example, most of AMS' QSVP audit activities fall under the category of Export Verification activities, which are based on government-to-government agreements with international trading partners regarding specific foreign market requirements.

    Several factors triggered AMS' review of the regulations describing QSVP activities. First, an organizational merger in 2013 combined the Livestock and Seed Program and Poultry Programs to create the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed (LPS) Program within AMS. Prior to the merger, both Programs administered parallel QSVP services to their respective industries. These activities were carried out under 7 CFR part 62 for livestock, meat, and related commodities and under 7 CFR part 56 and 7 CFR part 70 for shell eggs and poultry industries, respectively.

    Currently, all QSVP services are delivered by the same management unit and operate by the same procedures (e.g., application process and audit process), and audits are in large measure conducted by the same personnel. Therefore, AMS proposes to remove any references to audit and verification activities contained in 7 CFR parts 56 and 70 and incorporate the commodities currently covered in those parts (i.e., shell eggs and poultry) into 7 CFR part 62.

    Because 7 CFR part 62 accurately describes the process by which these services are provided, AMS is proposing to amend the definition of products describing the commodities covered under voluntary QSVP services to include products authorized by the Act. Rather than limiting the product type to an individual program within AMS, AMS believes it is more appropriate to expand the definition of products to efficiently manage the QSVP, including the PVP. AMS seeks to maintain uniformity, transparency, and efficiency of service delivery of the QSVP, including the PVP. Without expanding the definition of products, AMS would be required to establish and maintain duplicate programs in each commodity area that would essentially carry out the same functions in regard to delivering the QSVP, including the PVP.

    Other changes proposed are administrative in nature. For example, because AMS is proposing to expand the scope of commodities that companies can voluntary have verified by AMS under a QSVP, AMS is also proposing to amend the title of the regulations to remove limiting references to “livestock and meat.” Additionally, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit in 2015 of the PVP and recommended that AMS take additional steps to unify the program, as it was delivered under the same heading.

    Additional administrative changes are necessary to reflect the current terminology and organizational structure of AMS. These amendments include changing the name of the Program to reflect the merger of the Livestock and Seed Program and Poultry Programs into the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program. Subsequently, LPS' Quality Assessment Division was created to oversee the Audit Services Branch, Grading Services Branch, and Standardization Branch. The Audit Services Branch replaced the Audit, Review, and Compliance Branch of the Livestock and Seed Program and incorporated auditing services that were part of the Grading Branch of Poultry Programs. Certain managerial titles were also updated with the merger: a Director was established, along with an Audit Services Branch Chief.

    List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 56

    Grading of shell eggs, Inspections, Marketing practices, Standards.

    7 CFR Part 62

    Inspections, Marketing practices, Quality Systems Verification, Standards.

    7 CFR Part 70

    Inspections, Marketing practices, Standards, Voluntary Grading of Poultry Products and Rabbit Products.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 CFR parts 56, 62, and 70 as follows:

    PART 56—VOLUNTARY GRADING OF SHELL EGGS 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    2. Amend § 56.1 by: a. Removing the paragraph containing the term and definition for Auditing services; b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for Branch and Chief; c. Removing the definition for Chief of the Grading Branch; d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for Division; and e. Revising the definitions of Official standards, United States Standards for Quality of Individual Shell Eggs, and United States Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for Shell Eggs (AMS 56).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 56.1 Meaning of words and terms defined.

    Branch means the Grading Services Branch for the Quality Assessment Division.

    Chief means the Chief of the Grading Services Branch for the Quality Assessment Division.

    Division means the Quality Assessment Division of the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program.

    Official standards means the official U.S. standards grades, and weight classes for shell eggs maintained by and available from the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program.

    United States Standards for Quality of Individual Shell Eggs means the official U.S. Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for Shell Eggs (AMS 56) that are maintained by and available from the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program.

    United States Standards, Grades, and Weight Classes for Shell Eggs (AMS 56) means the official U.S. standards, grades, and weight classes for shell eggs that are maintained by and available from the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program.

    § 56.28 [Amended]
    3. Amend § 56.28 by removing paragraph (d). 4. Amend § 56.46 by revising paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii), and removing paragraph (d).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 56.46 On a fee basis.

    (a) Unless otherwise provided in this part, the fees to be charged and collected for any service performed, in accordance with this part, on a fee basis shall be based on the applicable formulas specified in this section. For each calendar year or crop year, AMS will calculate the rate for grading services, per hour per program employee using the following formulas:

    (1) Regular rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (2) Overtime rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5 plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (3) Holiday rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (b)(1) * * *

    (i) Benefits rate. The total AMS grading direct benefits costs divided by the total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the next calendar year's percentage cost of living increase. Some examples of direct benefits are health insurance, retirement, life insurance, and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) retirement basic and matching contributions.

    (ii) Operating rate. The total AMS grading operating costs divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the percentage of inflation.

    (iii) Allowance for bad debt rate. Total AMS grading allowance for bad debt divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked.

    5. Amend § 56.61 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 56.61 Where to file an appeal.

    (b) All other appeal requests. Any interested party who is not satisfied with the determination of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of product which has left the official plant where it was graded or which was graded other than in an official plant may request an appeal grading by filing such request with the regional director in the area where the product is located or with the Chief.

    6. Amend § 56.64 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 56.64 Who shall perform the appeal.

    (c) Whenever practical, an appeal grading shall be conducted jointly by two graders. The assignment of the grader(s) who will make the appeal grading requested under § 56.61(b) shall be made by the regional director or the Chief.

    PART 62—QUALITY SYSTEMS VERIFICATION PROGRAMS 7. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    8. Amend part 62 by revising the heading to read as set forth above and revising all references to “Livestock and Seed Program” to read “Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program,” and revise all references to “LS Program” to read “LPS Program” wherever they occur. Subpart A—Quality Systems Verification Programs 9. Amend part 62 by revising the heading to Subpart A to read as set forth above. 10. Amend § 62.000 by: a. Removing the definitions for Branch and Chief; b. Revising the definition of Conformance; c. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for Division and Division Director; d. Removing the definition of Livestock; and e. Revising the definitions for Products, QSVP Procedures, and Quality Systems Verification Programs (QSVP).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 62.000 Meaning of terms.

    Conformance. The fulfillment of criteria or a requirement.

    Division. The Quality Assessment Division (QAD) of the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program.

    Division Director. The Director of QAD, or any officer or employee of the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program to whom authority has been delegated, or to whom authority may be delegated, to act in the Director's stead.

    Products. All agricultural commodities and services within the scope of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, et seq.

    QSVP Procedures. The requirements and guidelines set forth by the Agricultural Marketing Service regarding the development, documentation, and implementation of QSVP.

    Quality System Verification Programs (QSVP). A collection of voluntary, audit-based, user-fee programs that allow applicants to have program documentation and program processes assessed by an AMS auditor.

    § 62.200 [Amended]
    11. Amend § 62.200 by removing paragraph (b). 12. Revise § 62.202 to read as follows:
    § 62.202 How to apply for service.

    Applicants may apply for QSVP services by submitting the following information to the QAD office by email to [email protected] or by mail to: USDA, AMS, LPS, QAD, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0258, Washington, DC 20250-0258.

    (a) A completed LPS-109, Application for Service;

    (b) A letter requesting QSVP services; and

    (c) A complete copy of the applicant's program documentation, as described in the QSVP procedures.

    13. Revise § 62.203 to read as follows:
    § 62.203 How to withdraw service.

    Service may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time, provided that the applicant notifies QAD in writing of his/her desire to withdraw the application for service and pays any expenses the Department has incurred in connection with such application.

    14. Amend § 62.207 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 62.207 Official assessment.

    (b) Program assessment. Auditors and USDA officials shall conduct an on-site assessment of the applicant's program to ensure provisions of the applicant's program documentation have been implemented and conform to QSVP procedures.

    (c) Program determination. Applicants determined to meet or not meet QSVP procedures or the applicant's program requirements shall be notified of their program's approval or disapproval.

    15. Amend § 62.208 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to read as follows:
    § 62.208 Publication of QSVP assessment status.

    Approved programs shall be posted for public reference on the agency Web site. Such postings shall include:

    (a) Applicant name and contact information; and

    (b) Products, services, process points, or standards included in the scope of approval.

    (e) Any other information deemed necessary by the Director.

    16. Revise § 62.209 to read as follows:
    § 62.209 Reassessment.

    Approved programs are subject to periodic reassessments to ensure ongoing conformance with LPS QSVP procedures covered under the scope of approval. The frequency of reassessments shall be based on LPS QSVP procedures, or as determined by the Director.

    17. Amend § 62.210 by revising paragraph (b) introductory text, (b)(5), and (c) to read as follows:
    § 62.210 Denial, suspension, or cancellation of service.

    (b) QSVP services may be suspended if the applicant fails to maintain its program requirements, or conform to LPS Program QSVP procedures; such as failure to:

    (5) Submit significant changes to an approved program and seek approval from the Program Manager or Program Review Committee, as appropriate, prior to implementation of significant changes to an approved program;

    (c) QSVP services may be cancelled, an application may be rejected, or program assessment may be terminated if the Director or his designee determines that a nonconformance has remained uncorrected beyond a reasonable amount of time.

    18. In § 62.211, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 62.211 Appeals.

    Appeals of adverse decisions under this part, may be made in writing to the Director at 1400 Independence Avenue SW.; Room 3932-S, STOP 0258; Washington, DC 20250-0201. Appeals must be made within 30 days of receipt of adverse decision.

    (a) Procedure for appeals. Actions under this paragraph concerning decision of appeals of the Director shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary under various statutes set forth at 7 CFR 1.130 through 1.151 and the Supplemental Rules of Practice in 7 CFR part 50.

    19. Revise § 62.213 to read as follows:
    § 62.213 Official identification.

    The following, as shown in Figure 1, constitutes official identification to show product or services produced under an approved USDA Process Verified Program (PVP):

    EP07NO16.002

    (a) Products or services produced under an approved USDA PVP may use the “USDA Process Verified” statement and the “USDA Process Verified” shield, so long as each is used in direct association with a clear description of the process verified points approved by the Division.

    (b) The USDA Process Verified shield must replicate the form and design of the example in Figure 1 and must be printed legibly and conspicuously:

    (1) On a white background with a gold trimmed shield, with the term “USDA” in white overlaying a blue upper third of the shield, the term “PROCESS” in black overlaying a white middle third of the shield, and term “VERIFIED” in white overlaying a red lower third of the shield.

    (2) On a white or transparent background with a black trimmed shield, with the term “USDA” in white overlaying a black upper third of the shield, the term “PROCESS” in black overlaying a white middle third of the shield, and the term “VERIFIED” in white overlaying a black lower third of the shield.

    (c) Use of the “USDA Process Verified” statement and the “USDA Process Verified” shield shall be approved in writing by the Director prior to use by an applicant.

    20. Amend § 62.300 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 62.300 Fees and other costs of service.

    (e) Other costs. When costs, other than those costs specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, are involved in providing the QSVP services, the applicant shall be responsible for these costs. The amount of these costs shall be determined administratively by the Division. However, the applicant will be notified of these costs before the service is rendered.

    21. Revise § 62.400 to read as follows:
    § 62.400 OMB control number assigned pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The information collection and recordkeeping requirements of this part have been approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Control Number 0581-0128.

    PART 70—VOLUNTARY GRADING OF POULTRY PRODUCTS AND RABBIT PRODUCTS 22. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    23. Amend § 70.1 by: a. Removing the definition for Auditing services; b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for Branch and Chief; c. Removing the definition of Chief of the Grading Branch; and d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for Division.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 70.1 Definitions.

    Branch means the Grading Services Branch for the Quality Assessment Division.

    Chief means the Chief of the Grading Services Branch for the Quality Assessment Division.

    Division means the Quality Assessment Division of the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS.

    § 70.4 [Amended]
    24. Amend § 70.4 by removing paragraph (c). 25. Amend § 70.6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 70.6 OMB control number.

    (a) Purpose. The collecting of information requirements in this part has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB control number 0581-0128.

    26. Amend § 70.71 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a) and (b)(1)(i) through (iii) and by removing paragraph (d).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 70.71 On a fee basis.

    (a) For each calendar year, AMS will calculate the rate for grading services, per hour per program employee using the following formulas:

    (1) Regular rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (2) Overtime rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5 plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (3) Holiday rate. The total AMS grading personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (b)(1) * * *

    (i) Benefits rate. The total AMS grading direct benefits costs divided by the total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the next calendar year's percentage cost of living increase. Some examples of direct benefits are health insurance, retirement, life insurance, and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) retirement basic and matching contributions.

    (ii) Operating rate. AMS' grading total operating costs divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked, which is then multiplied by the percentage of inflation.

    (iii) Allowance for bad debt rate. Total AMS grading allowance for bad debt divided by total hours (regular, overtime, and holiday) worked.

    27. Amend § 70.101 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 70.101 Where to file an appeal.

    (b) All other appeal requests. Any interested party who is not satisfied with the determination of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of product which has left the official plant where it was graded, or which was graded other than in an official plant, may request an appeal grading by filing such request with the regional director in the area where the product is located or with the Chief.

    28. Amend § 70.104 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 70.104 Who shall perform the appeal.

    (c) Whenever practical, an appeal grading shall be conducted jointly by two graders. The assignment of the grader(s) who will make the appeal grading requested under § 70.101(b) shall be made by the regional director or the Chief.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25690 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73 [NRC-2016-0145] RIN 3150-AJ79 Role of Third Parties in Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to hold a public meeting to discuss a rulemaking activity regarding the role of third parties in access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations. The purpose of the meeting is to provide information on the background and status of this rulemaking activity and to obtain input from interested stakeholders.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on November 16, 2016. See Section II, Public Meeting, of this document for more information on the meeting.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0145 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this meeting. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this meeting using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0145. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel I. Doyle, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-3748, email: [email protected]; or Mark Resner, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, telephone: 301-287-3680, email: [email protected] Both are staff members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On June 6, 2016, the Commission approved an NRC staff recommendation to proceed with the rulemaking process to further explore the issues raised in an NRC staff paper regarding the role of third party arbitrators in licensee access authorization and fitness-for-duty determinations (ADAMS Accession No. ML16158A286). The NRC is in the early stages of developing a regulatory basis document that will describe the regulatory issue, options to address the issue, and the recommended option. The NRC will consider the information shared at the meeting in the development of the regulatory basis document.

    II. Public Meeting

    The public meeting will be on November 16, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST) in the Commission Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Interested stakeholders may attend in person or via teleconference and Webinar. The purpose of the meeting is to provide background information on this rulemaking activity and obtain stakeholder input in order to enhance the NRC's understanding of the associated issues. Further, the staff will address the various opportunities for the public to participate in the rulemaking process. The NRC will not provide formal written responses to the oral comments made at this meeting. In addition, the NRC is not providing an opportunity to submit written public comments in connection with this meeting.

    Information for the teleconference and Webinar is available in the meeting notice, which can be accessed through the NRC's public Web site at: http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg. Participants must register at the Internet link in the meeting notice to participate in the Webinar.

    Additional details regarding the meeting will be posted at least 10 days prior to the public meeting on the NRC's public meeting Web site at: http://meetings.nrc.gov/pmns/mtg.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of October 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Louise Lund, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26825 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Part 22 [Docket ID OCC-2016-0005] RIN 1557-AD67 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 208 [Docket No. R-1549] RIN 7100-AE60 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 339 RIN 3064-AE50 FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 614 RIN 3052-AD11 NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 760 RIN 3133-AE64 Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards—Private Flood Insurance AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Farm Credit Administration; National Credit Union Administration.

    ACTION:

    Joint notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) are issuing a new proposal to amend their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters Act). Specifically, the proposed rule would require regulated lending institutions to accept policies that meet the statutory definition of private flood insurance in the Biggert-Waters Act and permit regulated lending institutions to accept flood insurance provided by private insurers that does not meet the statutory definition of “private flood insurance” on a discretionary basis, subject to certain restrictions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards—Private Flood Insurance” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov”: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0005” in the Search Box and click “Search.” Click on “Comment Now” to submit public comments.

    • Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Fax: (571) 465-4326.

    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2016-0005” in your comment. In general, the OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:

    Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0005” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the right side of the screen and then “Comments.” Comments can be filtered by clicking on “View All” and then using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen.

    • Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov. Supporting materials may be viewed by clicking on “Open Docket Folder” and then clicking on “Supporting Documents.” The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.

    Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    Board: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1549 or RIN 7100 AE 60, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Address to Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets NW.) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    FDIC: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.

    Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal ESS, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivered/Courier: The guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    Email: [email protected]

    Comments submitted must include “FDIC” and “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards—Private Flood Insurance.” Comments received will be posted without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html, including any personal information provided.

    FCA: We offer a variety of methods for you to submit your comments. For accuracy and efficiency reasons, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email or through the FCA's Web site. As facsimiles (fax) are difficult for us to process and achieve compliance with section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, we are no longer accepting comments submitted by fax. Regardless of the method you use, please do not submit your comments multiple times via different methods. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: Send us an email at [email protected]

    Agency Web site: http://www.fca.gov. Select “Law & Regulations,” then “FCA Regulations,” then “Public Comments,” and follow the directions for “Submitting a Comment.”

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

    Mail: Barry F. Mardock, Deputy Director, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, VA 22102-5090.

    You may review copies of all comments we receive at our office in McLean, Virginia or on our Web site at http://www.fca.gov. Once you are in the Web site, select “Law & Regulations,” then “FCA Regulations,” then “Public Comments,” and follow the directions for “Reading Submitted Public Comments.” We will show your comments as submitted, including any supporting data provided, but for technical reasons we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Identifying information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove email addresses to help reduce Internet spam.

    NCUA: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3133-AE64 by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

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

    Agency Web site: http://www.ncua.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include [Your name] Comments on “Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards—Private Flood Insurance” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard S. Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    • All public comments are available on the agency's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/PropRegs.aspx as submitted, except when not possible for technical reasons. Public comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Paper copies of comments may be inspected in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    OCC: Rhonda L. Daniels, Compliance Specialist, Compliance Policy Division, (202) 649-5405; Margaret C. Hesse, Senior Counsel, Community and Consumer Law Division, (202) 649-6350; or Heidi M. Thomas, Special Counsel, or Melissa Lisenbee, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490, or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597.

    Board: Lanette Meister, Senior Supervisory Consumer Financial Services Analyst (202) 452-2705; Vivian W. Wong, Senior Counsel (202) 452-3667, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs; or Daniel Ericson, Counsel (202) 452-3359, Legal Division; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.

    FDIC: Navid Choudhury, Counsel, Consumer Compliance Unit, Legal Division, (202) 898-6526; or John Jackwood, Senior Policy Analyst, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, (202) 898-3991.

    FCA: Paul K. Gibbs, Associate Director, Office of Regulatory Policy (703) 883-4203, TTY (703) 883-4056; or Mary Alice Donner, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4056.

    NCUA: Sarah Chung, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, (703) 518-6540, or Judy Graham, Program Officer, Office of Examination and Insurance, (703) 518-6392.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Flood Insurance Statutes

    The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (1968 Act) 1 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (FDPA),2 as amended, (collectively referenced herein as the Federal flood insurance statutes) govern the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).3 These laws make Federally subsidized flood insurance available to owners of improved real estate or mobile homes located in participating communities and require the purchase of flood insurance in connection with a loan made by a regulated lending institution 4 when the loan is secured by improved real estate or a mobile home located in special flood hazard areas (SFHA) in which flood insurance is available under the NFIP.5 The OCC, Board, FDIC, FCA, and NCUA (collectively, the Agencies) each have issued regulations implementing these statutory requirements for the lending institutions they supervise.6 The Biggert-Waters Act 7 amended the NFIP requirements that the Agencies have authority to implement and enforce. Among other things, the Biggert-Waters Act: (1) Required the Agencies to issue a rule regarding the escrow of premiums and fees for flood insurance; 8 (2) clarified the requirement to force place insurance; 9 and (3) required the Agencies to issue a rule to direct regulated lending institutions to accept “private flood insurance,” as defined by the Biggert-Waters Act, and to notify borrowers of the availability of private flood insurance.10

    1 Public Law 90-448, 82 Stat. 572 (1968).

    2 Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975 (1973).

    3 These statutes are codified at 42 U.S.C. 4001-4129. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP; its regulations implementing the NFIP appear at 44 CFR parts 59-77.

    4 The FDPA defines “regulated lending institution” to mean any bank, savings and loan association, credit union, farm credit bank, Federal land bank association, production credit association, or similar institution subject to the supervision of a Federal entity for lending regulation. 42 U.S.C. 4003(a)(1).

    5 An SFHA is an area within a flood plain having a one percent or greater chance of flood occurrence in any given year. 44 CFR 59.1. SFHAs are delineated on maps issued by the FEMA for individual communities. 44 CFR part 65. A community establishes its eligibility to participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing flood plain management measures that regulate new construction and by making substantial improvements within its SFHAs to eliminate or minimize future flood damage. 44 CFR part 60.

    6See 12 CFR part 22 (OCC), part 208 (Board), part 339 (FDIC), part 614 (FCA), and part 760 (NCUA).

    7 Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 916 (2012).

    8 Section 100209 of the Biggert-Waters Act, amending section 102(d) of the FDPA (42 U.S.C. 4012a(d)).

    9 Section 100244 of the Act, amending section 102(e) of the FDPA (42 U.S.C. 4012a(e)).

    10 Section 100239 of the Biggert-Waters Act, amending section 102(b) of the FDPA (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)) and section 1364(a)(3)(C) of the 1968 Act (42 U.S.C. 4104a(a)(3)(C)).

    B. Regulatory History

    In October 2013, the Agencies jointly issued proposed rules to implement the escrow, force placement, and private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Act (the October 2013 Proposed Rule).11 In March 2014, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA) 12 was enacted, which, among other things, amended the Biggert-Waters Act requirements regarding the escrow of flood insurance premiums and fees and created a new exemption from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements for certain detached structures. Accordingly, the Agencies jointly issued a new proposed rule in October 2014 to implement the new escrow and detached structure provisions.13 In July 2015, the Agencies jointly issued final rules to implement the escrow and detached structure provisions of HFIAA and the force-placed flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Act.14 Based on comments received in response to the October 2013 Proposed Rule, and the statutory effective date for the escrow provisions, the Agencies decided to finalize the escrow and force-placed insurance provisions and to revise and re-propose the private flood insurance provisions.

    11 78 FR 65108 (Oct. 30, 2013).

    12 Public Law 113-89, 128 Stat. 1020 (2014).

    13 79 FR 64518 (Oct. 30, 2014).

    14 80 FR 43216 (July 21, 2015).

    The October 2013 Proposed Rule would have required a regulated lending institution to accept all coverage meeting the statutory definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act. The Agencies requested comment on various issues related to this requirement. In particular, the Agencies sought comment on the inclusion of a safe harbor that would allow lenders to rely on the expertise of State insurance regulators to determine whether a policy meets the definition of private flood insurance and must be accepted by a lender. Additionally, the Agencies asked whether the rule should include a provision expressly permitting regulated lending institutions to accept, at their discretion, flood insurance provided by private insurers that does not meet the Biggert-Waters Act's definition of private flood insurance (discretionary acceptance). The Agencies also solicited comment on what criteria the Agencies might require for such a policy.

    The Agencies received 81 written comments on the October 2013 Proposed Rule, including 51 comments addressing some aspect of private flood insurance. These commenters addressed specific issues, such as: The regulatory definition of “private flood insurance,” the use of a regulatory safe harbor to facilitate compliance by regulated lending institutions, whether private flood insurance that does not conform to the statutory definition of the term should be accepted by regulated lending institutions, whether alternative criteria for such non-conforming private flood insurance should be developed by the Agencies, and whether regulated lending institutions should be permitted to accept certain non-traditional, non-conforming flood insurance coverage, such as Amish Aid plans.

    This proposal addresses the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Act.15 The preamble discusses comments received in response to the October 2013 Proposed Rule, as appropriate, in the section-by section analysis, below.

    15 In connection with the issuance of this proposal, the Agencies have coordinated and consulted with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), as required by certain provisions of the flood insurance statutes. See 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(1). Four of the five Agencies (OCC, Board, FDIC, and NCUA) are members of the FFIEC.

    II. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Definitions

    Mutual aid society. As discussed below, the Agencies are proposing a provision that would permit regulated lending institutions to accept, at their discretion and under certain circumstances, a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that does not meet the definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act. This provision includes specific standards for the acceptance of flood policies issued by mutual aid societies. In connection with this provision, the Agencies are proposing to add a definition of “mutual aid society” to their rules. Under the proposed definition, to qualify as a mutual aid society, an organization would need to meet three criteria: (1) The members must share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond; (2) the organization must cover losses caused by damage to members' property including damage caused by flooding, pursuant to an agreement, in accordance with this common bond; and (3) the organization must have a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding. This proposed definition would ensure that only established organizations that consist of members with similar delineated goals or purposes, that have agreed to cover damage caused by flooding, and that have adequately covered flood losses in the past could be considered a “mutual aid society.”

    The Agencies request specific comment on whether the terms of this proposed definition adequately cover the types of organizations that should be considered “mutual aid societies” for purposes of the discretionary acceptance provision in this proposed rule. Specifically, the Agencies request comment on whether the proposed criteria are too broad or too narrow, and, if so, whether the final rule should include alternative, or additional, criteria.

    Private flood insurance. The proposed rule would amend the Definitions section to include the definition of “private flood insurance” specified in section 100239 of the Biggert-Waters Act, which added a new section 102(b)(7) to the FDPA. The proposed rule would define “private flood insurance” consistent with the statutory definition, with some clarifying edits, to mean an insurance policy that:

    1. Is issued by an insurance company that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located; or, in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the State insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction where the property to be insured is located;

    2. Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under a standard flood insurance policy (SFIP), including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer; 16

    16 When determining whether coverage is at least as broad as coverage provided under an SFIP, regulated lenders should compare like policies (e.g., a policy covering a 1-4 family residence or a single family dwelling unit in a condominium to an SFIP dwelling policy, a policy covering all other buildings except residential condominium buildings to an SFIP general property policy, or a policy covering a residential condominium building to an SFIP Residential Condominium Building Association Policy).

    3. Includes a requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to the insured and the regulated lending institution, or a servicer acting on the institution's behalf;

    4. Includes information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    5. Includes a mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP;

    6. Includes a provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial for all or part of a claim under a policy; and

    7. Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    The proposed rule would define “SFIP” to mean a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to a regulated lending institution. The Agencies request comment on whether this is the correct time-frame for determining what version of the SFIP the regulated lending institution should use to evaluate the private policy. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule also contains criteria that regulated lending institutions would apply to determine whether a policy's coverage is “at least as broad as” SFIP coverage.

    The Agencies received a number of general comments in response to this definition of “private flood insurance” in the October 2013 Proposed Rule. One commenter argued that imposing a requirement on regulated lending institutions to evaluate a private flood insurance policy for compliance with the statutory definition would put such institutions in an untenable position: A failure to accept a compliant private policy would be considered a violation, while accepting a private policy that is later judged by an examiner to be non-compliant would also result in a violation with potential civil monetary penalties. Another commenter stated that private flood insurance is market-based, and that it is not realistic to require such coverage to duplicate NFIP terms.

    The Agencies also received comments on the specific requirements in the definition. One commenter stated that the definition of “flood” included in some private flood insurance policies can differ from that of the NFIP, which has led to private policies being rejected by lenders and regulators. Some commenters asserted that the higher deductibles offered under many private flood insurance policies directly conflict with NFIP maximum deductibles. One of these commenters further noted that there are many instances when a higher deductible is reasonable on a policy purchased by a commercial business that has the financial capability to handle such a deductible. Another commenter noted that private flood insurance policies typically include a provision that details the maximum coverage amount, or aggregate limit, payable during the policy term. The statutory definition does not permit such maximum limits, which the commenter characterized as a major change that may not be acceptable to private insurers. One commenter also stated that the statute of limitations provision in the definition should be amended to allow for filing suit within two years after date of loss for commercial properties, not one year as in the definition.

    The Agencies also received comments regarding the cancellation provision in the definition. One commenter asserted that the cancellation provision in the proposed definition is problematic because nothing in an SFIP provides a basis to cancel a policy. Another commenter recommended that the definition be amended to recognize the notice of cancellation standards for commercial properties (typically 10 or 30 days). A commenter also stated that notice of cancellation provisions should be allowed that are no more restrictive than provisions in commercial property forms. Another commenter noted that the requirement to provide 45 days written notice of cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage is problematic because very few private flood policies require this type of notice. This commenter specifically noted that lenders would be unable to accept private flood policies under this definition going forward, including those policies lenders have historically considered acceptable.

    The Agencies note that the definition of “private flood insurance” included in the October 2013 Proposed Rule and in this current proposal is mandated by the Biggert-Waters Act. Therefore, the Agencies may not make substantive changes to this definition in our regulations. However, the issues raised in connection with this definition by commenters influenced the Agencies' development and inclusion of a proposed provision that would permit institutions at their discretion to accept a private flood policy that does not meet the definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act, as discussed below.

    “At least as broad as.” Many commenters on the October 2013 Proposed Rule also asserted that it would be difficult for institutions to determine whether private flood insurance coverage is “at least as broad as” the coverage provided under the SFIP, as required by statute. In response to these comments, the Agencies have proposed to clarify the meaning of this phrase. Specifically, the proposed definition of “private flood insurance” would provide that a policy is “at least as broad as” the coverage provided under an SFIP if the policy, at a minimum: (1) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP; (2) covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; (3) contains the coverage provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance; (4) for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender, contains deductibles no higher than the specified NFIP maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions as under an SFIP; (5) provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP; any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may only pertain to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and (6) does not contain conditions that narrow the coverage that would be provided in an SFIP.

    The Agencies believe these criteria would ensure that a private flood insurance policy provides coverage that would protect the collateral securing the mortgage loan, thereby protecting both the property owner and the regulated lending institution making the loan, to the same extent as a policy issued under the NFIP. The Agencies specifically request comment on whether these criteria facilitate a regulated lending institution's determination of whether flood insurance coverage is “at least as broad as” the coverage provided under the SFIP.

    B. Requirement To Purchase Flood Insurance

    This section currently sets forth the general requirement that a regulated lending institution shall not make, increase, extend, or renew any designated loan unless the building or mobile home and any personal property securing the loan is covered by flood insurance for the term of the loan. The coverage amount must at least equal the lesser of the outstanding principal balance of the designated loan or the maximum limit of coverage available for the particular type of property under the 1968 Act (mandatory purchase requirement). It further provides that flood insurance coverage under the FDPA is limited to the building or mobile home and any personal property that secures a loan and not the land itself. A “designated loan” means a loan secured by a building or mobile home that is located or to be located in an SFHA in which flood insurance is available under the 1968 Act, as amended.

    As in the October 2013 Proposed Rule, the Agencies are proposing to amend this section to implement section 102(b)(1)(B) of the FDPA, as added by section 100239(a)(1) of the Biggert-Waters Act, which requires that all regulated lending institutions accept “private flood insurance,” as defined in the statute, if certain conditions are met. Specifically, the proposed rule includes a new provision that would require a regulated lending institution to accept a private flood insurance policy that meets both: (1) The statutory definition of “private flood insurance,” and (2) the mandatory purchase requirement, described above.

    C. Compliance Aid for Mandatory Acceptance

    The October 2013 Proposed Rule proposed to add to the flood insurance regulations a safe harbor that would have allowed lenders to rely on a State insurance regulator's written determination that a particular private insurance policy satisfies the rule's definition of “private flood insurance” and, therefore, must be accepted by the lender in satisfaction of the mandatory purchase requirement. The Agencies included this safe harbor because of concern that many regulated lending institutions, especially small institutions, would have difficulty evaluating whether a flood insurance policy meets the definition of “private flood insurance” that must be accepted, given their lack of technical insurance expertise regarding flood insurance policies.

    Commenters on the October 2013 Proposed Rule expressed considerable support for the inclusion of a safe harbor, with many noting that few lenders have the capacity to determine whether policies meet the required standards. However, some commenters criticized the specific safe harbor included in the proposal and suggested alternatives.

    In particular, many commenters raised concerns about the feasibility of State insurance regulators determining if private flood insurance is compliant with the Biggert-Waters Act, a Federal statute. Commenters noted there currently is no mechanism or process for a State insurance regulator to make such a determination. They further noted that even if such a mechanism is developed, States might not implement it consistently and it could lead to fifty different State standards. Many commenters also indicated that a State insurance regulator does not directly supervise providers of surplus lines insurance and, therefore, the safe harbor would not be available for surplus lines insurers.

    State insurance regulators raised many of the concerns regarding the proposed safe harbor. One State insurance regulatory agency stated that the proposed safe harbor should provide only a rebuttable presumption that the lender must accept the private flood insurance policy. Accordingly, the lender would not have to accept the policy if the lender or the lender's Federal supervisory agency determines that the policy does not meet the Federal legal standards for “private flood insurance.” This commenter also noted that a State insurance regulator lacks the legal authority to certify that a private flood insurance policy complies with Federal law, but could inform the insurer if it sees something in the policy that would make it non-compliant with Federal law. The National Association of State Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) raised a similar objection. It stated that its members had raised concerns about the proposed safe harbor because it may not be possible for some State insurance regulators to determine whether a private flood insurance policy satisfies the Federal statutory definition of the term because of the particular State laws under which they operate.

    Another commenter noted that, even if included in the regulation, a lender would not always benefit from the safe harbor because a State may not have made a determination regarding a particular policy. In this case, a lender would have to determine whether private flood insurance is compliant, particularly with respect to the “as broad as” requirement.

    Among the numerous alternative safe harbors suggested, some commenters recommended that, instead of a State insurance regulator, the insurance company should certify that the private flood insurance policy being provided meets the statutory definition. One commenter stated that the insurance company should not only certify compliance with Federal law requirements, but also indemnify the lender if the policy should prove not to comply with Federal law and result in a loss to the lender. Another commenter recommended that an insurer's certification should provide that the private flood insurance policy's coverage is “at least as broad as” that provided under the NFIP. Commenters also suggested that the Agencies provide model certification language or a certification checklist.

    The Agencies believe that it would be appropriate for the rule to include a compliance aid provision to assist consumers and regulated lending institutions in determining whether and how a flood insurance policy meets the definition of “private flood insurance” and is therefore a policy that the institution is required to accept as long as it otherwise meets the mandatory purchase requirement. Therefore, after careful consideration, and based on the comments received on the proposed “safe harbor” under the October 2013 Proposed Rule, the Agencies have included in this proposed rule a compliance aid provision, which provides that a policy is deemed to meet the definition of “private flood insurance” if the following three criteria are met: (1) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition; (2) the regulated lending institution verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in its summary and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and (3) the policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation” (assurance clause).

    The Agencies believe that the first criterion of this proposed compliance aid provision, an insurance company's written summary demonstrating how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance, would assist a regulated lending institution in reviewing flood insurance policies, which are often lengthy and complicated. By identifying provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in this definition, this summary would enable the institution to conduct expeditiously the verification process described in the second criterion. To satisfy the second criterion, a regulated lending institution would be required to perform its own due diligence before accepting the policy instead of solely relying on the insurance company's claim that the policy meets the statutory and regulatory definition of “private flood insurance.” The third prong, the insurance company's statement that the policy complies with the definition of “private flood insurance,” could provide the policyholder and the regulated lending institution with recourse against the insurance company if the company fails to abide by the terms included in the definition of “private flood insurance.”

    The Agencies recognize that this provision does not relieve a regulated lending institution of the requirement to accept a policy that meets the definition of “private flood insurance” and the mandatory purchase requirement, even if the policy is not accompanied by a written summary and does not include an assurance clause. However, the Agencies believe that this provision would facilitate the ability of regulated institutions, as well as consumers, to recognize policies that a lender must accept and may encourage insurance providers to issue policies that meet these criteria.17

    17 We note that this provision is not a “safe harbor” as generally understood. Because the statute mandates that regulated institutions accept any private flood insurance policy that meets the statutory definition of “private flood insurance” (provided it meets the mandatory purchase requirement), the provision would not reduce or eliminate liability if a lender failed to accept a policy that met the requirements in the statutory definition of private flood insurance. Therefore, we have not used the term “safe harbor” in this proposal.

    The Agencies request comment on all aspects of this proposed compliance aid provision. In particular, commenters should address whether the provision as proposed would assist regulated lending institutions in complying with the requirement to accept insurance policies that meet the definition of “private flood insurance.” Furthermore, commenters should address whether each of the three criteria in this proposed provision is necessary and feasible. Moreover, the Agencies request comment on whether this provision may provide an incentive to insurance providers to demonstrate that their policy meets the definition of “private flood insurance” and, therefore, must be accepted by regulated lending institutions.

    D. Discretionary Acceptance

    In general. The Agencies are proposing to permit a regulated lending institution to exercise its discretion to accept certain types of flood insurance policies issued by a private insurer other than private flood insurance policies that an institution is required to accept. Although section 102(b)(1)(B) of the FDPA, as added by section 100239(a)(1) of the Biggert-Waters Act, requires a regulated lending institution to accept “private flood insurance” as that term is defined by statute, the Agencies note that the statute is silent about whether a regulated lending institution may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that does not meet the statutory definition. The Agencies believe that the Congressional intent of the statute was to stimulate the private flood insurance market and, therefore, the statute should be construed to permit discretionary acceptance of flood insurance policies issued by private insurers that do not meet the statutory definition requiring mandatory acceptance.18

    18 The Biggert-Waters Act's reforms were designed to improve the NFIP's financial integrity and stability as well as to “increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risk.” H. Rep. No. 112-102, at 1 (2011); see also 158 Cong. Rec. H4622 (daily ed. June 29, 2012) (statement of Rep. Biggert).

    Additionally, in the October 2013 Proposed Rule, the Agencies specifically requested comment on whether the Agencies should include a provision allowing lenders to exercise discretion in accepting a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that does not meet the statutory definition, but otherwise would provide flood coverage consistent with the FDPA, and a majority of commenters were supportive. Among other reasons, commenters suggested that permitting discretionary acceptance would promote a diverse market for flood insurance policies issued by private insurers; reduce delays in lenders' analyses of policies; and limit the likelihood of lender confusion if NFIP requirements included in the definition of “private flood insurance” change. Moreover, as noted above, commenters stated that it would be difficult for many policies to meet the statutory definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act.

    In addition to soliciting comment on whether the rule should specifically state that regulated lending institutions may accept flood insurance policies issued by private insurers that do not meet all of the statutory criteria for “private flood insurance,” the Agencies asked whether some criteria should be required for such policies. The Agencies received comments with various views on the imposition of such criteria. This proposed rule adds criteria intended to address some of the comments received.

    Consequently, in addition to requiring regulated lending institutions to accept private flood insurance policies that comply with the statutory definition of “private flood insurance,” the proposed rule would expressly permit a regulated lending institution to accept other types of flood insurance policies issued by private insurers, provided the following criteria are met.19

    19 The Agencies have included this provision pursuant to their authority under the FDPA to issue regulations directing lending institutions not to make, increase, extend, or renew any loan secured by property located in an SFHA unless the property is covered by “flood insurance.” See 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b).

    First, under the proposed rule, the flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer would be required to be issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State in which the property to be insured is located. In the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, the flood insurance issued by a private insurer would be required to be issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located. This criterion is included in the definition of “private flood insurance” in the Biggert-Waters Act, and the Agencies believe it is appropriate to include it as a criterion for discretionary acceptance as well. Because State insurance regulators, as the functional regulators of insurance companies, may be in the best position to evaluate the financial condition and ability of a private insurer to meet its obligations under a flood insurance policy, the Agencies believe this proposed criterion would safeguard both the consumer purchasing the policy and the regulated lending institution issuing a loan for which the insured property serves as collateral.

    Second, under the proposed rule, the flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer would be required to cover both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees. This proposed criterion would ensure that the flood policy protects both the property owner and the regulated lending institution issuing the mortgage loan.

    Third, the proposal would require that a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer must provide for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law. This proposed criterion would ensure that a policy is cancelled only for limited reasons and that the policyholder receives reasonable notification of cancellation.

    Finally, the proposal would require that a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer must either be “at least as broad” as the coverage provided under an SFIP, as defined above, or provide coverage that is “similar” to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. In determining whether the coverage is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, the proposal would require the regulated lending institution to: (1) Compare the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP; (2) reasonably determine that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in an SFHA; and (3) document its findings. The Agencies believe these proposed criteria would provide safeguards so that a regulated lending institution does not accept policies that do not sufficiently protect the collateral securing the loan.

    The Agencies believe that the proposed discretionary acceptance provision provides regulated lending institutions with greater flexibility to accept flood insurance policies that do not contain all of the requirements included in the definition of “private flood insurance.” Specifically, under this provision, regulated lending institutions would be able to accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that: (1) Does not contain a mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP, provided that the policy covers the mortgagor and the mortgagee; 20 (2) does not contain information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP; (3) provides for cancellation of the policy following “reasonable notice” to the borrower instead of requiring 45 days prior written notice for cancellation or non-renewal; (4) permits cancellation of the policy for reasons of non-payment or when State law mandates cancellation, in addition to the reasons for cancellation permitted in an SFIP; and (5) does not contain a provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy. In addition, with respect to deductibles, exclusions, and conditions, coverage under a policy accepted pursuant to the proposed discretionary acceptance provision could be “similar to” an SFIP instead of “at least as broad as” an SFIP, provided the institution documents that it has compared the differences between the policy and an SFIP and that it has reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property to be insured.

    20 The SFIP mortgage interest clause ensures that any loss payable will be paid to any mortgagee named in the NFIP policy application and declarations page, as well as any other mortgagee or loss payee determined to exist at the time of the loss. We note that this differs from a clause covering both the mortgagor and the mortgagee, who are named in the policy.

    The Agencies solicit comment as to whether these proposed criteria are appropriate for regulated lending institutions accepting flood insurance policies issued by a private insurer that do not meet the statutory definition of “private flood insurance.” In particular, the Agencies seek comment on whether the proposed criteria are compatible with industry practice, or whether the proposed criteria would exclude currently accepted policies or significantly limit the growth of the market for flood insurance policies issued by private insurers.

    Separately, the Agencies request comment in three other areas related to the proposed discretionary acceptance criteria: (1) Whether the phrase “sufficient protection of the loan” is adequately clear, (2) whether the proposed criteria raise any safety and soundness risks for regulated lending institutions, and (3) whether the proposed criteria raise any consumer protection issues.

    Exception for mutual aid societies. The proposed rule also includes an exception for certain private flood coverage provided by mutual aid societies. This proposed exception is intended to be responsive to several commenters on the October 2013 Proposed Rule that supported adding provisions permitting regulated lending institutions to accept certain non-traditional coverage that does not satisfy the statutory definition for “private flood insurance,” such as Amish Aid plans, even though this coverage is not provided by a State-regulated insurance company. Under this proposed exception, flood protection offered by mutual aid societies that would not meet all of the above requirements for discretionary acceptance could continue to be offered, for example, to members of religious communities who do not purchase insurance from traditional insurance companies, provided certain conditions are met.

    Specifically, the proposed rule would permit a regulated lending institution to accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement if: (1) The institution's primary supervisory agency determines that such policy or types of policies meet the requirement for flood insurance for purposes of the Federal flood insurance statutes; (2) the policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements in the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement; (3) the policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and (4) the regulated lending institution has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in an SFHA.

    In determining whether a policy issued by a mutual aid society provides sufficient protection of the loan under the proposed rule, the regulated lending institution would be required to: (1) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition; (2) consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and (3) document its conclusions.

    Under the proposed rule, each Agency would use its discretion individually to determine whether policies offered by mutual aid societies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of the Federal flood insurance statutes. The OCC and FCA propose to conduct their own evaluations using the criteria that institutions are expected to consider under 12 CFR 22.3(c)(4) or 12 CFR 614.4930(c)(4), respectively. Based on their current practices regarding non-traditional flood insurance plans, the Board, FDIC, and NCUA expect that cases in which they approve policies issued by mutual aid societies to be rare and limited.

    The OCC notes that it currently permits national banks and Federal savings associations to accept flood coverage issued by Amish mutual aid societies, such as Amish Aid plans. Amish Aid societies consist of members who share a common religious bond and, in accordance with this common bond, have a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements (Amish Aid plans) to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding in accordance with this common bond, either by paying to cover the cost of damaged structures or by repairing or rebuilding the structures. Amish Aid plans thereby provide sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property and protect the lender as well as the borrower. The proposed rule, therefore, would maintain the status quo by continuing to allow national banks and Federal savings associations to accept flood coverage issued by mutual aid societies that have a demonstrated history of covering expenses caused by flood damage to members' property, and that is approved by the OCC, such as Amish Aid plans.

    The Agencies request comment on the proposed requirements for discretionary acceptance of polices issued by mutual aid societies, including the proposed criteria a regulated lending institution would be required to consider in determining whether the policy provides sufficient protection for the loan.

    Discretionary acceptance for nonresidential property. The mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement applies to loans secured by either residential or nonresidential properties. The Agencies understand that flood insurance policies issued by private insurers covering loans secured by nonresidential properties, such as commercial properties, may have coverage, deductibles, exclusions, and conditions that differ from NFIP policies based on the type, size, and number of nonresidential properties covered by the policy. In some instances, such policies are individually negotiated and tailored to the nonresidential property that secures a loan. The Agencies request comment on whether the proposed definition of “private flood insurance” or the proposed discretionary acceptance provision, both of which include specific requirements with respect to deductibles, exclusions, conditions, and cancellation, would prevent regulated lending institutions from accepting flood insurance policies issued by private insurers in the nonresidential lending context, even though coverage not including these requirements would be acceptable for policies covering another type of risk, such as fire or wind.

    Furthermore, the Agencies request comment on whether the final rule should include criteria for the discretionary acceptance of flood insurance policies issued by private insurers for nonresidential properties that are different from the criteria applicable to flood insurance policies issued by private insurers for residential properties. For example, the Agencies could require that the policy: (1) Meet the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in the mandatory purchase requirement, (2) cover both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees, and (3) require the regulated institution to determine that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property, consistent with general safety and soundness principles, as is required for the acceptance of coverage provided by mutual aid societies. The Agencies request comment on whether a provision for flood insurance issued by private insurers covering nonresidential properties that includes these criteria is appropriate or whether different or additional criteria should be applied in the nonresidential context. For example, should the Agencies require the policy to be issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located, or issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located?

    III. Regulatory Analysis A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    OCC: In general, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.21 Under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule.

    21See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The OCC currently supervises approximately 1,032 small entities.22 We identified 974 OCC-supervised small entities that may be impacted by the proposed rule, which is a substantial number.23 The OCC classifies the economic impact of total costs on a bank as significant if the total costs in a single year are greater than 5 percent of total salaries and benefits, or greater than 2.5 percent of total non-interest expense. The OCC estimates that the average cost per small bank is approximately $10,400 per year. Using this cost estimate, we believe the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on four small banks, which is not a substantial number. Therefore, the OCC certifies that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities supervised by the OCC. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    22 We base our estimate of the number of small entities on the Small Business Administration's size thresholds for commercial banks and savings institutions, and trust companies, which are $550 million and $38.5 million, respectively. Consistent with the General Principles of Affiliation 13 CFR 121.103(a), we count the assets of affiliated financial institutions when determining if we should classify an institution we supervise as a small entity. We used December 31, 2015, to determine size because a “financial institution's assets are determined by averaging the assets reported on its four quarterly financial statements for the preceding year.” See footnote 8 of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards.

    23 To estimate the number of small banks that may be affected if the proposed rule is implemented, we determined the number of small banks that (a) self-identify by reporting mortgage servicing assets, reporting loans secured by real estate, or as originating 1-4 family residential mortgage loans on a Call Report submitted for any quarter in calendar year 2015 or during the first quarter of 2016 or (b) are identified by OCC examiners as originating residential mortgage loans or as Home Mortgage Disclosure Act filers.

    Board: The RFA requires an agency to publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with a proposed rule or certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Board is publishing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and requests public comment on all aspects of its analysis. The Board will conduct a final regulatory flexibility analysis after considering the comments received during the public comment period.

    1. Statement of the need for, and objectives of, the proposed rule. The Board is proposing revisions to Regulation H to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Act. Consistent with the Biggert-Waters Act, the proposal would require regulated lending institutions accept any private insurance policy that meets the Biggert-Waters Act's definition of “private flood insurance” in satisfaction of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. The proposed rule would also include a compliance aid that would deem a policy to meet the Biggert-Waters Act definition of “private flood insurance” if: (i) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary from the insurer that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance; (ii) the lender verifies that the policy includes the provisions identified in the summary; and (iii) the policy includes language certifying that the policy meets the criteria. The Agencies are also proposing to permit lenders to accept, at their discretion, flood insurance policies issued by private insurers, and plans issued by mutual aid societies, that do not meet the definition of “private flood insurance,” provided they meet certain conditions.

    2. Small entities affected by the proposed rule. All State member banks that are subject to the Federal flood insurance statutes and the flood insurance provisions of Regulation H would be subject to the proposed rule. As of September 27, 2016, there were 821 State member banks. Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, banks and other depository institutions with total assets of $550 million or less are considered small. Approximately 588 State member banks would be considered small entities by the Small Business Administration.24

    24 The Board reviewed the number of State member banks that reported mortgage servicing assets, loans secured by real estate, or originating 1-4 family residential mortgage loans on a Call Report submitted for the four quarters ending on June 30, 2016, which included nearly all State member banks. Consequently, the Board is estimating that all small State member banks may be affected if the proposed rule is implemented.

    The Board believes the proposal will not have a significant impact on small entities. First, the Board believes that most existing flood insurance policies issued by private insurers would not meet the definition of “private flood insurance” under the Biggert-Waters Act and that insurers would request that lenders accept the policies under the more flexible proposed discretionary acceptance provisions. The proposed provisions on discretionary acceptance, including plans issued by mutual aid societies, are at the discretion of the lender. As a result, regulated lending institutions may choose not to accept policies under those proposed provisions and would therefore have no compliance burden associated with those provisions.

    Second, with respect to flood insurance policies that a private insurer would seek to have a lender accept under the proposed mandatory acceptance provisions, the Board notes that for those regulated lending institutions, including those that are considered small entities, that accept flood insurance policies issued by private insurers today, such institutions already have experience evaluating such policies with the criteria in the Biggert-Waters Act definition of “private flood insurance,” which are almost identical to the criteria referenced in guidance issued by the Agencies and that currently govern the acceptance of private policies by regulated lending institutions. Third, as discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the Board believes the proposed rule would alleviate the burden on regulated lending institutions, including those that are considered small entities, of evaluating whether a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer meets the definition of “private flood insurance” under the mandatory acceptance provisions with the addition of a proposed compliance aid that leverages the expertise of the insurer issuing the policy.

    Although the proposed rule could impact a substantial number of small entities, the Board estimates that the costs to these entities will not be significant. The Board estimates that the cost for each covered small entity will be approximately $8,096 during the first year the proposal goes into effect. This estimate includes first year compliance costs 25 and ongoing costs 26 and assumes that the usage of private flood insurance policies by borrower, as defined by the proposed rule, is distributed consistently across small entities. The actual ongoing cost estimate may be lower than stated because the estimate assumes that all of the policies for properties in High Risk Areas will cover loans held by Board-supervised institutions when some of these loans may be held by institutions supervised by other Agencies.

    25 Fixed compliance costs are estimated assuming each small entity requires one full-time employee working 20 hours at a rate of $101 an hour. The total cost of compliance for all 821 covered entities is approximately $1.658 million, or $2,020 for each small entity.

    26 Ongoing compliance costs are estimated based on available data. According to FEMA's Policy and Claim Statistics for Flood Insurance there are approximately 5,083,071 flood insurance policies nationally as of June 2016. Only 3,537,059 of these policies are located in “High Risk Areas” and would therefore require flood insurance. The Board estimated the future adoption rate of private flood insurance will be approximately 10 percent of the total of flood insurance policies in any given year. Further, small entities hold approximately 10 percent of all loans secured by real estate held in portfolio by all Board-supervised banks as of June 30, 2016. The Board therefore assumed that small entities will have to review a similar share of annual private flood insurance policies. Ongoing policy review costs are estimated to be approximately $6,076 per year for each small entity, assuming one labor hour per year, per policy, at $101 per hour.

    3. Other Federal rules. The Board has not identified any likely duplication, overlap and/or potential conflict between the proposed rule and any Federal rule.

    4. Significant alternatives to the proposed revisions. The Board solicits comment on any significant alternatives that would reduce the regulatory burden associated with this proposed rule on small entities.

    FDIC: The RFA generally requires that, in connection with a notice of proposed rulemaking, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.27 A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration has defined “small entities” to include banking organizations with total assets less than or equal to $550 million.28

    27 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    28 13 CFR 121.201 (as amended, effective December 2, 2014).

    The FDIC supervises 3,204 small banking entities that have originated1-4 family residential mortgage loans or have reported holding mortgage servicing assets or loans secured by real estate and may therefore be affected by the proposed rule.29 The FDIC estimates that the annual cost for each covered small entity will range between $2,020 and $4,500 per year, on average. This estimate includes compliance costs 30 and ongoing costs 31 and assumes that the usage of private flood insurance policies by borrowers, as defined by the proposed rule, is distributed consistently across small entities. The actual ongoing cost estimates are likely to be lower than stated because the estimate assumes that all of the loans for properties in High Risk Areas are held by FDIC-supervised institutions; at least some of these loans are held by OCC- and Board-supervised institutions.

    29 FDIC Call Reports (four quarters ending on March 31, 2016).

    30 Fixed compliance costs are estimated assuming each small entity requires one full-time employee working 20 hours at a rate of $101 an hour. The total cost of compliance for all 3,204 covered entities is approximately $6.5 million, or $2,020 for each small entity.

    31 Ongoing compliance costs are estimated based on available data. According to FEMA's Policy and Claim Statistics for Flood Insurance there are approximately 5,118,254 flood insurance policies nationally as of March 2016. Only 3,568,638 of these policies are located in “High Risk Areas” and would therefore require flood insurance. The FDIC estimated the future adoption rate of private flood insurance will be between 1 percent and 10 percent of the total of flood insurance policies in any given year. Further, small entities hold approximately 22 percent of all loans secured by real estate held in portfolio by all FDIC-supervised banks as of March 31, 2016. The FDIC therefore assumed that small entities will have to review a similar share of annual private flood insurance policies. Ongoing policy review costs are estimated to be between $250 and $2,500 per year for each small entity, assuming one labor hour per year, per policy, at $101 per hour.

    The proposed rule could impact a substantial number of small entities; however, the costs to those entities are not estimated to be significant. For this reason, the FDIC certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that it supervises.

    FCA: Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the FCA hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System, considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, Farm Credit System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the RFA.

    NCUA: The RFA requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.32 Under section 605(b) of the RFA, this analysis is not required if an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule.33 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets.34 As of June 30, 2016, there are 4,345 small, Federally insured credit unions, and only about 2,894 of these credit unions have real estate loans.

    32 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    33 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    34 80 FR 57512 (September 24, 2015).

    NCUA classifies the economic impact of total costs on a credit union as significant if the total costs in a single year are greater than 5 percent of total salaries and benefits, or greater than 2.5 percent of total non-interest expense. NCUA estimates that the average cost per small credit union is approximately $2,020 per year. Using this cost estimate, NCUA believes the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on 63 small credit unions, which is not a substantial number. Therefore, NCUA certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).35 Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). Under Title II of the UMRA, indirect costs, foregone revenues and opportunity costs are not included when determining if a mandate meets or exceeds UMRA's cost threshold. The UMRA does not apply to regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.

    35 Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995), codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

    The OCC's estimated annual UMRA cost is approximately $36 million. Therefore, the OCC finds that the proposed rule does not trigger the UMRA cost threshold. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The OCC, Board, FDIC, and NCUA (the Agencies) 36 have determined that this proposed rule involves a collection of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    36 The FCA has determined that the proposed rule does not involve a collection of information pursuant to the PRA for System institutions because System institutions are Federally chartered instrumentalities of the United States and instrumentalities of the United States are specifically excepted from the definition of “collection of information” contained in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

    In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collection of information that is subject to the PRA by this proposed rule is found in 12 CFR 22.3, 208.25, 339.3, and 760.3.

    The Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization is not required to respond to, this information collection unless the information collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are 1557-0326 (OCC), 7100-0280 (Board), and 3133-0143 (NCUA). The FDIC will seek a new OMB control number.

    Under §§ 22.3(c)(2), 208.25(c)(3)(ii), 339.3(c)(2), and 760.3(c)(2), a policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance if, among other things, (i) it includes a written summary demonstrating how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance, identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition and (ii) the institution verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition.

    Under §§ 22.3(c)(3)(iv)(B)(3), 208.25(c)(3)(iii)(D)(2)(iii), 339.3(c)(3)(iv)(B)(3), and 760.3(c)(3)(iv)(B)(3), institutions have the discretion to accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP, does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, and does not satisfy §§ 22.3(c)(3)(iv)(A), 208.25(c)(3)(iii)(D)(1), 339.3(c)(3)(iv)(A), and 760.3(c)(iv)(A) if, among other things, the institution has documented in writing that it has compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP and reasonably determines that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan.

    Under §§ 22.3(c)(4)(iv), 208.5(c)(iv)(D), 339.3(c)(4)(iv), and 760.3(c)(4)(iv), institutions may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society if, among other things, it has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in the SFHA and documented its conclusions.

    Burden Estimates

    OCC:

    Number of Respondents: 1,341.

    Total Burden: 129,968 hours.

    Board:

    Number of Respondents: 846.

    Total Burden: 42,050 hours.

    FDIC:

    Number of Respondents:3,885.

    Total Burden: 136,100 hours.

    NCUA:

    Number of Respondents: 4,058.

    Total Burden: 95,211 hours.

    These collections are available to the public at www.reginfo.gov.

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the Agencies' estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of information collections 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.

    D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA) 37 requires that each Federal banking agency,38 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, consider, consistent with principles of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions generally must take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.

    37 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

    38 For purposes of RCDRIA, “Federal banking agency” means the OCC, FDIC, and Board. See 12 U.S.C. 4801.

    The Federal banking agencies note that comment on these matters has been solicited in other sections of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, and that the requirements of RCDRIA will be considered as part of the overall rulemaking process. In addition, the Federal banking agencies invite any other comments that further will inform the Federal banking agencies' consideration of RCDRIA.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 22

    Flood insurance, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

    12 CFR Part 208

    Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Confidential business information, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Flood insurance, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    12 CFR Part 339

    Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

    12 CFR Part 614

    Agriculture, Banks, banking, Flood insurance, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.

    12 CFR Part 760

    Credit unions, Mortgages, Flood insurance, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR CHAPTER I Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, the OCC proposes to amend chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 22—LOANS IN AREAS HAVING SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS 1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 93a, 1462a, 1463, 1464, and 5412(b)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.

    2. Section 22.2 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraphs (h) and (i) as paragraphs (i) and (j), paragraphs (j) and (k) as (l) and (m), and (l) and (m) as (o) and (p); and b. Adding new paragraphs (h), (k) and (n) to read as follows:
    § 22.2 Definitions.

    (h) Mutual aid society means an organization—

    (1) Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;

    (2) That covers losses caused by damage to members' property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and

    (3) That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding.

    (k) Private flood insurance means an insurance policy that:

    (1) Is issued by an insurance company that is:

    (i) Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located, by the insurance regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or

    (ii) Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property;

    (2) Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. For purposes of this part, a policy is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP if, at a minimum, the policy:

    (i) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Contains the coverage and provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance;

    (iv) Contains deductibles no higher than the specified maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender;

    (v) Provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP. Any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and

    (vi) May not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP;

    (3) Includes all of the following:

    (i) A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:

    (A) The insured; and

    (B) The national bank or Federal savings association that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;

    (ii) Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    (iii) A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and

    (iv) A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and

    (4) Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    (n) SFIP means, for purposes of §§ 22.2 and 22.3, a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to a national bank or Federal savings association.

    3. Section 22.3 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 22.3 Requirement to purchase flood insurance where available.

    (c) Private flood insurance. (1) Mandatory acceptance. A national bank or Federal savings association must accept private flood insurance, as defined in § 22.2(k), in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement, provided that the private flood insurance meets the requirement for coverage under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Compliance aid for mandatory acceptance. A flood insurance policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance in § 22.2(k) for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance in § 22.2(k) by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition;

    (ii) The national bank or Federal savings association verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and

    (iii) The policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

    (3) Discretionary acceptance. A national bank or Federal savings association may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP and does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, as defined in § 22.2(k), in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section, only if the coverage under such flood insurance policy meets the amount and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and the policy:

    (i) Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located by the insurance regulator of that State; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Provides for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law; and

    (iv) Either:

    (A) Meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (iii) through (vi) of this section; or

    (B) Provides coverage that is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer, and the national bank or Federal savings association has:

    (1) Compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP;

    (2) Reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area; and

    (3) Documented its findings under paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.

    (4) Exception for mutual aid societies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, a national bank or Federal savings association may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The OCC has determined that such types of policies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of this Act;

    (ii) The policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section;

    (iii) The policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and

    (iv) The national bank or Federal savings association has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area. In making this determination, the national bank or Federal savings association must:

    (A) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition;

    (B) Consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and

    (C) Document its conclusions.

    Federal Reserve System
    12 CFR CHAPTER II Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board proposes to amend part 208 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 208—MEMBERSHIP OF STATE BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (REGULATION H) 4. The authority citation for part 208 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 24, 36, 92a, 93a, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338a, 371d, 461, 481-486, 601, 611, 1814, 1816, 1818, 1820(d)(9), 1823(j), 1828(o), 1831, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831r-1, 1831w, 1831x, 1835a, 1882, 2901-2907, 3105, 3310, 3331-3351, 3353, and 3905-3909; 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78l(b), 78l(i), 780-4(c)(5), 78q, 78q-1, 78w, 1681s, 1681w, 6801 and 6805; 31 U.S.C. 5318; 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.

    5. Amend § 208.25 by revising paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(11) and adding paragraphs (b)(12) through (b)(14) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 208.25 Loans in areas having special flood hazards.

    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (7) Mutual aid society means an organization—

    (i) Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;

    (ii) That covers losses caused by damage to members' property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and

    (iii) That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding.

    (8) NFIP means the National Flood Insurance Program authorized under the Act.

    (9) Private flood insurance means an insurance policy that:

    (i) Is issued by an insurance company that is:

    (A) Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located, by the insurance regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or

    (B) Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property;

    (ii) Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. For purposes of this part, a policy is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP if, at a minimum, the policy:

    (A) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP;

    (B) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (C) Contains the coverage and provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance;

    (D) Contains deductibles no higher than the specified maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender;

    (E) Provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP. Any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and

    (F) May not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP;

    (iii) Includes all of the following:

    (A) A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:

    (1) The insured; and

    (2) The member bank that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;

    (B) Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    (C) A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and

    (D) A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and

    (iv) Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    (10) Residential improved real estate means real estate upon which a home or other residential building is located or to be located.

    (11) Servicer means the person responsible for:

    (i) Receiving any scheduled, periodic payments from a borrower under the terms of a loan, including amounts for taxes, insurance premiums, and other charges with respect to the property securing the loan; and

    (ii) Making payments of principal and interest and any other payments from the amounts received from the borrower as may be required under the terms of the loan.

    (12) SFIP means, for purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to a member bank.

    (13) Special flood hazard area means the land in the flood plain within a community having at least a one percent chance of flooding in any given year, as designated by the Administrator of FEMA.

    (14) Table funding means a settlement at which a loan is funded by a contemporaneous advance of loan funds and an assignment of the loan to the person advancing the funds.

    (c) Requirement to purchase flood insurance where available.

    (3) Private flood insurance. (i) Mandatory acceptance. A member bank must accept private flood insurance, as defined in paragraph (b)(9) of this section, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement, provided that the private flood insurance meets the requirement for coverage under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

    (ii) Compliance aid for mandatory acceptance. A flood insurance policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance in paragraph (b)(9) of this section for purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section if:

    (A) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance in paragraph (b)(9) of this section by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition;

    (B) The member bank verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and

    (C) The policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

    (iii) Discretionary acceptance. A member bank may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP and does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, as defined in paragraph (b)(9) of this section, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, only if the coverage under such flood insurance policy meets the amount and term requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the policy:

    (A) Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located by the insurance regulator of that State; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located;

    (B) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (C) Provides for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law; and

    (D) Either:

    (1) Meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (b)(9)(ii)(A) and (C) through (F) of this section; or

    (2) Provides coverage that is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer, and the member bank has:

    (i) Compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP;

    (ii) Reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area; and

    (iii) Documented its findings under paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(D)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

    (iv) Exception for mutual aid societies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, a member bank may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (c)(1) of this section if:

    (A) The Board has determined that such types of policies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of this Act.

    (B) The policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;

    (C) The policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and

    (D) The member bank has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area. In making this determination, the member bank must:

    (1) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition;

    (2) Consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and

    (3) Document its conclusions.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
    12 CFR CHAPTER III Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the Board of Directors of the FDIC proposes to amend part 339 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

    PART 339—LOANS IN AREAS HAVING SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS 6. The authority citation for part 339 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1819 (Tenth), 5412(b)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.

    7. Section 339.2 is amended by adding the definitions of “Mutual aid society”, “Private flood insurance”, and “SFIP” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 339.2 Definitions.

    Mutual aid society means an organization—

    (1) Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;

    (2) That covers losses caused by damage to members' property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and

    (3) That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding.

    Private flood insurance means an insurance policy that:

    (1) Is issued by an insurance company that is:

    (i) Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located, by the insurance regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or

    (ii) Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property;

    (2) Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. For purposes of this part, a policy is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP if, at a minimum, the policy:

    (i) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Contains the coverage and provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance;

    (iv) Contains deductibles no higher than the specified maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender;

    (v) Provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP. Any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and

    (vi) May not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP;

    (3) Includes all of the following:

    (i) A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:

    (A) The insured; and

    (B) The FDIC-supervised institution that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;

    (ii) Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    (iii) A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and

    (iv) A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and

    (4) Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    SFIP means, for purposes of §§ 339.2 and 339.3, a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to an FDIC-supervised institution.

    8. Section 339.3 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 339.3 Requirement to purchase flood insurance where available.

    (c) Private flood insurance. (1) Mandatory acceptance. An FDIC-supervised institution must accept private flood insurance, as defined in § 339.2, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement, provided that the private flood insurance meets the requirement for coverage under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Compliance aid for mandatory acceptance. A flood insurance policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance in § 339.2 for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance in § 339.2 by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition;

    (ii) The FDIC-supervised institution verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and

    (iii) The policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

    (3) Discretionary acceptance. An FDIC-supervised institution may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP and does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, as defined in § 339.2, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section, only if the coverage under such flood insurance policy meets the amount and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and the policy:

    (i) Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located by the insurance regulator of that State; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Provides for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law; and

    (iv) Either:

    (A) Meets the criteria of private flood insurance, as defined in § 339.2, set forth in paragraphs (2)(i) and (iii) through (vi) of this section; or

    (B) Provides coverage that is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer, and the FDIC-supervised institution has:

    (1) Compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP;

    (2) Reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area; and

    (3) Documented its findings under paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.

    (4) Exception for mutual aid societies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, an FDIC-supervised institution may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The FDIC has determined that such types of policies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of this Act;

    (ii) The policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section;

    (iii) The policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and

    (iv) The FDIC-supervised institution has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area. In making this determination, the FDIC-supervised institution must:

    (A) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition;

    (B) Consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and

    (C) Document its conclusions.

    Farm Credit Administration
    12 CFR CHAPTER VI Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the FCA proposes to amend part 614 subpart S of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 614—LOANS IN AREAS HAVING SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS 9. The authority citation for part 614 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128; secs. 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13, 4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E, 4.18, 4.19, 4.36, 4.37, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2096, 2121, 2122, 2124, 2128, 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2199, 2201, 2202, 2202a, 2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 2207, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a, 2279a-2, 2279b, 2279b-1, 2279b-2, 2279f, 2279f-1, 2279aa, 2279aa-5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639.

    10. Section 614.4925, is amended by adding the definitions of “mutual aid society”, “private flood insurance”, and “SFIP” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 614.4925 Definitions.

    Mutual aid society means an organization:

    (1) Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;

    (2) That covers losses caused by damage to members' property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and

    (3) That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding.

    Private flood insurance means an insurance policy that:

    (1) Is issued by an insurance company that is:

    (i) Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located, by the insurance regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or

    (ii) Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property;

    (2) Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. For purposes of this subpart, a policy is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP if, at a minimum, the policy:

    (i) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Contains the coverage and provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance;

    (iv) Contains deductibles no higher than the specified maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender;

    (v) Provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP. Any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and

    (vi) May not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP;

    (3) Includes all of the following:

    (i) A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:

    (A) The insured; and

    (B) The System institution that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;

    (ii) Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    (iii) A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and

    (iv) A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and

    (4) Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    SFIP means, for purposes of §§ 614.4925 and 614.4930, a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to a System institution.

    11. Section 614.4930 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 614.4930 Requirement to purchase flood insurance where available.

    (c) Private flood insurance—(1) Mandatory acceptance. A System institution must accept private flood insurance, as defined in § 614.4925, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement, provided that the private flood insurance meets the requirement for coverage under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Compliance aid for mandatory acceptance. A flood insurance policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance in § 614.4925 for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance in § 614.4925 by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition;

    (ii) The System institution verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and

    (iii) The policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

    (3) Discretionary acceptance.—In general. A System institution may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP and does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, as defined in § 614.4925, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section, only if the coverage under such flood insurance policy meets the amount and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and the policy:

    (i) Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located by the insurance regulator of that State; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Provides for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law; and

    (iv) Either:

    (A) Meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (2)(i) and (iii) through (vi) of the definition of private flood insurance in § 614.4925; or

    (B) Provides coverage that is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer, and the System institution has:

    (1) Compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP;

    (2) Reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area; and

    (3) Documented its findings under paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(A)(B)(1) and (B)(2) of this section.

    (4) Exception for mutual aid societies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, a System institution may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The FCA has determined that such types of policies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of the 1968 Act;

    (ii) The policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section;

    (iii) The policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and

    (iv) The System institution has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area. In making this determination, the System institution must:

    (A) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition;

    (B) Consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and

    (C) Document its conclusions.

    National Credit Union Administration
    12 CFR CHAPTER VII Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the NCUA Board proposes to amend part 760 of chapter VII of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

    PART 760—LOANS IN AREAS HAVING SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS 12. The authority citation for part 760 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1757, 1789; 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.

    13. Section 760.2 is amended by adding the definitions of “Mutual aid society”, “Private flood insurance”, and “SFIP” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 760.2 Definitions.

    Mutual aid society means an organization—

    (1) Whose members share a common religious, charitable, educational, or fraternal bond;

    (2) That covers losses caused by damage to members' property pursuant to an agreement, including damage caused by flooding, in accordance with this common bond; and

    (3) That has a demonstrated history of fulfilling the terms of agreements to cover losses to members' property caused by flooding.

    Private flood insurance means an insurance policy that:

    (1) Is issued by an insurance company that is:

    (i) Licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located, by the insurance regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or

    (ii) Recognized, or not disapproved, as a surplus lines insurer by the insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property;

    (2) Provides flood insurance coverage that is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer. For purposes of this part, a policy is at least as broad as the coverage provided under an SFIP if, at a minimum, the policy:

    (i) Defines the term “flood” to include the events defined as a “flood” in an SFIP;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Contains the coverage and provisions specified in an SFIP, including those relating to building property coverage; personal property coverage, if purchased by the insured mortgagor(s); other coverages; and the increased cost of compliance;

    (iv) Contains deductibles no higher than the specified maximum for the same type of property, and includes similar non-applicability provisions, as under an SFIP, for any total policy coverage amount up to the maximum available under the NFIP at the time the policy is provided to the lender;

    (v) Provides coverage for direct physical loss caused by a flood and may exclude other causes of loss identified in an SFIP. Any additional or different exclusions than those in an SFIP may pertain only to coverage that is in addition to the amount and type of coverage that could be provided by an SFIP; and

    (vi) May not contain conditions that narrow the coverage provided in an SFIP;

    (3) Includes all of the following:

    (i) A requirement for the insurer to give written notice 45 days before cancellation or non-renewal of flood insurance coverage to:

    (A) The insured; and

    (B) The credit union that made the designated loan secured by the property covered by the flood insurance, or the servicer acting on its behalf;

    (ii) Information about the availability of flood insurance coverage under the NFIP;

    (iii) A mortgage interest clause similar to the clause contained in an SFIP; and

    (iv) A provision requiring an insured to file suit not later than one year after the date of a written denial of all or part of a claim under the policy; and

    (4) Contains cancellation provisions that are as restrictive as the provisions contained in an SFIP.

    SFIP means, for purposes of §§ 760.2 and 760.3, a standard flood insurance policy issued under the NFIP in effect as of the date the private policy is provided to a credit union.

    14. Section 760.3 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 760.3 Requirement to purchase flood insurance where available.

    (c) Private flood insurance—(1) Mandatory acceptance. A credit union must accept private flood insurance, as defined in § 760.2, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement, provided that the private flood insurance meets the requirement for coverage under paragraph (a) of this section.

    (2) Compliance aid for mandatory acceptance. A flood insurance policy is deemed to meet the definition of private flood insurance in § 760.2 for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The policy includes, or is accompanied by, a written summary that demonstrates how the policy meets the definition of private flood insurance in § 760.2 by identifying the provisions of the policy that meet each criterion in the definition, and confirms that the insurer is regulated in accordance with that definition;

    (ii) The credit union verifies in writing that the policy includes the provisions identified by the insurer in the summary provided pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section and that these provisions satisfy the criteria included in the definition; and

    (iii) The policy includes the following provision within the policy or as an endorsement to the policy: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”

    (3) Discretionary acceptance. A credit union may accept a flood insurance policy issued by a private insurer that is not issued under the NFIP and does not meet the definition of private flood insurance, as defined in § 760.2, in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section, only if the coverage under such flood insurance policy meets the amount and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and the policy:

    (i) Is issued by an insurer that is licensed, admitted, or otherwise approved to engage in the business of insurance in the State or jurisdiction in which the property to be insured is located by the insurance regulator of that State; or in the case of a policy of difference in conditions, multiple peril, all risk, or other blanket coverage insuring nonresidential commercial property, is issued by a surplus lines insurer recognized, or not disapproved, by the insurance regulator of the State where the property to be insured is located;

    (ii) Covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees;

    (iii) Provides for cancellation following reasonable notice to the borrower only for reasons permitted by FEMA for an SFIP on the Flood Insurance Cancellation Request/Nullification Form, in any case of non-payment, or when cancellation is mandated pursuant to State law; and

    (iv) Either:

    (A) Meets the criteria set forth in paragraphs (2)(i) and (iii) through (vi) of the definition of private flood insurance in § 760.2; or

    (B) Provides coverage that is similar to coverage provided under an SFIP, including when considering deductibles, exclusions, and conditions offered by the insurer, and the credit union has:

    (1) Compared the private policy with an SFIP to determine the differences between the private policy and an SFIP;

    (2) Reasonably determined that the private policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area; and

    (3) Documented its findings under paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)(B)(1) and (2) of this section.

    (4) Exception for mutual aid societies. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (c)(3) of this section, a credit union may accept a private policy issued by a mutual aid society in satisfaction of the flood insurance purchase requirement under paragraph (a) of this section if:

    (i) The National Credit Union Administration has determined that such types of policies qualify as flood insurance for purposes of this Act;

    (ii) The policy meets the amount of coverage for losses and term requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section;

    (iii) The policy covers both the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) as loss payees; and

    (iv) The credit union has determined that the policy provides sufficient protection of the loan secured by the property located in a special flood hazard area. In making this determination, the credit union must:

    (A) Verify that the policy is consistent with general safety and soundness principles, such as whether deductibles are reasonable based on the borrower's financial condition;

    (B) Consider the policy provider's ability to satisfy claims, such as whether the policy provider has a demonstrated record of covering losses; and

    (C) Document its conclusions.

    Dated: October 19, 2016. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 12, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.

    By order of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 19th day of October, 2016. Robert E. Feldmanm Executive Secretary,

    By order of the Board of the Farm Credit Administration.

    Dated at McLean, VA, this 14th day of October, 2016. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary.

    By order of the Board of the National Credit Union Administration.

    Dated at Alexandria, VA, this 27th day of October, 2016. Gerard S. Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26411 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 7535-01-P; 6705-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9304; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-028-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. 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 Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control cables which may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certification maintenance requirement tasks that introduce functional tests of the control cable tension. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct out-of-tolerance tension in the control cables, which, with certain system failures and environmental conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2016-9304; 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:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    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-2016-9304; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-028-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-06R1, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ”the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Recent in-service inspections have shown that aileron and rudder control cables may have tensions beyond allowable limits. Review of the technical documentation found that there are no maintenance tasks to detect and rectify out-of-tolerance tensions on these cables. Out of tolerance cables in combinations with certain system failures and environmental conditions could result in the degraded aircraft controllability.

    * * * [This Canadian] AD was issued to mandate a revision to the approved maintenance schedule [maintenance or inspection program, as applicable] to introduce cable tension check [e.g., functional test,] as [certification maintenance requirement] tasks.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9304.

    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Bombardier, Inc. service information:

    • Temporary Revision (TR) 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    • TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

    The service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks for functional tests of the cable tension of the aileron and rudder control cables. 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 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the 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 60 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
    Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision 1 work-hours × $85 per hour = $85 per airplane $0 $85 $5,100
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9304; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-028-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 through 9743 inclusive, and 9998.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control cables which may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct out-of-tolerance tension in the control cables, which, with certain system failures and environmental conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC)—Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate certification maintenance requirement (CMR) tasks 27-11-35-101, 27-11-35-102, and 27-21-27-101 (for functional tests of the control cable tension) as specified in the applicable service information in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. When the applicable temporary revision (TR) has been included in general revisions of the TLMC, the general revisions may be inserted in the maintenance or inspection program, and the applicable TR may be removed, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in the applicable TR.

    (1) TR 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (2) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (3) TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (4) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight Deck—Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (5) TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (h) Initial Compliance Times for CMR Tasks

    The initial compliance times for doing the CMR tasks identified in paragraph (g) of this AD are at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 9002 through 9694 inclusive, and 9998: Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD; or within 30 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 9695 through 9743 inclusive that have had aileron and/or rudder control cable replacement and the aileron and rudder control cables were rigged as specified in any applicable Bombardier aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) revision earlier than the revision date shown in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of this AD or the AMM revision date is unknown: Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD; or within 30 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs first.

    (i) GL 700 AMM, Revision 67, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (ii) GL XRS AMM, Revision 45, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (iii) GL 6000 AMM, Revision 15, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

    (iv) GL 5000 AMM, Revision 48, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (v) GL 5000 GVFD AMM, Revision 15, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

    (3) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 30 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness.

    (i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    Except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-06 R1, dated July 25, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9304.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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 26, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26520 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9345; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-028-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; United Instruments, Inc. Series Altimeters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain United Instruments, Inc. 5934 series altimeters that were manufactured between January 2015 and February 2016 and installed in airplanes and helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of certain altimeters displaying higher than actual altitude due to a slow diaphragm leak. This proposed AD would require replacing the affected altimeters. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent display of misleading altitude data, which could result in inadvertent flight into terrain.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 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 proposed AD, contact United Instruments, Inc., 3625 Comotara Avenue, Wichita, KS 67226; telephone (316) 636-9203; fax: (316) 636-9243; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.unitedinst.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-2016-9345; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Les Lyne, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4190; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9345; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-028-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We received a report that certain United Instruments, Inc. 5934 series altimeters that were manufactured between January 2015 and February 2016 may display higher than actual altitude. These altimeters are susceptible to developing a slow diaphragm leak, which would affect the accuracy of the altimeters. It has been determined that insufficient removal of chemical substance on the diaphragm assembly during the production process of the altimeter caused the misleading display of altitude data. This condition, if not corrected, could result in display of misleading altitude data, which could result in inadvertent flight into terrain.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed United Instruments, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 13, dated March 25, 2016. The service bulletin describes procedures for replacing the nonconforming altimeters. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,351 altimeters as installed in airplanes and helicopters 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
  • Replace altimeter 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $1,600 $1,685 $2,276,435

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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): United Instruments, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9345; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-028-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to United Instruments, Inc. 5934 series altimeters that were manufactured between January 2015 and February 2016 and installed in airplanes and helicopters.

    (1) The specific affected serial number altimeters can be found in United Instruments, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 13, dated March 25, 2016, which can be found on the Internet at http://www.unitedinst.com/ServiceBulletinNo13/.

    (2) Altimeters that have been corrected by United Instruments, Inc. following Service Bulletin No. 13, dated March 25, 2016, are not affected by this AD and no further action is necessary.

    (3) Altimeters that have been corrected by United Instruments, Inc. can be identified by a yellow dot, approximately 1/4 inch (6 mm) in diameter, located approximately 1 inch (25 mm) to the left side of the nameplate. The corrected altimeters will also have a letter “M,” approximately 1/8 inch (3mm) high, metal stamped on the nameplate after the name “ALTIMETER.”

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 44, Cabin Systems.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of certain altimeters displaying higher than actual altitude due to a slow diaphragm leak. This AD requires replacing the affected altimeters. We are issuing this AD to prevent display of misleading altitude data, which could result in inadvertent flight into terrain.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace any affected altimeter with a serviceable part following United Instruments, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 13, dated March 25, 2016.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Les Lyne, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4190; fax: (316) 946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact United Instruments, Inc., 3625 Comotara Avenue, Wichita, KS 67226; telephone (316) 636-9203; fax: (316) 636-9243; email: [email protected]; Internet: www.unitedinst.com. You may view 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 November 1, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26807 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA- 2016-9305; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-073-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-12, for all Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes. AD 2012-22-12 currently requires inspecting piccolo tubes, piccolo tube mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and outer boundary angles (OBAs) for cracks, fractures, and broken links, and doing corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-22-12, we have received reports of loose and missing attachment rivets of the inner boundary angles (IBA) and OBA of the forward bulkhead. This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-22-12, and add repetitive inspections for pulled, loose, and missing attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA of the forward bulkhead, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct degraded structural integrity of the engine nose cowl, which in the case of forward bulkhead damage in conjunction with a broken piccolo tube, could lead to damage to the engine and operation in icing conditions with reduced thermal anti-ice (TAI) performance.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For Airbus 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.

    For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-Royce Plc, Technical Publications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone 44 (0) 1332 245882; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936; Internet http://www.Rolls-Royce.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-2016-9305; 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-2016-9305; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-073-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On October 26, 2012, we issued AD 2012-22-12, Amendment 39-17248 (77 FR 67263, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-12”). AD 2012-22-12 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model 330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2012-22-12, we have received reports of loose or missing attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA of the forward bulkhead.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive, 2016-0086R1, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model 330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During shop visit, cracks were found in several primary structural parts of Rolls Royce (RR) Trent 700 engine air intake cowls, specifically in the forward bulkhead web, web stiffeners and outer boundary angles (OBA). In addition, several attachment links were found severely worn, and some became detached. In two cases, the thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tube was found fractured. Investigation results show that the cracks are most likely due to acoustic excitation and vibration.

    A broken piccolo tube, if not detected and corrected, in conjunction with forward air intake cowl bulkhead damage, could lead to in-flight detachment of the outer barrel, possibly resulting in damage to the engine or reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-71-3025, making reference to RR SB RB.211-71-AG416, to provide inspection instructions, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0062 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2011_0062_superseded.pdf/AD_2011-0062_1] [which corresponds to FAA AD 2012-22-12] to require repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) [borescope] of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of forward bulkhead, inner boundary angles (IBA) and OBA of the RR Trent 700 air intake cowl assemblies, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    Since EASA AD 2011-0062 was issued, some occurrences were reported of finding attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA either pulled, loose, or missing during inspection. It was determined that the affected IBA and OBA rivets may not have been previously inspected if operators accomplished the required inspection in accordance with the instructions of RR SB RB.211-71-AG416 at original issue.

    To address this potentially missed inspection, Airbus published SB A330-71-3033, providing instructions for a one-time detailed inspection of the IBA and OBA attachment rivets, to be accomplished if the previous inspection was accomplished using the instructions of RR SB RB.211-71-AG416 at original issue. Airbus also published SB A330-71-3025 Revision 2, adding an inspection of the IBA and OBA attachment rivets, to be used if the previous inspection was accomplished using RR SB RB.211-71-AG416 at issue 1 or later. Airbus also published SB A330-71-3032 to introduce a modification (mod) that would eliminate the need for repetitive inspections.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0062, which is superseded, and requires an additional [special] detailed inspection [borescope] of IBA and OBA forward bulkhead attachment rivets. This [EASA] AD also introduces an optional terminating action (Airbus mod 204615, embodied in production, which can be embodied in service with Airbus SB A330-71-3032) for the repetitive inspections required by this [EASA] AD.

    This [EASA] AD is revised to improve clarity, including Airbus and RR SB references and inserting Notes to identify the Part Numbers (P/N) of the affected engine air intake nose cowl assemblies.

    Related investigative actions include inspecting for cracked or fractured piccolo tubes and for broken piccolo tube links. Corrective actions include replacing the engine air intake cowl assembly and repair of pulled, loose, or missing rivets.

    The compliance times for the related investigative and corrective actions range from before further flight to within 100 flight cycles, depending on the findings of the inspections.

    The repetitive inspection interval for the IBA, OBA, and forward bulkhead varies depending on inspection findings, and ranges between 200 and 5,000 flight cycles. The repetitive inspection interval for the piccolo tubes and links is 2,500 flight cycles.

    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-2016-9305.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 9, 2015. This service information describes procedures for doing inspections of the piccolo tube and mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, the IBA, OBA, and the forward bulkhead on the engine air intake cowl assemblies; and related investigative and corrective actions.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-71-3032, dated December 10, 2014. This service information describes procedures for doing a modification that improves the air intake primary structure and adds a new piccolo tube supporting structure on the engine air intake cowl assemblies.

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-71-3033, dated December 14, 2015. This service information describes procedures for doing an inspection for pulled, loose, and missing attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA of the forward bulkhead of the forward bulkhead, and corrective actions.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspections (new proposed action) 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 per inspection cycle $0 $1,020 per inspection cycle $47,940 per inspection cycle.
    Estimated Costs for Optional Actions Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Modification Up to 142 work-hours × $85 per hour = $12,070 [1] Up to $12,070. [1] We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide material cost estimates for the optional actions specified in this proposed AD.

    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 aircraft that might need these repairs:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repairs 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 [2] $1,360 [2] We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide material cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-22-12, Amendment 39-17248 (77 FR 67263, November 9, 2012), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-9305; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-073-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 22, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-22-12, Amendment 39-17248 (77 FR 67263, November 9, 2012) (“AD 2012-22-12”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-243, -243F, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of air intake cowls on Rolls-Royce Trent engines, worn and detached attachment links, and fractured thermal anti-ice (TAI) piccolo tubes, and loose, or missing attachment rivets of the inner boundary angles (IBA) and the outer boundary angles (OBA) of the forward bulkhead. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct degraded structural integrity of the engine nose cowl, which in the case of forward bulkhead damage in conjunction with a broken piccolo tube, could lead to damage to the engine and operation in icing conditions with reduced thermal anti-ice (TAI) performance.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Affected Engine Air Intake Nose Cowl Assemblies

    The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies affected by this AD have part number (P/N) SJ30020, P/N SJ30361, P/N SJ30687, P/N SJ30810, and P/N SJ30811, as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-H205, dated July 7, 2014.

    (1) The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies having P/N SJ30020, P/N SJ30361, and P/N SJ30687 can be modified (reworked and re-identified as P/N SJ30810 (for P/N SJ30020, P/N SJ30361) and P/N SJ30811 (for P/N SJ30687)), as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-H205, dated July 7, 2014.

    (2) The engine air intake nose cowl assemblies having P/N SJ30810 and P/N SJ30811 can be modified (reworked and re-identified as P/N SJ30820 and P/N SJ30821, respectively), as specified in Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RB.211-71-H847, dated December 2, 2014.

    (h) Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes in pre-Airbus Modification 204615 and pre-Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3032 configuration: At the applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed inspection of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and the IBA and OBA of the affected engine air intake cowl assemblies specified in paragraph (g) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 9, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 9, 2015. Repeat the inspections of the piccolo tube and affected mount links, the aft side of the forward bulkhead, and the IBA and OBA of the engine air intake cowl assemblies thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 9, 2015. Accomplishment of corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

    (1) For any engine air intake cowl assembly that has accumulated fewer than 5,000 flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the engine air intake cowl assembly has accumulated 5,000 total flight cycles.

    (2) For any engine air intake cowl assembly that has accumulated 5,000 or more flight cycles since its first installation on an airplane as of the effective date of this AD: Inspect within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Service Information Exception

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 02, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated December 9, 2015, specifies to contact Bombardier Aerospace-Shorts for instructions, before further flight, repair 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).

    (j) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3032, dated December 10, 2014, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for the modified airplane only.

    (k) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, any pre-Airbus modification 204615 part may be installed on any airplane provided that, at the earlier of the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD following installation, the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD have been accomplished on the pre-Airbus Modification 204615 part.

    (l) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, dated January 10, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3025, Revision 01, dated October 24, 2012; provided that, within 1,050 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, a special detailed inspection for pulled, loose, and missing attachment rivets of the IBA and OBA of the forward bulkhead is accomplished; and all applicable corrective actions are done; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3033, dated December 14, 2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishment of corrective actions does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (m) 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]

    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with 2012-22-12 are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or 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): 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.

    (n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0086R1, dated May 13, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9305.

    (2) For Airbus 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.

    (3) For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce Plc, Technical Publications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; telephone 44 (0) 1332 245882; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936; Internet http://www.Rolls-Royce.com.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26521 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7115; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-30] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Trinidad, CO AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Perry Stokes Airport, Trinidad, CO. Airspace redesign is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport due to the decommissioning of the Trinidad Non-Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) and cancellation of associated approaches. This action would ensure the safety, efficiency, and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Additionally, the airport's geographic coordinates would be updated to match the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-7115; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-30, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-7115/Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-30.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

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

    Availability of NPRMs

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

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

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface area airspace at Perry Stokes Airport, Trinidad, CO, to within a 4.6-mile radius of the airport (from a 4.2-mile radius), with a segment extending from the airport 4.6-mile radius to 7.2 miles southwest of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 7.2-mile radius of the airport (from an 8-mile radius) from the airport 232° bearing clockwise to the 056° bearing, and within a 4.6-mile radius from the airport 056° bearing clockwise to the 232° bearing, and with a segment extending from the 4.6-mile radius of the airport to 9.3 miles southwest of the airport. The Class E 1,200 feet airspace would be removed as this airspace is controlled by the Blue Mesa en route airspace area. Also, the airport's geographic coordinates would be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. New RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, due to decommissioning of the Trinidad NDB, has made this action necessary for the safety, efficiency, and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ANM CO E2 Trinidad, CO [Modified] Perry Stokes Airport, CO (Lat. 37°15′33″ N., long. 104°20′27″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.6-mile radius of Perry Stokes Airport, and within 0.7 miles each side of the 224° bearing from the airport 4.6-mile radius to 7.2 miles southwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANM CO E5 Trinidad, CO [Modified] Trinidad, Perry Stokes Airport, CO (Lat. 37°15′33″ N., long. 104°20′27″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Perry Stokes Airport from the 231° bearing clockwise to the 056° bearing, and within a 4.6-mile radius from the airport 056° bearing clockwise to the 231° bearing, and within 1-mile each side of the airport 224° bearing extending from the 4.6-mile radius to 9.3 miles southwest of the airport.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Richard Roberts, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26759 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institutes of Standards and Technology 37 CFR Parts 401 and 404 [Docket No.: 160311229-6229-01] RIN 0693-AB63 Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned Inventions AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requests comments on proposed revisions to regulations. The proposed revisions make technical corrections, update certain sections to conform with changes in the patent laws, clarify the role of provisional patent application filing, create a new Determination of Exceptional Circumstances, increase the role of Funding Agencies in the Bayh-Dole process, address subject inventions as to which a Federal laboratory employee is a co-inventor, and streamline the licensing application process for some Federal laboratory collaborators. NIST will hold a public meeting and simultaneous webinar regarding the proposed changes on November 21, 2016.

    DATES:

    For Comments: Comments must be received no later than December 9, 2016.

    For Public Meeting/Webinar: A meeting and simultaneous webinar will be held on November 21, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern Time. Requests to participate in-person must be received via the meeting Web site no later than November 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number: 160311229-6229-01, through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov (search using the docket number). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    For Public Meeting/Webinar: A November 21, 2016 public meeting will be held in Lecture Room A on the NIST Campus in Gaithersburg, MD. Details about attending the meeting in-person or for accessing the webinar are available via the Technology Partnerships Office Web site at http://www.nist.gov/tpo/bayh-dole.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Courtney Silverthorn, via email: [email protected] or by telephone at 301-975-4189.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A meeting and simultaneous webinar will be held on November 21, 2016, from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. Eastern Time in Building 101, Lecture Room A on the NIST Campus in Gaithersburg, MD. Details about attending the meeting in-person or for accessing the webinar are available via the Technology Partnerships Office Web site at http://www.nist.gov/tpo/bayh-dole. Requests to participate in-person must be received via the meeting Web site no later than November 14, 2016; forty seats are available on a first-come, first-served basis. For participants attending in person, please note that Federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to Federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of Federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, no later than November 10, 2016, to give NIST as much time as possible to process your request.

    I. General Information Does this action apply to me?

    This action may be of interest to you if you are an educational institution, company, or nonprofit organization, especially one that has or would like to receive Federal funding for scientific research and development.

    II. Background

    These proposed rule revisions are promulgated under the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act of 1980, Public Law 96-517 (as amended), codified at title 35 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 200 et seq., commonly known as the “Bayh-Dole Act,” which governs rights in inventions made with Federal assistance. The Bayh-Dole Act obligates nonprofit organizations and small business firms (“contractors”), and large businesses, as directed by Executive Order 12591, to disclose each “subject invention” (that is, each invention conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement, 35 U.S.C. 201(e)) within a reasonable time after the invention becomes known to the contractor, 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(1), and permits contractors to elect, within a reasonable time after disclosure, to retain title to a subject invention 35 U.S.C. 202(a). Under certain defined “exceptional” circumstances, Bayh-Dole permits the Government to restrict or eliminate the contractor's right to elect to retain title, 35 U.S.C. 202(a), 202(b), and under such circumstances, rights vest in the Government.

    The Secretary of Commerce has delegated to the Director of NIST the authority to promulgate implementing regulations. Regulations implementing 35 U.S.C. 202 through 204 are codified at 37 CFR part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms under Government Grants, Contracts, and Co-operative Agreements,” and apply to all Federal agencies, 37 CFR 401.1(b). These regulations govern all subject inventions, 37 CFR 401.2(d), even if the Federal government is not the sole source of funding for either the conception or the reduction to practice, 37 CFR 401.1(a). Regulations implementing 35 U.S.C. 208, specifying the terms and conditions upon which federally owned inventions, other than inventions owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, may be licensed on a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive basis, are codified at 37 CFR part 404, “Licensing of Government Owned Inventions.”

    Bayh-Dole and its implementing regulations require Federal funding agencies to employ certain “standard clauses” in funding agreements awarded to contractors, except under certain specified conditions; 37 CFR 401.3. Through these standard clauses, set forth at 37 CFR 401.14(a), contractors are obligated to take certain actions to properly manage subject inventions. These actions include disclosing each subject invention to the Federal agency within two months after the contractor's inventor discloses it in writing to contractor personnel responsible for patent matters, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(c)(1); electing in writing whether or not to retain title to any subject invention by notifying the Federal agency within two years of disclosure, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(c)(2); filing an initial patent application on a subject invention as to which the contractor elects to retain title within one year after election, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(c)(3); executing and promptly delivering to the Federal agency all instruments necessary to establish or confirm the rights the Government has throughout the world in those subject inventions to which the contractor elects to retain title, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(f)(1); requiring, by written agreement, the contractor's employees to disclose promptly in writing each subject invention made under contract, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(f)(2); notifying the Federal agency of any decision not to continue the prosecution of a patent application, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(f)(3); and including in the specification of any U.S. patent applications and any patent issuing thereon covering a subject invention, a statement that the invention was made with Government support under the grant or contract awarded by the Federal agency, and that the Government has certain rights in the invention, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(f)(4).

    In addition, a contractor is obligated to include the requirements of the standard clauses in any subcontracts under the contractor's award, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(g); to submit periodic reports as requested on the utilization of a subject invention or on efforts at obtaining such utilization that are being made by the contractor or its licensees or assignees, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(h); and to agree that neither the contractor nor any assignee will grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject inventions in the United States unless such person agrees that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States, 37 CFR 401.14(a)(i), subject to waiver.

    Bayh-Dole and its implementing regulations also specify certain conditions applicable to licenses granted by Federal agencies in any federally owned invention. The implementing regulations include 37 CFR 404.5, which sets forth restrictions and conditions applicable to all Federal agency licenses, 37 CFR 404.6, which addresses requirements pertaining to nonexclusive licenses, and 37 CFR 404.7, which addresses requirements pertaining to exclusive and partially exclusive licenses.

    Pursuant to authority delegated to it by the Secretary of Commerce, NIST is providing notice to the public of proposed rulemaking to revise parts 401 and 404 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which address rights to inventions made under Government grants, contracts, and co-operative agreements, and licensing of government owned inventions. NIST is seeking public comments on the proposed amendments. Brief explanations of the proposed changes are included below; the full text of 37 CFR part 401 is available at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title37-vol1/pdf/CFR-2010-title37-vol1-part401.pdf and the full text of 37 CFR part 404 is available at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/granule/CFR-2004-title37-vol1/CFR-2004-title37-vol1-part404. This section is followed by a request for comments (Section III).

    The proposed revisions to 37 CFR part 401 will:

    1. Clarify in § 401.1(b) that Federal agencies, under section 1., subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended, may apply the presumption of the right to retain title to contractors which are large business firms as well as to those which are small business firms and nonprofit organizations;

    2. Correct § 401.1(e) to refer to § 401.17, identifying the office to which copies of proposed and final agency regulations should be directed for approval by the Secretary of Commerce;

    3. Clarify in § 401.2(b) that the term contractor includes any business firm regardless of size, under section 1., subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended, which is a party to a funding agreement;

    4. Clarify that the term initial patent application means the first provisional or nonprovisional U.S. national application for a patent as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(2) and (3), respectively, or the first international application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(b) which designates the United States, in accordance with accepted practice;

    5. Clarify that the term statutory period refers to the one-year period in 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

    6. Clarify that the use of the standard clause at § 401.14 is applicable to nonprofits and to all businesses regardless of size, consistent with section 1., subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended.

    7. Create additional conditions under § 401.3(a) for the use of alternate provisions other than § 401.14(a) through a formatting revision;

    8. Create additional conditions under § 401.3(a) for the use of alternate provisions other than § 401.14(a) when work is completed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) and removes outdated language related to Department of Energy naval nuclear propulsion and weapons related programs;

    9. Create additional conditions under § 401.3(a) for the use of alternate provisions other than § 401.14(a) when the contractor is not a non-profit organization and is not in the business of commercializing subject inventions that would arise under a funding agreement, consistent with the commercialization intent of 35 U.S.C. 200;

    10. Remove language from § 401.3(h) related to size protests that, per subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended, no longer applies to a distinction between large and small businesses, and clarify language related to furnishing evidence of non-profit status;

    11. Update the provision for distribution of royalty payments in § 401.5(g)(3) to be consistent with 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(7)(E)(i) as amended by the America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29;

    12. Revise § 401.7(b) to include participation of the funding Agency in the review of an organization's nonprofit status;

    13. Revise § 401.10 to clarify the management of subject inventions when there is a Federal employee who is a co-inventor of the subject invention, including clarifying that an agency may file an initial patent application provided that it does not negate a contractor's ability to elect rights, that a funding agency will provide administrative assistance to an agency who employs a Federal co-inventor in the management of co-invented subject inventions when a contractor has waived rights, that funding agencies and Federal agencies employing co-inventors shall consult on the management of co-invented subject inventions that Federal agencies may enter into agreements with contractors for the management of co-invented subject inventions, and that Federal agencies employing co-inventors retain their ownership rights when a contractor elects title to a co-invented subject invention;

    14. Redesignate § 401.14(a)(c)(4) as 401.14(a)(c)(5);

    15. Revise § 401.14(a)(c)(2) to clarify that a Federal agency may shorten the two year period of election of title by a contractor if necessary to protect the Government's interests;

    16. Clarify in § 401.14(c) that a Federal agency may file an initial patent application at its own expense on a jointly-owned subject invention, if necessary to protect the Government's interest in the subject invention;

    17. Remove the 60-day agency time limitation after learning that a contractor has failed to disclose an invention or elect rights, in § 401.14(a)(d)(1), in order to improve due diligence and enhance the ability of agencies to work with contractors;

    18. Clarify the requirement in § 401.14(a)(f)(2) for a contractor to require its employees to assign rights in subject inventions to the contractor and in order for the contractor to file patent applications on subject inventions developed under the contract;

    19. Revise § 401.14(a)(f)(3) to extend the required notification period for decisions not to continue patent prosecution from 30 days before the expiration of the response period to 120 days, in order to allow the Federal agency adequate time to determine whether to assume responsibility for patent prosecution of the subject invention;

    20. Revise § 401.14(a)(k)(4) to provide for the funding agency's participation in the small business preference review process for the licensing of subject inventions by nonprofit contractors, and providing that the funding agency or the contractor may request review by the Secretary of Commerce as well;

    21. Revise § 401.16 to make electronic filing the default format for reporting and elections unless otherwise directed by an agency; and

    22. Add contact information for Interagency Edison, which is used by many Federal agencies, to § 401.17.

    The proposed revisions to 37 CFR part 404 will:

    23. Redesignate the existing text in § 404.8 as paragraph (a) and create a new paragraph (b) to provide that a CRADA partner is not required to submit a separate license application to an agency in order to access, under the CRADA, background technology owned by the Government.

    This proposed rulemaking does not address contractor appeals of exceptions (§ 401.4), exercise of march-in rights (§ 401.6), small business preference (§ 401.7), subject invention utilization reporting (§ 401.8), contractor employee inventor rights retention (§ 401.9), appeals (§ 401.11), background patent rights licensing (§ 401.12), patent rights clauses administration (§ 401.13), or deferred determinations (§ 401.15) of part 401, and addresses only the license application provision (§ 404.8) of part 404.

    III. Request for Comments

    NIST is requesting comments about parts 401 and 404 of the Bayh-Dole regulations. We have included some questions that you might consider as you develop your comments:

    1. Are there any changes to these regulations, consistent with current law, that you or your organization think would accelerate the transfer of federally funded research and technology to entrepreneurs, or otherwise strengthen the Nation's innovation system?

    2. Are there provisions within 37 CFR part 401 or 404 that are inconsistent with, or otherwise affected by, changes in the patent laws under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, or that Act's implementing regulations?

    3. Are there ways that the Federal Government can better share information on federally funded inventions in order to increase technology transfer and licensing opportunities?

    4. Are there ways to incentivize reporting compliance and compliance with the requirement to include a government support clause in patents?

    5. Do recipients of Federal funding, and their licensees, encounter issues in the reporting process? Are there changes that could streamline the requirements and reduce barriers to reporting?

    When submitting comments, remember to:

    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    ii. Please organize your comments by referencing the specific question you are responding to or the relevant section number in the proposed regulatory text.

    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    v. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

    vi. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

    vii. Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language will not be considered.

    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    IV. References

    1. Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. (n.d.) Technology Transfer Mechanisms. Retrieved from http://www.federallabs.org/education/t2-mechanisms/.

    2. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Laboratory Technology Transfer, Fiscal Year 2010 Summary Report to the President and the Congress, August 2012, http://www.nist.gov/tpo/publications/index.cfm. See appendix table 4-40.

    3. Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer. (2011). Technology Transfer Desk Reference. Retrieved from: http://globals.federallabs.org/pdf/T2_Desk_Reference.pdf.

    4. Kalil, T. and Wong, J. (2015). Lab to Market: Cross Agency Priority Goal Quarterly Progress Update, Fiscal Year 2015 Quarter 4. Retrieved from: https://www.performance.gov/node/3395/view?view=public#progress-update.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866

    This rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under sections 3(f)(3) and 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues. This rulemaking, however, is not an “economically significant” regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order, as it does not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, and it does not have a material adverse effect on the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires the preparation and availability for public comment of “an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this rulemaking, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

    A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this proposed rule are contained in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The statutory basis for this proposed rule is provided by 35 U.S.C. 200-212. The Bayh-Dole Act and its implementing regulations apply to all small business firms and nonprofit organizations that have entered into a Federal funding agreement, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 201, and express a policy to “encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally supported research and development efforts; to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities; [and] to ensure that inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used in a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without unduly encumbering future research and discovery.” 35 U.S.C. 200. For small business firms and nonprofit organizations that deal with the Government in areas of technology development, the Bayh-Dole implementing regulations make it easier to participate in federally-supported programs by guaranteeing the protection of the intellectual property they create. This proposed rule, if implemented, would predominantly make technical changes and clarifications and is not anticipated to have any quantifiable economic impact with respect to small entities. Several proposed changes would bring the regulations into conformity with the America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, and Executive Order 12591, which gave Federal agencies discretion to expand applicability of certain provisions to firms regardless of their size. Proposed changes to the definition of “initial patent application” clarify that it would include a provisional application, making it less costly and burdensome for small entities to comply with the regulations' requirements. Proposed changes to 37 CFR 401.3 provide Federal agencies with some additional flexibility in choosing when to include the “standard clauses” described earlier in funding agreements awarded to contractors, which could benefit small businesses and nonprofits. The additional flexibility provided by these changes could provide some benefit to small entities. While proposed changes to 37 CFR 401.14 would allow Federal agencies to shorten certain time limitations applicable to election of title by a contractor (including small entities), these proposed changes are only intended to provide more efficient resolution of issues and not anticipated to have any negative substantive result.

    The information provided above supports a determination that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this rulemaking, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on any small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    This proposed rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Parts 401 and 404

    Inventions and patents, Laboratories, Research and development, Science and technology, Technology transfer.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Institute of Standards and Technology proposes to amend 37 CFR parts 401 and 404 as follows:

    PART 401—RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS FIRMS UNDER GOVERNMENT GRANTS, CONTRACTS, AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 1. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 206; DOO 30-2A.

    2. Section 401.1 is amended as follows: a. Revise the second sentence of paragraph (b); and b. In paragraph (e), remove “401.16” and add in its place “401.17”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    §  401.1 Scope.

    (b) * * * It applies to all funding agreements with business firms regardless of size (consistent with section 1., subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended by Executive Order 12618) and to nonprofit organizations, except for a funding agreement made primarily for educational purposes. * * *

    3. Section 401.2 is amended as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (n); and b. Add paragraph (o).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 401.2 Definitions.

    (b) The term contractor means any person, small business firm or nonprofit organization, or, as set forth in Section 1., subparagraph (b)(4) of Executive Order 12591, as amended, any business firm regardless of size, which is a party to a funding agreement.

    (n) The term initial patent application means the first provisional or non-provisional U.S. national application for patent as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(a)(2) and (3), respectively, or the first international application as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(b) which designates the United States.

    (o) The term statutory period means the one-year period before the effective filing date of a claimed invention during which exceptions to prior art exist per 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

    4. Section 401.3 is amended as follows: a. Revise the first sentence of paragraph (a); b. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add in its place “; or”; c. Revise paragraph (a)(5); d. Add paragraph (a)(6); e. In paragraph (b), revise the first sentence, remove “§ 401.14(b)” and add in its place “paragraph (c) of this section” and remove “§ 401.14(a)” and add in its place “§ 401.14” f. Revise the paragraph (c); g. Revise paragraph (h); and h. Add paragraph (i).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 401.3 Use of the standard clauses at § 401.14.

    (a) Each funding agreement awarded to a contractor (except those subject to 35 U.S.C. 212) shall contain the clause found in § 401.14(a) with such modifications and tailoring as authorized or required elsewhere in this part. * * *

    (5) If any part of the contract may require the contractor to perform work on behalf of the Government at a Government laboratory under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) pursuant to the statutory authority of 15 U.S.C. 3710a; or

    (6) If the contract provides for services and the contractor is not a nonprofit organization and does not promote the commercialization and public availability of subject inventions pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 200.

    (b) When an agency excercises the exceptions at § 401.3(a)(2), (3), or (6), it shall use the standard clause at § 401.14 with only such modifications as are necessary to address the exceptional circumstances or concerns which led to the use of the exception. * * *

    (c) When the Department of Energy (DOE) determines to use alternative provisions under § 401.3(a)(4), the standard clause at § 401.14 shall be used with the following modifications, or substitute thereto with such modification and tailoring as authorized or required elsewhere in this part:

    (1) The title of the clause shall be changed to read as follows: Patent Rights to Nonprofit DOE Facility Operators

    (2) Add an “(A)” after “(1)” in paragraph (c)(1) of the clause in § 401.14 and add subparagraphs (B) and (C) to paragraph (c)(1) of the clause in § 401.14 as follows:

    (B) If the subject invention occurred under activities funded by the naval nuclear propulsion or weapons related programs of DOE, then the provisions of this paragraph (c)(1)(B) will apply in lieu of paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this clause. In such cases the contractor agrees to assign the government the entire right, title, and interest thereto throughout the world in and to the subject invention except to the extent that rights are retained by the contractor through a greater rights determination or under paragraph (e) of this clause. The contractor, or an employee-inventor, with authorization of the contractor, may submit a request for greater rights at the time the invention is disclosed or within a reasonable time thereafter. DOE will process such a request in accordance with procedures at 37 CFR 401.15. Each determination of greater rights will be subject to paragraphs (h) through (k) of this clause and such additional conditions, if any, deemed to be appropriate by the Department of Energy.

    (C) At the time an invention is disclosed in accordance with (c)(1)(A) of this clause, or within 90 days thereafter, the contractor will submit a written statement as to whether or not the invention occurred under a naval nuclear propulsion or weapons-related program of the Department of Energy. If this statement is not filed within this time, paragraph (c)(1)(B) of this clause will apply in lieu of paragraphs (c)(2) and (3). The contractor statement will be deemed conclusive unless, within 60 days thereafter, the Contracting Officer disagrees in writing, in which case the determination of the Contracting Officer will be deemed conclusive unless the contractor files a claim under the Contract Disputes Act within 60 days after the Contracting Officer's determination. Pending resolution of the matter, the invention will be subject to paragraph (c)(1)(B) of this clause.

    (3) Paragraph (k)(3) of the clause in § 401.14 will be modified as prescribed at § 401.5(g).

    (h) A prospective contractor may be required by an agency to certify that it is a nonprofit organization. If the agency has reason to question the nonprofit status of the prospective contractor, it may require the prospective contractor to furnish evidence to establish its status as a nonprofit organization.

    (i) When an agency excercises the exception at § 401.3(a)(5), replace (b) of the basic clause in § 401.14 with the following paragraphs (b)(1) and (2):

    (b) Allocation of principal rights. (1) The Contractor may retain the entire right, title, and interest throughout the world to each subject invention subject to the provisions of this clause, including paragraph (b)(2) of this clause, and 35 U.S.C. 203. With respect to any subject invention in which the Contractor retains title, the Federal Government shall have a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of the United States the subject invention throughout the world.

    (2) If the Contractor performs services at a Government owned and operated laboratory or at a Government owned and contractor operated laboratory directed by the Government to fulfill the Government's obligations under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3710a, the Government may require the Contractor to negotiate an agreement with the CRADA collaborating party or parties regarding the allocation of rights to any subject invention the Contractor makes, solely or jointly, under the CRADA. The agreement shall be negotiated prior to the Contractor undertaking the CRADA work or, with the permission of the Government, upon the identification of a subject invention. In the absence of such an agreement, the Contractor agrees to grant the collaborating party or parties an option for a license in its inventions of the same scope and terms set forth in the CRADA for inventions made by the Government.

    5. Revise § 401.5 to read as follows:
    § 401.5 Modification and tailoring of clauses.

    (a) Agencies should complete the blank in paragraph (g)(2) of the clauses at § 401.14 in accordance with their own or applicable government-wide regulations such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In grants and cooperative agreements (and in contracts, if not inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation) agencies wishing to apply the same clause to all subcontractors as is applied to the contractor may delete paragraph (g)(2) of the clause in § 401.14 and delete the words “to be performed by a small business firm or domestic nonprofit organization” from paragraph (g)(1). Also, if the funding agreement is a grant or cooperative agreement, paragraph (g)(3) may be deleted. When either paragraph (g)(2) of the clause in § 401.14 or paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of the clause in § 401.14 are deleted, the remaining paragraph or paragraphs should be renumbered appropriately.

    (b) Agencies should complete paragraph (l), “Communications”, at the end of the clauses at § 401.14 by designating a central point of contact for communications on matters relating to the clause. Additional instructions on communications may also be included in paragraph (l) of the clause in § 401.14.

    (c) Agencies may replace the italicized words and phrases in the clauses at § 401.14 with those appropriate to the particular funding agreement. For example, “contracts” could be replaced by “grant,” “contractor” by “grantee,” and “contracting officer” by “grants officer.” Depending on its use, “Federal agency” can be replaced either by the identification of the agency or by the specification of the particular office or official within the agency.

    (d)(1) When the agency head or duly authorized designee determines at the time of contracting with a small business firm or nonprofit organization that it would be in the national interest to acquire the right to sublicense foreign governments or international organizations pursuant to any existing treaty or international agreement, a sentence may be added at the end of paragraph (b) of the clause at § 401.14 as follows:

    This license will include the right of the government to sublicense foreign governments, their nationals, and international organizations, pursuant to the following treaties or international agreements: ____.

    (2) The blank in the added text in paragraph (d)(1) of this section should be completed with the names of applicable existing treaties or international agreements, agreements of cooperation, memoranda of understanding, or similar arrangements, including military agreements relating to weapons development and production. The added language is not intended to apply to treaties or other agreements that are in effect on the date of the award but which are not listed. Alternatively, agencies may use substantially similar language relating the government's rights to specific treaties or other agreements identified elsewhere in the funding agreement. The language may also be modified to make clear that the rights granted to the foreign government, and its nationals or an international organization may be for additional rights beyond a license or sublicense if so required by the applicable treaty or international agreement. For example, in some exclusive licenses or even the assignment of title in the foreign country involved might be required. Agencies may also modify the added language to provide for the direct licensing by the contractor of the foreign government or international organization.

    (e) If the funding agreement involves performance over an extended period of time, such as the typical funding agreement for the operation of a government-owned facility, the following language may also be added:

    The agency reserves the right to unilaterally amend this funding agreement to identify specific treaties or international agreements entered into or to be entered into by the government after the effective date of this funding agreement and effectuate those license or other rights which are necessary for the government to meet its obligations to foreign governments, their nationals and international organizations under such treaties or international agreements with respect to subject inventions made after the date of the amendment.

    (f) Agencies may add additional subparagraphs to paragraph (f) of the clauses at § 401.14 to require the contractor to do one or more of the following:

    (1) Provide a report prior to the close-out of a funding agreement listing all subject inventions or stating that there were none.

    (2) Provide, upon request, the filing date, patent application number and title; a copy of the patent application; and patent number and issue date for any subject invention in any country in which the contractor has applied for a patent.

    (3) Provide periodic (but no more frequently than annual) listings of all subject inventions which were disclosed to the agency during the period covered by the report.

    (g) If the contract is with a nonprofit organization and is for the operation of a government-owned, contractor-operated facility, the following will be substituted for the text of paragraph (k)(3) of the clause at § 401.14:

    After payment of patenting costs, licensing costs, payments to inventors, and other expenses incidental to the administration of subject inventions, the balance of any royalties or income earned and retained by the contractor during any fiscal year on subject inventions under this or any successor contract containing the same requirement, up to any amount equal to five percent of the budget of the facility for that fiscal year, shall be used by the contractor for scientific research, development, and education consistent with the research and development mission and objectives of the facility, including activities that increase the licensing potential of other inventions of the facility. If the balance exceeds five percent, 15 percent of the excess above five percent shall be paid by the contractor to the Treasury of the United States and the remaining 85 percent shall be used by the contractor only for the same purposes as described in the preceding sentence. To the extent it provides the most effective technology transfer, the licensing of subject inventions shall be administered by contractor employees on location at the facility.

    (h) If the contract is for the operation of a government-owned facility, agencies may add paragraph (f)(5) to the clause at § 401.14 with the following text;

    The contractor shall establish and maintain active and effective procedures to ensure that subject inventions are promptly identified and timely disclosed and shall submit a description of the procedures to the contracting officer so that the contracting officer may evaluate and determine their effectiveness.
    6. In § 401.7, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 401.7 Small business preference.

    (b) Small business firms that believe a nonprofit organization is not meeting its obligations under the clause may report their concerns to the funding Agency identified at § 401.14(l), and following receipt of the funding Agency's initial response to their concerns or, if no initial funding Agency response is received within 90 days from the date their concerns were reported to the funding Agency, may thereafter report their concerns, together with any response from the funding Agency, to the Secretary. To the extent deemed appropriate, the Secretary, in consultation with the funding Agency, will undertake informal investigation of the concern, and, if appropriate, enter into discussions or negotiations with the nonprofit organization to the end of improving its efforts in meeting its obligations under the clause. However, in no event will the Secretary intervene in ongoing negotiations or contractor decisions concerning the licensing of a specific subject invention. All investigations, discussions, and negotiations of the Secretary described in this paragraph will be in coordination with other interested agencies, including the funding Agency and the Small Business Administration. In the case of a contract for the operation of a government-owned, contractor operated research or production facility, the Secretary will coordinate with the agency responsible for the facility prior to any discussions or negotiations with the contractor.

    7. Revise § 401.10 to read as follows:
    § 401.10 Government assignment to contractor of rights in invention of government employee.

    (a) In any case when a Federal employee is a co-inventor of any invention made under a funding agreement with a contractor:

    (1) If the Federal agency employing such co-inventor transfers or reassigns the right it has acquired in the subject invention from its employee to the contractor as authorized by 35 U.S.C. 202(e), the assignment will be made subject to the patent rights clause of the contractor's funding agreement.

    (2) The Federal agency employing such co-inventor may submit an initial patent application, provided that the contractor retains the ability to elect rights pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 202(a).

    (3) When a Federal employee is a co-inventor of a subject invention developed with contractor-employed co-inventors under a funding agreement from another agency:

    (i) The funding agency will notify the agency employing a Federal co-inventor of any report of invention and whether the contractor elects or waives rights.

    (ii) If the contractor waives rights to the subject invention, the funding agency must promptly provide notice to the agency employing a Federal co-inventor, and to the extent practicable, at least 60 days before any statutory bar date.

    (iii) Upon notification by the funding agency of a subject invention in which the contractor has waived rights, the agency employing a Federal co-inventor must determine if there is a government interest in patenting the invention and will notify the funding agency of its determination.

    (iv) If the agency employing a Federal co-inventor determines there is a government interest in patenting the subject invention, the funding agency must provide administrative assistance (but is not required to provide financial assistance) to the agency employing a Federal co-inventor in acquiring rights from the contractor in order to file an initial patent invention.

    (v) The agency employing a Federal co-inventor has priority for patenting over funding agencies that do not have a Federal co-inventor when a contractor has waived rights.

    (vi) The funding agency and the agency employing a Federal co-inventor shall consult in order to ensure that the intent of the programmatic objectives conducted under the funding agreement is represented in any patenting decisions. The agency employing a Federal co-inventor may transfer patent management responsibilities to the funding agency.

    (4) Federal agencies employing such co-inventors may enter into an agreement with a contractor when an agency determines it is a suitable and necessary step to protect and administer rights on behalf of the Federal Government, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 202(e).

    (5) Federal agencies employing such co-inventors will retain all ownership rights to which they are otherwise entitled if the contractor elects title to the subject invention.

    (b) Agencies may add additional conditions as long as they are consistent with 35 U.S.C. 201-206.

    8. Amend § 401.14 as follows: a. Remove the paragraph (a) designation from the first sentence of the section and republish the sentence; b. Add paragraph (a)(7); c. Revise paragraph (c)(2); d. Redesignate the existing paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(5); e. Add a new paragraph (c)(4); and f. Revise paragraphs (d)(1), (f)(2) and (3), (g)(1), and (k)(4); g. Revise the text after the paragraph heading of paragraph (l); h. Remove the second paragraphs (b) and (c) from the end of the section which appear after paragraph (l).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 401.14 Standard patent rights clauses.

    The following is the standard patent rights clause to be used as specified in § 401.3(a):

    Standard Patent Rights

    (a) * * *

    (7) The term statutory period means the one-year period before the effective filing date of a claimed invention during which exceptions to prior art exist per 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

    (c) * * *

    (2) The contractor will elect in writing whether or not to retain title to any such invention by notifying the Federal agency within two years of disclosure to the Federal agency. However, the period for election of title may be shortened by the Federal agency where the agency determines that a shorter period is necessary in order to protect the government's interest, and in any case where a patent, a printed publication, public use, sale, or other availability to the public has initiated the one year statutory period wherein valid patent protection can still be obtained in the United States, the period for election of title may be shortened by the agency to a date that is no more than 60 days prior to the end of the statutory period.

    (4) Where the Federal agency determines that it would be in the interest of the government, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 207(a)(3), for the Federal agency to file an initial patent application on any subject invention with Federal agency and contractor inventors, the Federal agency, at its discretion and in consultation with the contractor, may file such application at its own expense.”

    (d) * * *

    (1) If the contractor fails to disclose or elect title to the subject invention within the times specified in (c), above, or elects not to retain title.

    (f) * * *

    (2) The contractor agrees to require, by written agreement, its employees, other than clerical and nontechnical employees, to disclose promptly in writing to personnel identified as responsible for the administration of patent matters and in a format suggested by the contractor each subject invention made under contract in order that the contractor can comply with the disclosure provisions of paragraph (c) of this clause, to assign to the contractor the entire right, title and interest in and to each subject invention made under contract, and to execute all papers necessary to file patent applications on subject inventions and to establish the government's rights in the subject inventions. This disclosure format should require, as a minimum, the information required by paragraph (c)(1) of this clause. The contractor shall instruct such employees through employee agreements or other suitable educational programs on the importance of reporting inventions in sufficient time to permit the filing of patent applications prior to U.S. or foreign statutory bars.

    (3) The contractor will, no less than 120 days prior to the expiration of any applicable response period or other filing deadline required by the relevant patent office, notify the Federal agency of any decision: Not to continue the prosecution of a patent application; not to pay a maintenance, annuity or renewal fee; not to defend in a reexamination or opposition proceeding on a patent, in any country; to request, be a party to, or take action in a trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including but not limited to post-grant review, review of a business method patent, inter partes review, and derivation proceeding; or to request, be a party to, or take action in a non-trial submission of art or information at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including but not limited to a pre-issuance submission, a post-issuance submission, and supplemental examination.

    (g) * * *

    (1) The contractor will include this clause, suitably modified to identify the parties, in all subcontracts, regardless of tier, for experimental, developmental or research work to be performed by a subcontractor.

    (k) * * *

    (4) It will make efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to attract licensees of subject inventions that are small business firms and that it will give a preference to a small business firm when licensing a subject invention if the contractor determines that the small business firm has a plan or proposal for marketing the invention which, if executed, is equally as likely to bring the invention to practical application as any plans or proposals from applicants that are not small business firms; provided, that the contractor is also satisfied that the small business firm has the capability and resources to carry out its plan or proposal. The decision whether to give a preference in any specific case will be at the discretion of the contractor. However, the contractor agrees that the Federal agency may review the contractor's licensing program and decisions regarding small business applicants, and the contractor will negotiate changes to its licensing policies, procedures, or practices with the Federal agency when the Federal agency's review discloses that the contractor could take reasonable steps to implement more effectively the requirements of this paragraph (k)(4). The Federal agency or the contractor may request that the Secretary review the contractor's licensing program and decisions regarding small business applicants.

    (l) * * *

    [Complete according to instructions at § 401.5(b)]

    9. In § 401.16: a. Remove the word “may” from paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and add in its place the word “shall”; and b. Add paragraph (d).

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 401.16 Electronic filing.

    (d) Other written notices required in this clause may be electronically delivered to the agency or the contractor through an electronic database used for reporting subject inventions, patents, and utilization reports to the funding agency.

    11. Revise § 401.17 to read as follows:
    § 401.17 Submissions and inquiries.

    All submissions or inquiries should be directed to the Chief Counsel for NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1052, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-1052; telephone: (301) 975-2803; email: [email protected] Information about and procedures for electronic filing under this Part are available at the Interagency Edison Web site and service center, http://www.iedison.gov, telephone (301) 435-1986.

    PART 404—LICENSING OF GOVERNMENT OWNED INVENTIONS 12. The authority citation for 37 CFR part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207-209, DOO 30-2A.

    13. Revise § 404.8 to read as follows:
    § 404.8 Application for a license.

    (a) An application for a license should be addressed to the Federal agency having custody of the invention and shall normally include:

    (1) Identification of the invention for which the license is desired including the patent application serial number or patent number, title, and date, if known;

    (2) Identification of the type of license for which the application is submitted;

    (3) Name and address of the person, company, or organization applying for the license and the citizenship or place of incorporation of the applicant;

    (4) Name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the applicant to whom correspondence should be sent;

    (5) Nature and type of applicant's business, identifying products or services which the applicant has successfully commercialized, and approximate number of applicant's employees;

    (6) Source of information concerning the availability of a license on the invention;

    (7) A statement indicating whether the applicant is a small business firm as defined in § 404.3(c)

    (8) A detailed description of applicant's plan for development or marketing of the invention, or both, which should include:

    (i) A statement of the time, nature and amount of anticipated investment of capital and other resources which applicant believes will be required to bring the invention to practical application;

    (ii) A statement as to applicant's capability and intention to fulfill the plan, including information regarding manufacturing, marketing, financial, and technical resources;

    (iii) A statement of the fields of use for which applicant intends to practice the invention; and

    (iv) A statement of the geographic areas in which applicant intends to manufacture any products embodying the invention and geographic areas where applicant intends to use or sell the invention, or both;

    (9) Identification of licenses previously granted to applicant under federally owned inventions;

    (10) A statement containing applicant's best knowledge of the extent to which the invention is being practiced by private industry or Government, or both, or is otherwise available commercially; and

    (11) Any other information which applicant believes will support a determination to grant the license to applicant.

    (b) An executed CRADA which provides for the use for research and development purposes by the CRADA collaborator under that CRADA of a Federally-owned invention in the Federal laboratory's custody (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 209 and 15 U.S.C. 3710a(b)(1)), and which addresses the information in paragraph (a) of this section, may be treated by the Federal laboratory as an application for a license.

    Kent Rochford, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-25325 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0559; FRL-9954-97-Region 2] Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; Attainment Demonstration for the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan dated August 30, 2016, submitted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the EPA, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards in the Arecibo Lead nonattainment area. The Arecibo nonattainment Area is comprised of a portion of Arecibo Municipality in Puerto Rico with a 4 kilometer radius surrounding The Battery Recycling Company, Inc. Puerto Rico initially submitted a lead SIP revision for the Arecibo area on January 30, 2015. The EPA proposed to disapprove the January 30, 2015 submittal on February 29, 2016. The PREQB rescinded the January 30, 2015 submittal and replaced it with the August 30, 2016 lead SIP submittal for the Arecibo area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0559 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mazeeda Khan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3715, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What action is the EPA proposing? II. What is the background information for this proposal? III. What is included in Puerto Rico's SIP submittal? IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Puerto Rico's attainment plan submittal? a. Pollutants Addressed b. Emissions Inventory Requirements i. 2011 Emissions Inventory ii. 2016 Emissions Inventory c. Attainment Plan Modeling i. Modeling Approach ii. Modeling Results d. RACM/RACT Requirements e. RFP Requirements f. Contingency Measures g. Attainment Date V. What are the EPA's conclusions? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's State Implementation Plan (SIP) dated August 30, 2016, as submitted by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) to the EPA, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Arecibo Lead nonattainment area (Arecibo Area or Area). The Arecibo Area is comprised of a portion of Arecibo Municipality in Puerto Rico with a 4 kilometer radius surrounding The Battery Recycling Company, Inc. (TBRCI). Puerto Rico's lead attainment plan for the Arecibo Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead attainment, contingency measures and narrative on control measures that included reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT), and reasonable further progress (RFP).

    The EPA proposes to determine that Puerto Rico's attainment plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the Arecibo Area meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's attainment plan for the Arecibo Area. The EPA's analysis for this proposed action is discussed in Section IV of this proposed rulemaking.

    II. What is the background information for this proposal?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), the EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. The EPA established the 2008 Lead NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to lead emissions.

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), the EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. On November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for all remaining areas were completed, which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective December 31, 2011, the Arecibo Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, based on air quality monitoring data from April 2010 to June 2010 using a three-month rolling average design value. This designation triggered a requirement for Puerto Rico to submit a SIP revision by June 30, 2013, with a plan for how the Area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2016.

    The PREQB initially submitted a lead SIP revision for the Arecibo area on January 30, 2015. The EPA proposed to disapprove the January 30, 2015 submittal on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 10159). One comment was received from the Chairman of the PREQB, Weldin Ortiz Franco. The PREQB rescinded the January 30, 2015 submittal and replaced it with the August 30, 2016 lead SIP submittal for the Arecibo area. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to act on the August 30, 2016 submittal. Today's proposal represents EPA's only action on Puerto Rico lead SIP. The revised SIP submittal included the base year emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration. The EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling demonstration of lead attainment, contingency measures and narrative on control measures that included reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT), and reasonable further progress (RFP) for the Arecibo Area.

    III. What is included in Puerto Rico's proposed SIP submittal?

    In accordance with CAA section 172(c) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.117, Puerto Rico's attainment plan for the Arecibo Area includes: (1) An emissions inventory for the plan's base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment demonstration includes: Technical analyses that locate, identify and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the 2008 Lead NAAQS; a modeling analysis of an emissions control strategy for the TBRCI facility that attains the level of the Lead NAAQS by the attainment year (2016); and, contingency measures required under CAA section 172(c)(9).

    IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Puerto Rico's Attainment Plan submittal?

    CAA section 172(c)(4) and the Lead SIP regulations found at 40 CFR 51.117 require States to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling for the demonstration of attainment of the Lead NAAQS for areas in the vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as expeditiously as practicable. Section 302(d) of the CAA includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the definition of the term “State.” The demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected attainment. All these requirements comprise the “attainment plan” that is required for lead nonattainment areas. In the case of the Arecibo Area, the EPA is proposing to approve the August 30, 2016 attainment plan submitted by Puerto Rico. The EPA's analysis is provided below.

    a. Pollutants Addressed

    Puerto Rico's lead attainment plan evaluates lead emissions in the Arecibo Area within the portion of Arecibo Municipality designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. There are no precursors to consider for the lead attainment plan.

    b. Emissions Inventory Requirements i. 2011 Base Year Inventory

    States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop comprehensive, accurate and current inventories of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the area. These inventories provide a detailed accounting of all emissions and emission sources by precursor or pollutant. In the November 12, 2008, Lead Standard rulemaking, the EPA finalized the emissions inventory requirements. The current regulations are located at 40 CFR 51.117(e), and include, but are not limited to, the following emissions inventory requirements:

    • The SIP inventory must be approved by the EPA as a SIP element and is subject to public hearing requirements; and,

    • The point source inventory upon which the summary of the baseline for lead emissions inventory is based must contain all sources that emit 0.5 or more tons of lead per year (tons/yr).

    For the base year inventory of actual emissions, the EPA generally recommends using either the year 2010 or 2011 as the base year for the contingency measure calculations, but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states can show another year is more appropriate.1 For Lead SIPs, CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that all sources of lead emissions in the nonattainment area be submitted with the base-year inventory.

    1 See the EPA document titled “Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation Questions and Answers” dated August 10, 2012 located at https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/lead-state-implementation-plan-sip-checklist-guide and https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/lead-pb-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-implementation-guidance.

    Puerto Rico selected calendar year 2011 as the base year. This inventory included Arecibo, Barceloneta, Ciales, Florida, Hatillo and Utuado municipalities. Several facilities located in these municipalities that may be a source of lead emissions were considered in the inventory. These facilities are: TBRCI, PREPA Cambalache, Safetech Corporation, Antonio Nery Juarbe (ANJ) Airport, Eaton, Abbvie Ltd., Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. TBRCI was a secondary lead smelter facility, dedicated to recycling lead-acid batteries and had potential lead emissions over 0.5 tons/yr. PREPA Cambalache is an electric power facility. Safetech Corporation is a nearby source dedicated to the collection, temporary storage and disposal by incineration of commercial and industrial non-hazardous solid waste. The ANJ Airport is a general aviation airport located near TBRCI. Eaton is dedicated to power and transformer manufacturing and Abbvie Ltd. (formerly Abbott Laboratories), Merck Sharp and Dohme and Pfizer are pharmaceuticals processes. Energy Answers and Sunbeam Synergy, two new facilities that are permitted but are not under construction yet, were also included in the 2016 emissions inventory. For the 2011 emissions inventory, actual emissions were used for facilities with actual reported emissions and/or activity data. For facilities with no reported 2011 emissions data, the facility maximum capacity or permit limits were used to calculate 2011 emissions in order to include all possible emissions as part of the attainment demonstration analysis. The ANJ Airport lead emissions are from the EPA Emissions Inventory System/National Emissions Inventory (EIS/NEI) System.

    According to this inventory, the only source of lead emissions of 0.5 of tons/yr, or more, in 2011 is TBRCI which emitted 1.21 tons of lead per year. All other facilities were well below the 0.5 tons/yr limit as identified in Table 1. TBRCI was dedicated to the recycling of lead batteries for the production of lead of different specifications. It produced point source emissions from one furnace and five kettle burners and fugitive emissions from material transport and handling.

    The 2011 preliminary air quality modeling studies, emissions inventory and ambient air monitoring data indicate that TBRCI fugitive emissions are the major contributor to the high lead concentration in Arecibo and, therefore, are the focus of the Arecibo attainment plan, as discussed in Section IV. In order to comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) also known as the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standard, TBRCI was required to implement control measures to lower the potential fugitive lead emissions in the main process building and in the handling operations. The PREQB Governing Board determined TBRCI was unable to comply with this regulation,2 and, accordingly, the PREQB withdrew both the construction and operating permits for the facility.

    2 Puerto Rico SIP revision, Appendix G: Translation of Resolution R-15-6.

    The design value used for designating the area as nonattainment was based on monitoring data from 2010. For the purposes of calculating the nonattainment area emissions inventory, lead emissions data were taken from the PREQB's 2011 Emissions Inventory for the area. The EPA has determined that the 2011 base year emissions inventory estimates submitted are in compliance with CAA section 172(c)(3), are conservative and were developed in accordance with the EPA guidance. Details of the inventory are provided in the August 30, 2016 submittal. Table 1 identifies the base year emissions inventory for 2011.

    ii. 2016 Attainment/Projection Inventory

    While the PREQB has two source oriented monitors in Arecibo, there is no monitor in the area to provide background concentration. To address the lead background concentrations in the attainment modeling study, the EPA recommends a multi-source American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) be run using the background lead emissions from nearby facilities, projected to 2016. The municipalities analyzed for background lead emissions were Barceloneta, Ciales, Florida, Hatillo, and Utuado. Of these municipalities, Barceloneta is the only municipality in addition to Arecibo, which has reported lead emissions.

    In accordance with the Lead Guidance 3 for the Attainment/Projection Inventory, the maximum allowable emissions should be included for the attainment year inventory, which includes only those sources within the modeling domain. The EPA modeling guidance, 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W provides advice on which sources need to be included explicitly (i.e., as point sources) in the modeling and provides for including the impacts of smaller and diffuse sources through the use of background concentrations and other less specific techniques given the relatively lower significance of such sources to the SIP demonstration.

    3 Lead Guideline Document, USEPA, EPA-452/R-93-009, April 1993, https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/lead-pb-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-implementation-guidance.

    For Puerto Rico, allowable lead emissions projected to 2016 with controls or permit limits were used in the attainment modeling study. For existing facilities, allowable emissions with controls or permit limits were used to develop the inventory. Energy Answers and Sunbeam Synergy are permitted sources that are not under construction yet.4 These sources did not exist in 2011 but were scheduled to start operation in 2016. Their potential allowable lead emissions with controls or permit limits were used for the 2016 projection inventory. The ANJ Airport lead emissions are from the EPA EIS/NEI System and were projected to 2016 using the methodology recommended by the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ). Details of the inventory are provided in the SIP submittal. The inventory was developed in accordance with CAA Section 172(c)(3) and the EPA Lead Guidance. Table 1 identifies the 2016 attainment/projection year emissions inventory for 2016.

    4 Puerto Rico SIP, Appendix B: 2016 Emissions Projection Year Inventory, Arecibo Lead SIP.

    Table 1—Arecibo Lead SIP, Emission Sources in the Baseline Emissions Inventory 2011 and 2016 Attainment/Projection Year Emissions Inventory Industry Municipality 2011 Lead emissions
  • (In tons/year)
  • 2016 Lead attainment/
  • projection year
  • emissions inventory
  • (In tons/year)
  • PREPA Cambalache Arecibo 0.11 0.28 Energy Answers Arecibo DID NOT EXIST IN 2011 0.3059 TBRCI Arecibo 1.21 0.01 Safetech Corporation Arecibo 0.009 0.009 Eaton Arecibo 0.000062 0.00075 ANJ Airport Arecibo 0.00364 0.037 Abbott (Now Abbvie Ltd.) Barceloneta 0.0088 0.0161 Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC Barceloneta 0.001 0.0035 Merck Sharp & Dohme+ Barceloneta 0.00037 0.018 Sunbeam Synergy Barceloneta DID NOT EXIST IN 2011 0.11 Total 1.343 0.79025
    c. Attainment Plan Modeling

    The Puerto Rico modeling analysis was prepared using the EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system, AERMOD, consisting of the AERMOD model and two data input preprocessors AERMET and AERMAP, consistent with the EPA's Modeling Guidance at 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W and 40 CFR part 51.117. More detailed information on the AERMOD Modeling system and other modeling tools and documents can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) (http://www.the EPA.gov/ttn/scram/) and in Puerto Rico's submittal for this proposed action (EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0559) on the www.regulations.gov Web site. A brief description of the modeling used to support the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's attainment demonstration is provided below.

    i. Modeling Approach

    The following is an overview of the air quality modeling approach used to demonstrate compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS, in Puerto Rico's SIP submittal.

    To develop the appropriate meteorological data for the area for use in the attainment demonstration, the PREQB used AERMOD pre-processors, AERMET and AERMAP to process site specific meteorological data collected at PREPA Cambalache. Data from San Juan Airport was also used to supplement the PREPA data in those instances where meteorological data may have been missing.

    The PREQB used the EPA LEADPOST processor to calculate the lead three-month rolling average. To determine the lead background concentration that would be representative of the Arecibo area, the PREQB conducted a multi-source modelling analysis with projected or controlled emissions to 2016 of the facilities in the six municipalities (Arecibo, Barceloneta, Ciales, Florida, Hatillo and Utuado), including the Arecibo Airport. This approach was used because the PREQB does not have an Arecibo lead air quality monitor that is not affected by the emissions from TBRCI facility that would be representative of the Arecibo area.

    The PREQB developed the 2011 base year and the 2016 control strategy emissions inventories for input in the air quality model to perform current and control dispersion modeling. The emissions inventory was used in the multi-source modeling scenario (see modeling protocol in SIP submittal Appendix C and Appendix C-1).

    ii. Modeling Results

    The Lead NAAQS compliance results of the AERMOD modeling are summarized in Table 2 below. As can be seen in Table 2, the maximum three-month rolling average predicted impact with the meteorological data (2006-2010) is less than the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 μg/m3 for the AERMOD modeling runs. Output from the LEADPOST processor which details all of the concentrations can be found in the August 30, 2016 submittal.

    Table 2—Summary Results of Modeling for 2016 Attainment Deadline Pollutant Avg. time Maximum
  • monthly
  • predicted
  • impact
  • (μg/m3)
  • Maximum
  • 3-high avg. predicted
  • impact
  • (μg/m3)
  • NAAQS
  • (μg/m3)
  • Impact greater than NAAQS
    Lead 3-month rolling 0.11318 0.09352 0.15 No

    The post control scenario used in the model is heavily influenced by the operating status of TBRCI. Based on the post control scenario of TBRCI not operating, the model predicts an impact of 0.09352 μg/m3. This data indicates significant reductions in air quality impacts with the non-operation closure of the TBRCI facility resulting in attainment of the lead NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed the modeling that Puerto Rico submitted to support the attainment demonstration for the Arecibo Area and has determined that this modeling is consistent with CAA requirements, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, and the EPA Lead Guidance for lead attainment demonstration modeling.

    d. RACM/RACT Requirements

    CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM for stationary sources as expeditiously as practicable for attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA interprets RACM, including RACT, under CAA section 172, as measures that a State determines to be both reasonably available and to contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the nonattainment area. A comprehensive discussion of the RACM/RACT requirement for lead attainment plans can be found in the EPA guidance (footnote 3).

    TBRCI was the only source of lead emissions of 0.5 tpy or more. TBRCI was the primary source of lead emissions in the Arecibo area contributing to monitored nonattainment. Therefore, the RACT/RACM requirements would focus primarily on TBRCI. However, on June 12, 2014, TBRCI notified the PREQB that it would “temporarily cease operations”. As discussed in Section IV.b.1 above, on August 19, 2015, the PREQB withdrew both the Construction Permit and Title V Operation Permit for TBRCI because the facility was unable to comply with Puerto Rico Rule 203(b)(1) and Puerto Rico Rule 604(b) as well as CAA Section 112 (See footnote 3). Since the PREQB withdrew TBRCI permits, TBRCI is no longer operating. Since TBRCI is no longer operating, there are no further RACT or RACM necessary for the area to attain the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable or by the December 2016 attainment date. The EPA notes that TBRCI has no permits to operate as a secondary lead smelter facility. Should TBRCI or any other entity decide to start up business as a secondary lead smelter facility in the Arecibo area, the company will need to obtain the appropriate permits to operate in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the EPA, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Regulations for the Control of the Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP), the Puerto Rico Environmental Public Policy Act, Act 416-2004 as amended (PREPPA Act 416) and CAA Section 112 MACT requirements. These laws and regulations ensure that any new source of lead emissions, or any emission, will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS.

    With respect to fugitive emissions and for all emission sources, the Puerto Rico SIP already includes control measures located in RCAP Rule 404 (also referenced in the August 30, 2016 submittal).5

    5 62 FR 3213 (Jan. 22, 1997) (approval of RCAP 404 into SIP); 40 CFR 52.2723.

    RCAP Rule 404: Where no person shall cause or permit any materials to be handled, transported, or stored in a building, its appurtenances, or a road to be used, constructed altered, repaired, or demolished, without taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter (including particulate matter containing lead) from becoming airborne including but not limited to:

    Rule 404(A)(1): The use, as much as possible, of water or suitable chemicals for chemical stabilization and the control of dust in the demolition of a building or structures, construction operations, quarrying operations, the grading of roads, or the clearing of land;

    Rule 404(A)(4): The covering, at all times when in motion, of open bodied trucks transporting materials likely to give rise to airborne dusts;

    Rule 404(A)(3): The installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent dusty materials to control harmless fugitive emissions. Adequate containment methods shall also be employed during sandblasting or other similar operations;

    Rule 404(A)(6): The paving of road ways and their maintenance in a clean condition;

    Rule 404(B): Where no person shall cause or permit the discharge of visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the boundary line of the property on which the emissions originate;

    Rule 404(C): Where air pollutant escape from a building or equipment and cause a nuisance or violate any regulations, the Board may order that the building or equipment in which processing, handling, and storage are done, be tightly closed and/or ventilated so that all emissions from the building or equipment are controlled to remove or destroy such air pollutants before being discharged to the open air; and,

    Rule 404(E): Where any new or modified source, the construction of which causes or may cause fugitive emissions, shall apply for a permit as required in Rule 203.

    e. RFP Requirements

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires that an attainment plan includes a demonstration that shows reasonable further progress to meeting air quality standards. The term “reasonable further progress” is defined in CAA section 171 to mean “such annual incremental reductions in the emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required . . . for purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” In accordance with CAA section 172(c)(1), the RFP requires implementation of all RACM/RACT as “expeditiously as practicable.”

    Historically, for some pollutants, RFP has been met by showing annual incremental emission reductions generally sufficient to maintain linear progress toward attainment by the applicable attainment date. As stated in the final Lead Rule (73 FR 67039), the EPA concluded that it was appropriate that RFP requirements be satisfied by the strict adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule, which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions. For lead nonattainment areas, RFP is to be achieved by implementing an emission reduction compliance schedule for stationary sources outlined in the SIP. The stationary source of concern in the Arecibo area is TBRCI. As discussed in Section V.d, TBRCI is no longer operating. Therefore the EPA proposes to find that RFP has been achieved in the Arecibo area because the emission reduction compliance schedule for the one stationary source in question, TBRCI, has been achieved by no longer operating.

    f. Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of CAA requires that SIPs include specific contingency measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS by the attainment date which is December 31, 2016, for Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

    Upon determination by the EPA that the area has failed to achieve or maintain RFP, or attain the lead NAAQS by the statutory attainment date, these contingency measures will take effect without further action by the State or the Administrator. The amount of reductions yielded by implementation of contingency measures should be quantified and, for a five-year plan, the measures should reduce emissions by 20 percent of the total amount needed for attainment. Under certain circumstances, this amount may be derived by reference to reductions in ambient air concentrations (2008 lead NAAQS Implementation Q&A, July 8, 2011, EPA).

    The PREQB asserts that a comprehensive evaluation of all known lead emissions sources has already been accomplished and that RACT (or greater) levels of controls have been addressed, as discussed in the control measures section of the August 30, 2016 submittal. Contingency measures are intended to address any lead emissions that would cause any future exceedances of the lead NAAQS. The PREPPA Act 416, Title II, Section 9(A)(7) provides PREQB with the authority to order persons causing or contributing to a condition which harms the environment and natural resources or which poses an imminent danger for the public health and safety, to immediately diminish or discontinue their actions. Also, PREPPA Act 416, Title II, Section 9(A)(8) provides the authority to issue orders to do or forbear or to cease and desist so as to take the preventive or control measures that, in its judgment, are necessary to achieve the purposes of this Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

    As discussed above, RCAP Rule 404, which is approved into the SIP, contains specific provisions to control fugitive emissions at any facility in Puerto Rico are intended to satisfy the CAA 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirements.

    In addition to the contingency measures in the Lead SIP, the PREQB included actions it will take to better characterize the source of any exceedance:

    • If during any three-month rolling period, if two samples at the same monitor in the Arecibo Nonattainment Area are reported to exceed 0.15 μg/m3, along with the activities above, the PREQB will increase the sampling frequency at that monitor to once every three days;

    • In addition, if during any three-month rolling period, if three samples at the same monitor in the Arecibo Nonattainment Area are reported to exceed 0.15 μg/m3, along with the activities above, the PREQB will conduct daily sampling at that monitor for a period of 30 days.

    The EPA has determined that the PREQB's SIP addresses the requirement for contingency measures pursuant to CAA 172(c)(9) and therefore EPA proposes to approve these contingency measures.

    g. Attainment Date

    Puerto Rico provided a modeling demonstration to attain the level of the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the Arecibo Area by no later than five years after the Area was designated nonattainment. The modeling indicates that the Arecibo Area will have attaining data for the 2008 Lead NAAQS by December 31, 2016. On June 12, 2014, TBRCI notified the PREQB that it would “temporarily cease operations”. As discussed in Section IV.b.1 above, on August 19, 2015, the PREQB withdrew both the Construction Permit and the Title V Operating Permit for TBRCI because the facility was unable to comply with subject regulations of Puerto Rico RCAP Rules 203(b)(1) and 604(b) as well as the CAA Section 112 (see footnote 3). The EPA notes that since September 2015, the data from the source oriented Arecibo air monitoring site has been below the three-month rolling average for the Lead NAAQS. In addition, the modeling demonstrates compliance with the Lead NAAQS. Consequently, the EPA proposes that the PREQB has provided an attainment demonstration SIP that shows how the Arecibo area will meet the Lead NAAQS.

    V. What are the EPA's conclusions?

    The EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP Puerto Rico's lead attainment plan for the Arecibo Area. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's August 30, 2016 submittal, which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, modelling, and contingency measures and addresses RACM/RACT and the RFP plan. Permits for the lead smelter, TBRCI, documented as the source of high lead emissions, have been withdrawn and it is not operating at this time. Accordingly, RACM, RACT and RFP analyses have been met. The requirement for RACM/RACT and RFP plan is satisfied because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico demonstrated that the Area will attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, and could not implement any additional measures to attain the NAAQS any sooner.

    The EPA notes that since September 2015, the data from the source oriented Arecibo air monitoring site has been below the three-month rolling average for the Lead NAAQS.

    The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that Puerto Rico has developed the Lead attainment plan in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and the EPA's technical requirements for a Lead SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP the Lead attainment plan for Arecibo, Puerto Rico.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Judith Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26729 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0087] RIN 2127-AK92 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 393 [Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0083] RIN 2126-AB63 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Speed Limiting Devices AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    NHTSA and FMCSA have received requests to extend the comment period for their proposal that would require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a speed limiting device and that such device be maintained for the service life of the vehicle. In the proposal, NHTSA and FMCSA established a deadline for the submission of written comments of November 7, 2016. The Agencies have also received a letter opposing any extension of the comment period. To ensure that all interested parties have a sufficient amount of time to fully develop their comments, the Agencies are extending the deadline for the submission of written comments on the proposal, including comments on the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Draft Environmental Assessment accompanying the proposal, by 30 days.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by one or both of the docket numbers in the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:

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

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

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the discussion under the Public Participation heading of the September 7, 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking (81 FR 61942). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    NHTSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Wayne McKenzie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Telephone: (202) 366-4000. Facsimile: (202) 366-7002. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. David Jasinski, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to these officials at: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Attention: NVS-010, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FMCSA: For technical issues, you may contact Mr. Michael Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations, Telephone (202) 366-5370. Facsimile: (202) 366-8842. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of Chief Counsel, Telephone (202) 366-1354. Facsimile: (202) 366-3602. You may send mail to these officials at: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Attention: MC-PSV, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 7, 2016, NHTSA and FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing regulations that would require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 11,793.4 kilograms (26,000 pounds) to be equipped with a speed limiting device initially set to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified in a final rule and would require motor carriers operating such vehicles in interstate commerce to maintain functional speed limiting devices set to a speed no greater than a speed to be specified in the final rule for the service life of the vehicle.

    The American Trucking Associations (ATA) (with the support of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance), the EMA Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) have requested that NHTSA and FMCSA extend the public comment period beyond the November 7, 2016 date specified in the NPRM. The ATA and EMA requested a 30-day extension. In support of its request, ATA states that the proposal differs significantly from its initial petition for rulemaking in a number of areas, and additional time is needed to confer with its membership on these issues. EMA states that at least 30 additional days is needed to more thoroughly analyze the issues in order to develop detailed and complete comments.

    The OOIDA requested a 60-day extension of the comment period. In support of its request, OOIDA states that it will take a considerable amount of time and resources to develop meaningful comments from its members, many of which are on the road and away from home upwards of 250 days a year.

    NHTSA and FMCSA have also received a letter signed by a number of safety advocacy groups and individuals opposing any extension of the comment period. The letter states that in the 10 years since the petitions for rulemaking were initially filed, truck crashes and fatalities have increased at rates faster than overall crashes and fatalities, and that additional time for comment is not necessary and would further delay issuance of a final rule implementing the proposal.

    In considering the requests to extend the public comment period and the letter opposing any extension, NHTSA and FMCSA weighed the complexity and importance of this rulemaking and the rationale provided in support of each position. We have determined that there is good cause to grant the requests to extend the comment period, and have decided to extend the comment period for an additional 30 days. The extension is in the public interest since it will provide the public additional time to prepare and submit useful technical information and comments that should benefit Agency decision-making in this rulemaking action. Accordingly, NHTSA and FMCSA will extend the period for the submission of written comments in this proceeding to December 7, 2016. In addition, NHTSA and FMCSA are extending the comment period for the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Draft Environmental Assessment, which have been placed in the rulemaking docket, until December 7, 2016 as well.1

    1 A notice of availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment specifically seeking comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016. See 81 FR 67056.

    Issued pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.95 on: November 2, 2016. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Issued pursuant to authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.87.

    Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26816 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Chapter V [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0090], Notice 2 Federal Automated Vehicles Policy AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NHTSA is announcing a public meeting to seek input on the recently released Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (the Policy). The Policy is guidance that seeks to speed the delivery of an initial regulatory framework for highly automated vehicles (HAVs) as well as encourage conformance with best practices to guide manufacturers and other entities in the safe design, development, testing, and deployment of HAVs.

    The public meeting will be an open listening session to provide as great an opportunity for comment as possible. All comments will be oral and any presentations should be submitted to the docket for inclusion. Additionally, all interested parties, either not in attendance or who are unable to speak, are invited to share any views or information they would like considered through the docket as well.

    DATES:

    NHTSA will hold the public meeting on November 10, 2016, in Washington, DC. The meeting will start at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. local time. Check-in (through security) will begin at 8 a.m. Attendees should arrive early enough to enable them to go through security by 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the United States General Services Administration, Regional Office Building located at 301 7th Street (7th & D Streets) SW., Washington, DC 20407. This facility is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

    Written Comments: Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments presented at the public meeting. Please submit all written comments no later than November 22, 2016, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To submit comments on the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, please use docket NHTSA-2016-0090.

    NHTSA issued a separate notice and created a separate docket for the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection request related to the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy (81 FR 65709). In that notice, NHTSA estimated the potential burden associated with submitting information to NHTSA as recommended by the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. To submit comments on the information collection request related to the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, please use docket NHTSA-2016-0091.

    Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    Fax: 202-366-1767.

    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and associated docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below.

    Docket: For access to the docket go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 202-366-9826.

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should submit a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact Ms. Yvonne Clarke, Program Assistant, Office of Vehicle Safety Research at (202) 366-1845 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 20, 2016, DOT released the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy. The Policy is intended to ensure automated vehicle technologies are safely introduced and achieve their full safety potential by removing potential roadblocks to the integration of innovative automotive technology. The full Policy can be found at www.nhtsa.gov/AV.

    On September 23, 2016, DOT published a notice requesting written public comment regarding the contents of the Policy.1 Those comments are due November 22, 2016. Concurrent with the notice requesting public comment, DOT published a separate notice opening a separate docket for commenters to respond to the proposed information collection request for the Policy (81 FR 65709).

    1 81 FR 65703 (September 23, 2016), NHTSA-2016-0090.

    Meeting

    NHTSA has laid out four sections within the Policy that focus on priority areas related to HAVs. During the morning session of the meeting, the Agency will seek public input on those four sections to include: Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles, Model State Policy, NHTSA's Current Regulatory Tools, and Modern Regulatory Tools. The focus will be to gather feedback regarding how manufacturers and other entities have understood these four areas of interest, if there are challenges foreseen, suggestions for clarification or more thorough explanation, recommended improvements, or other input.

    During the afternoon session of the meeting, the Agency will seek specific input from the public on the safety assessment letter. The intent of the policy is for manufacturers and other entities involved in the design, development, validation, testing and deployment of automated vehicles to voluntarily submit to the Agency a letter describing how they are meeting the 15 safety areas in the vehicle performance guidance outlined in the policy.

    NHTSA is seeking input to refine the overall structure and content of the safety assessment letter from the parties responsible for the preparation and submission of these letters. This input will aid the Agency in developing a template for entities to use as well as further refine our anticipated internal processes necessary to review submissions in a timely fashion.

    The meeting announced by this notice is being held during the open comment period for the Policy to provide an opportunity for individuals to provide oral feedback regarding the four sections of the Policy.

    Registration is necessary for all attendees. Attendees, including those who do not plan to make any oral remarks at the meeting, should register at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/12_tCd_PEWBiPCLnp1KmsSXV9vsoV6iAm1o_n736lbds/viewform?edit_requested=true by November 8, 2016. Please provide your name, email address, and affiliation, indicate if you wish to offer oral technical remarks, and please indicate whether you require accommodations such as a sign language interpreter. Space is limited, so advanced registration is highly encouraged.

    Although attendees will be given the opportunity to offer technical remarks, there will not be time for attendees to make audio-visual presentations during the meeting. Additionally, NHTSA may not be able to accommodate all attendees who wish to make oral remarks. All interested parties, not in attendance, unable to comment verbally, or otherwise, are invited to share any views or information they would like considered in the docket.

    NHTSA will conduct the public meeting informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written transcript of the meeting. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcripts directly with the court reporter. The transcript will also be posted in the docket when it becomes available.

    Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants.

    Draft Meeting Agenda 8:00-9:00—Arrival/Check-In 9:00-12:00—Public Meeting Session on the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy Document 12:00—Lunch (on your own)/Arrival/Check-In 13:00-15:30—Invited Technical Comments/Other Oral Remarks on Safety Assessment Letter 15:30-16:00—Open Microphone 16:00—Adjourn Morning Session Meeting Topics

    The morning session of the meeting will provide an opportunity for individuals to express feedback regarding the four sections of the Policy. NHTSA has issued the Policy to ensure automated vehicle technologies are safely introduced and achieve their full safety potential by removing potential roadblocks to the integration of innovative automotive technology.

    Vehicle Performance Guidance for Automated Vehicles: This section, which is addressed to manufacturers, developers, and other organizations, outlines a 15 point “Safety Assessment” for the safe design, development, validation, testing, and deployment of automated vehicles.

    Model State Policy: This section describes the separate and distinct responsibilities of the Federal and State governments for regulation of HAVs, and recommends policy areas for States to consider with a goal of generating a consistent national framework for the validation, testing, and deployment of highly automated vehicles.

    Current Regulatory Tools: This section outlines DOT's current regulatory tools that can be used in a more timely and effective fashion to accelerate the safe development of HAVs, such as interpreting current rules to allow for greater flexibility in design and providing limited exemptions to allow manufacturers to gain experience with nontraditional vehicle designs.

    Modern Regulatory Tools: This section identifies potential new regulatory tools and statutory authorities that may aid the safe and efficient deployment of new lifesaving technologies.

    Afternoon Session Meeting Topics

    The afternoon session of the meeting provides an opportunity for individuals to specifically comment on the Safety Assessment Letter to NHTSA.2 As an example, the Agency is interested in how to structure a letter such that it contains enough information to enable the public and the Agency to understand how the submitter of the letter is meeting the 15 safety areas, but avoids revealing confidential business information or inadvertently creating a competitive disadvantage to anyone submitting the letter. Concurrent with the Policy, DOT also opened a docket for commenters to respond to this proposed information collection request for the Policy (81 FR 65709).

    2 Ibid., 15.

    Specifically, commenters are asked to discuss the following topics at the meeting:

    • Content and Structure

    The Agency seeks comment on how much and what types of information should be included in the letter to enable the public and the Agency to understand the submitter's process, plan, approach, or other areas. In the interest of achieving a reasonable degree of consistency in the letters it receives, the Agency also seeks comments on how the letters should be formatted. Finally, what is the expected length of a well formatted letter?

    • Identification of Responsible Manufacturers and Other Entities

    The Agency seeks comment on the entities that should be responsible for the submission of these letters. Commenters should also consider who should submit in these letters in the event that multiple parties collaborate together.

    • Transparency

    The Agency seeks to be as transparent as possible with these letters, and expects to make them public to increase public understanding and build consumer confidence. If commenters believe that certain portions of the letter should not be made available to the general public, please identify those portions and explain the reasons for that belief and how withholding those portions might affect public understanding and confidence. Commenters should discuss what format the agency should use to present the public display of the information.

    • Agency Response Processes

    The Agency will respond to persons who comment on safety assessment letters received by the Agency. Commenters should focus on what form this response should take, as well as what information the agency should include. Commenters should also discuss their views on making these responses available to the public.

    • Timing

    The Agency seeks comments on the timing proposed in the Policy document for the submission of the letters. Commenters should discuss what types of changes or updates are important enough to trigger the need to submit a new letter. In the event that changes or updates to automated features make it necessary to submit a new letter, commenters should discuss what time frame would be appropriate for re-submittal of the assessment letters.

    Nathaniel Beuse, Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26561 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    81 215 Monday, November 7, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Kootenai National Forest: Lincoln County; Montana; Starry Goat Project EIS AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to disclose the environmental effects of commercial and non-commercial vegetation management activities, prescribed burning, watershed and recreation improvement activities. Access management changes and other design features are included to protect resources and facilitate management activities. The project is located in the Callahan planning subunit on the Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana, near Troy, Montana.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by December 7, 2016. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in June 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in December 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to Kirsten Kaiser, District Ranger, Three Rivers Ranger District, 12858 U.S. Highway 2, Troy, MT 59935. Comments may be submitted online at https://cara.ecosystemmanagement.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=49837, or by email to: [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-295-7410.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Miles Friend, Project Team Leader, Three Rivers Ranger District, 12858 U.S. Highway 2, Troy, MT 59935. Phone: (406) 295-4693. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Starry Goat project area is immediately west of Troy, Montana, and runs from the Kootenai River west to the boundary between the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The project area encompasses approximately 90,776 acres (48,471 acres in Montana; 42,305 acres in Idaho, all administered by the Kootenai National Forest). Callahan Creek, Brush Creek, Ruby Creek, and Star Creek are the major drainages in the project area; all flowing into the Kootenai River at the project area boundary. The legal description includes Townships 30,31, and 32 North, Ranges 33 and 34 West, Lincoln County, Montana; and Townships 58, 59, 60, and 61 North, Ranges 2 and 3 East, Bonner and Boundary County, Idaho.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for this project is to: (1) Promote resilient vegetation conditions by managing towards the 2015 Forest Plan desired conditions for landscape-level vegetation patterns, structure, patch size, fuel loading, and species composition; (2) maintain or improve hydrologic connectivity, water quality and native aquatic species habitat; (3) improve big game winter range conditions and promote forage opportunities while maintaining secure habitat for wildlife; (4) provide a variety of wood products to the American public, and contribute to the local economy by generating jobs and income; (5) maintain and improve the recreation opportunities in the project area; (6) reduce the potential for high intensity wildfire while promoting desirable fire behavior characteristics and fuel conditions.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed action includes timber harvest and associated fuels treatments, prescribed burning, recreation improvements and watershed work to address the purpose and need. The proposed action includes:

    (1) Approximately 1,550 acres of regeneration harvest and 553 acres of intermediate harvest. These treatments would be accomplished through 1,846 acres of tractor harvest and 257 acres of skyline harvest. Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) is proposed on 395 acres within the project area. Approximately 132 acres of the proposed PCT would occur within the Callahan Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) and treatment would be consistent with Forest Plan standard FW-STD-WL-01. Pruning may occur along with PCT or by itself. There are 17 units proposed that would create or contribute to 14 different openings larger than 40 acres. This action requires a 60 day public review and Regional Forester approval (FSM 2471.1). This document serves as the beginning of the 60 day comment period. The largest of these treatment units would be approximately 231 acres in size. Treatments are proposed within old growth stands in the drier habitat types in Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine dominated stands to contribute to their stand resistance and resiliency (FW-GDL-VEG-01). Approximately 136 acres of harvest treatments are proposed within old growth and 113 acres of treatment within recruitment potential old growth. There would be 3,351 acres of fuels treatments proposed within old-growth stands or portions of those stands.

    (2) In an effort to return fire to the landscape and to promote wildlife foraging opportunities approximately 9,950 acres of prescribed burning is being proposed. Approximately 3,458 acres in the WUI are proposed for burning. Approximately 5,870 acres of this burning will occur in the Inventoried Roadless Areas of which 3,248 acres is in Idaho and 2,622 acres is in Montana.

    (3) Implementation of best management practice (BMP) work and road maintenance work would be implemented on Forest Service timber haul roads. Approximately 54 miles of National Forest System road (NFSR) would be improved to meet State BMPs for water quality.

    (4) Approximately 12.6 miles of active road storage, 4.95 miles of active decommissioning, and 5.1 miles of passive decommissioning would be done on roads not currently open for public motorized travel. Roads identified in the Travel Analysis as needed for long-term management of NFS lands would be put into intermittent stored service (storage). Roads identified as not needed for future management would be decommissioned. Both storage and decommissioning could have a range of treatments including simple barrier installation (passive treatment) where watershed impacts are not likely, to active treatments ranging from removing culverts to full recontouring where risks to watersheds are high. Non-motorized access would be facilitated with improved tread on road segments identified by the public as important for use. In addition, there are three sites with proposed watershed actions on existing roads including: Callahan sediment trap improvement on NFSR 414, Raymond Creek bridge removal, and Goat Creek road culvert upgrade.

    (5) The district is proposing fuel mitigation and roadside thinning to facilitate fuels reduction, safe ingress and egress for the public in case of a wildland fire and road maintenance within the project area. Approximately 779 acres of thinning and 78 acres of road maintenance are proposed along only the Forest Service roads open to yearlong motorized use.

    (6) Proposed Starry Goat activities would impact approximately 1,372 acres of existing grizzly bear core, nearly all of which is associated with harvest access and haul on currently barriered roads. A minor access management change at the top of Smith Mountain also contributes to this total. Gated roads that could be barriered to provide the necessary in-kind replacement of core have been identified. These roads currently do not allow for public motorized use during the bear year. Once these road are barriered and placed into core, no motorized use could occur on these roads during the bear year including administrative use.

    (7) Proposed Recreation Improvements include the Threemile Mountain Bike Flow Trail and the McConnell Snowshoe Trail. The bike trail system consists of both a descent oriented “Flow Trail” and a “Cross-Country Bike” style loop. The “Flow trail” would consist of approximately 7 miles of new construction. The “Cross-Country Bike loop” would consist of approximately 6 miles of new trail construction and would be pursued as time and funding permits. The McConnell Snowshoe Trail includes approximately 4 miles of new construction.

    (8) The Star Creek Quarry, North Fork 7 Mile Quarry, Three Mile Quarry and Airport Garvel Pit are proposed for free use rock picking where the public would be able to get a personal use permit (~2 tons per permit). The District proposes to increase the Airport Pit by approximately 3 acres and the North Fork 7 Mile Quarry by approximately 1 acre over the life of the pits.

    Possible Alternatives

    The Forest Service will consider a range of alternatives. One of these will be the “no action” alternative in which none of the proposed action would be implemented. Additional alternatives may be included in response to issues raised by the public during the scoping process or due to additional concerns for resource values identified by the interdisciplinary team.

    Responsible Official

    The Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, Libby, MT 59923-3022, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, I will decide if the proposed action will be implemented. I will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. I have delegated the responsibility for preparing the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and final environmental impact statement (FEIS) to the District Ranger, Three Rivers Ranger District.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    Based on the purpose and need, the Responsible Official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, the environmental consequences, and public comments on the analysis in order to make the following decisions:

    (1) Whether to implement timber harvest and associated fuel reduction treatments, prescribed burning, watershed work, and recreation improvements, including the design features and potential mitigation measures to protect resources; and if so, how much, and at what specific locations.

    (2) What, if any, specific project monitoring requirements are needed to assure design features and potential mitigation measures are implemented and effective, and to evaluate the success of the project objectives. Preliminary project monitoring needs identified include effectiveness of BMP work. A project-specific monitorng plan will be developed.

    Preliminary Issues

    Initial analysis by the interdisciplinary team has brought forward an issue that may affect the design of the project.

    (1) There are 17 harvest units that would contribute to 14 openings larger than 40 acres. This action requires a 60 day public review and Regional Forester approval (FSM 2471.1). This document serves as the beginning of the 60 day public review period.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The interdisciplinary team will continue to seek information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. There are several collaborative groups in the area that the interdisciplinary team will interact with during the analysis.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. A more detailed scoping letter is available on request as well as on the Kootenai National Forest projects page located here: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/kootenai/landmanagement/projects.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Christopher S. Savage, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26821 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice Corrected Date of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee; Correction AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a document in the Federal Register of October 3, 2016, concerning the announcement of a meeting on November 15, 2016. The document contained incorrect dates.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, 312-353-8311.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 3, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-23729, correct the Summary and Dates captions to read:

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Friday, December 9, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. EST for the purpose of discussing a draft report regarding the school to prison pipeline in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, December 9, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. EST.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26777 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Local Update of Census Addresses Operation.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s): D-2001—Contact Information Update Form, D-2001-SP—Contact Information Update Form (Spanish), D-2002—Registration Form, D-2002-SP—Registration Form (Spanish), D-2003—Product Preference Form, D-2003-SP—Product Preference Form (Spanish), D-2003-SG-GIS Preference/County Selection Form (State Governments), D-2004—Confidentiality and Security Guidelines, D—2004-SP—Confidentiality and Security Guidelines (Spanish), D-2005—Confidentiality Agreement Form, D-2005-SP—Confidentiality Agreement Form (Spanish), D-2006—Self-Assessment Security Checklist, D-2006-SP—Self-Assessment Security Checklist (Spanish), D-2007—Address List, D-2007-SP—Address List (Spanish), D-2008—Address List Add Page, D-2008-SP—Address List Add Page (Spanish), D-2009—Address Count List, D-2009-SP—Address Count List (Spanish), D-2010—Map Sheet to Block Number Relationship List, D-2010-SP—Map Sheet to Block Number Relationship List (Spanish), D-2011—Inventory Return Form, D-2011-SP—Inventory Return Form (Spanish), D-2012—Destruction or Return Form, and D-2012-SP—Destruction or Return Form (Spanish).

    Type of Request: Regular Submission.

    Number of Respondents: 40,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 21 hours on average; will vary by number of addresses associated with government.

    Burden Hours: 845,600.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Census Bureau developed the Local Update of Census Addresses Operation (LUCA) prior to the 2000 Census to meet the requirements of the Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-430. The Census Bureau will use information collected through LUCA to help develop the housing unit and group quarters (e.g., college dormitory, nursing home, correctional facility) address information that it will need to conduct the decennial census. LUCA is voluntary for governmental units. Participating governments may review the Census Bureau's Title 13 U.S.C. confidential list of individual living quarters addresses and provide to the Census Bureau address additions, corrections, deletions, and location coordinates (latitude/longitude). Participating governments also may provide spatial and attribute updates for roads. Governments electing to participate in LUCA also provide contact information, certification of their agreement to maintain the confidentiality of the Census Bureau address information, responses regarding their physical and information technology security capability, product media preference information, shipment inventory information, and certification of their destruction or return of materials containing confidential data.

    LUCA will be available to tribal, state, and local governments, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (or their designated representatives) in areas for which the Census Bureau performs a pre-census Address Canvassing Operation. A majority of governments will have some area that will be included in the Address Canvassing Operation. LUCA is available to legally defined federally recognized Native American and Alaska Native areas (including the Alaska Native Regional Corporations), states, governmentally active counties and equivalent entities, incorporated places, and legally defined Minor Civil Divisions (MCDs) for which the Census Bureau reports data. LUCA will occur between January 2017 and June 2020. LUCA comprises five stages:

    • Advance Notice • Invitation • Address Review • Feedback • Closeout Advance Notice

    The Census Bureau provides an advance notice package to all eligible tribal, state, and local governments. This package contains materials informing the eligible governments of the voluntary LUCA operation and provides instructions to update contact information and how to prepare to participate in LUCA. This stage occurs between January 2017 and March 2017.

    Invitation

    All eligible tribal, state, and local governments receive an invitation package. This package provides information on how to register for the operation, instructions on how to designate a liaison, and enables governments to select the type of materials. Additionally, the invitation package provides information regarding the responsibility for safeguarding and protecting Title 13 materials. The Census Bureau will follow up and send reminder packages to governments that do not respond. This stage occurs between July 2017 and September 2017.

    Address Review

    Governments that elect to participate receive materials based on their selection from the invitation package. Governments have a maximum of 120 days from the date of receipt of materials to complete and submit their address and spatial updates to the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will conduct follow up with letters, postcards, and phone calls to encourage timely submission of address and spatial updates. This stage occurs between February 2018 and May 2018.

    Feedback

    The Census Bureau will provide a feedback package to governments that participate in LUCA. This package includes detailed information on the results of the address and spatial updates submitted during LUCA. This stage occurs between August 2019 and October 2019.

    Closeout

    The Census Bureau provides a closeout letter to governments that participated in LUCA with notification to destroy or return Title 13 materials. The Census Bureau will also conduct follow up with letters and phone calls to ensure that Title 13 materials are destroyed or returned. This stage occurs between October 2019 and June 2020.

    The information on LUCA contacts, certification of agreement to maintain the confidentiality of the Census Bureau address information, physical and information technology security capability, product media preference, shipment inventory, and certification of the destruction or return of materials containing confidential data is collected via the completion of electronic or printed forms.

    Address Updates

    Information collection for living quarters address additions, corrections, deletions, and address attribute updates, at the participating government's preference, can be submitted in the form of:

    1. Digital data files output by the Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS), a desktop application supplied free-of-charge to LUCA participants to facilitate the review and update of Census Bureau address and map information;

    2. Digital data files formatted to Census Bureau specifications; or

    3. Handwritten annotations to Census Bureau-provided printed-paper address listings and address locations on Census Bureau-provided block maps (limited to governments with 6,000 or fewer addresses).

    Feature Updates

    Information collection for living quarter location coordinates (latitude/longitude), roads, and road attribute updates, at the participating government's preference, can be submitted in the form of:

    1. Digital data shapefiles output by GUPS;

    2. Digital updates to Census Bureau supplied shapefiles; or

    3. Handwritten annotations on Census Bureau supplied paper maps.

    Affected Public: Tribal, state, and local governments.

    Frequency: LUCA occurs once a decade. Public Law 103-430 mandates that the Census Bureau offer LUCA prior to each decennial census.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Section 16.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26778 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Antiboycott Violations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of 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 January 6, 2017.

    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 Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection of information supports enforcement of the Antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by providing a method for industry to voluntarily self-disclose Antiboycott violations.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted on paper or electronically.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0132.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 to 600 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,230.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    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.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26776 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Application No. 84-27A12] Export Trade Certificate of Review ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to Northwest Fruit Exporters (“NFE”), Application No. (84-27A12).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce issued an amended Export Trade Certificate of Review to NFE on October 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”), International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. Sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2016). OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register. Under Section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

    Description of Certified Content

    NFE's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

    1. Add the following companies as new Members of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)), for Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation relating to apples (A):

    a. Legacy Fruit Packers LLC—Wapato, WA

    2. Remove the following companies as Members of the Certificate:

    a. Garrett Ranches Packing—Wilder, ID b. Ron Lefore d/b/a LeFore Apple Farms—Milton-Freewater, OR

    3. Change the product listing for the following existing Members:

    a. From pears (P) to apples and pears (A,P) for Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co.—Bingen, WA

    4. Update the city listing for the following existing Members:

    a. Remove Brewster, WA from Custom Apple Packers, Inc. b. Change location of L&M Companies from Selah to Union Gap, WA

    NFE's amendment of its Export Trade Certificate of Review results in the following membership list:

    1. Allan Bros., Naches, WA 2. AltaFresh L.L.C. dba Chelan Fresh Marketing, Chelan, WA 3. Apple House Warehouse & Storage, Inc., Brewster, WA 4. Apple King, L.L.C., Yakima, WA 5. Auvil Fruit Co., Inc., Orondo, WA 6. Baker Produce, Inc., Kennewick, WA 7. Blue Bird, Inc., Peshastin, WA 8. Blue Star Growers, Inc., Cashmere, WA 9. Borton & Sons, Inc., Yakima, WA 10. Brewster Heights Packing & Orchards, LP, Brewster, WA 11. Broetje Orchards LLC, Prescott, WA 12. C.M. Holtzinger Fruit Co., Inc., Yakima, WA 13. Chelan Fruit Cooperative, Chelan, WA 14. Chiawana, Inc. dba Columbia Reach Pack, Yakima, WA 15. Columbia Fruit Packers, Inc., Wenatchee, WA 16. Columbia Fruit Packers/Airport Division, Wenatchee, WA 17. Columbia Marketing International Corp., Wenatchee, WA 18. Columbia Valley Fruit, L.L.C., Yakima, WA 19. Congdon Packing Co. L.L.C., Yakima, WA 20. Conrad & Adams Fruit L.L.C., Grandview, WA 21. Cowiche Growers, Inc., Cowiche, WA 22. CPC International Apple Company, Tieton, WA 23. Crane & Crane, Inc., Brewster, WA 24. Custom Apple Packers, Inc., Quincy, and Wenatchee, WA 25. Diamond Fruit Growers, Odell, OR 26. Domex Superfresh Growers LLC, Yakima, WA 27. Douglas Fruit Company, Inc., Pasco, WA 28. Dovex Export Company, Wenatchee, WA 29. Duckwall Fruit, Odell, OR 30. E. Brown & Sons, Inc., Milton-Freewater, OR 31. Evans Fruit Co., Inc., Yakima, WA 32. E.W. Brandt & Sons, Inc., Parker, WA 33. Frosty Packing Co., LLC, Yakima, WA 34. G&G Orchards, Inc., Yakima, WA 35. Gilbert Orchards, Inc., Yakima, WA 36. Gold Digger Apples, Inc., Oroville, WA 37. Hansen Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Inc., Yakima, WA 38. Henggeler Packing Co., Inc., Fruitland, ID 39. Highland Fruit Growers, Inc., Yakima, WA 40. HoneyBear Growers, Inc., Brewster, WA 41. Honey Bear Tree Fruit Co., LLC, Wenatchee, WA 42. Hood River Cherry Company, Hood River, OR 43. Ice Lakes LLC, East Wenatchee, WA 44. JackAss Mt. Ranch, Pasco, WA 45. Jenks Bros Cold Storage & Packing Royal City, WA 46. Kershaw Fruit & Cold Storage, Co., Yakima, WA 47. L&M Companies, Union Gap, WA 48. Larson Fruit Co., Selah, WA 49. Legacy Fruit Packers LLC, Wapato, WA 50. Manson Growers Cooperative, Manson, WA 51. Matson Fruit Company, Selah, WA 52. McDougall & Sons, Inc., Wenatchee, WA 53. Monson Fruit Co. Selah, WA 54. Morgan's of Washington dba Double Diamond Fruit, Quincy, WA 55. Naumes, Inc., Medford, OR 56. Northern Fruit Company, Inc., Wenatchee, WA 57. Olympic Fruit Co., Moxee, WA 58. Oneonta Trading Corp., Wenatchee, WA 59. Orchard View Farms, Inc., The Dalles, OR 60. Pacific Coast Cherry Packers, LLC, Yakima, WA 61. Peshastin Hi-Up Growers, Peshastin, WA 62. Phillippi Fruit Company, Inc., Wenatchee, WA 63. Piepel Premium Fruit Packing LLC, East Wenatchee, WA 64. Polehn Farm's Inc., The Dalles, OR 65. Price Cold Storage & Packing Co., Inc., Yakima, WA 66. Pride Packing Company, Wapato, WA 67. Quincy Fresh Fruit Co., Quincy, WA 68. Rainier Fruit Company, Selah, WA 69. Roche Fruit, Ltd., Yakima, WA 70. Sage Fruit Company, L.L.C., Yakima, WA 71. Smith & Nelson, Inc., Tonasket, WA 72. Stadelman Fruit, L.L.C., Milton-Freewater, OR, and Zillah, WA 73. Stemilt Growers, LLC, Wenatchee, WA 74. Strand Apples, Inc., Cowiche, WA 75. Symms Fruit Ranch, Inc., Caldwell, ID 76. The Dalles Fruit Company, LLC, Dallesport, WA 77. Underwood Fruit & Warehouse Co., Bingen, WA 78. Valicoff Fruit Co., Inc., Wapato, WA 79. Valley Fruit III L.L.C., Wapato, WA 80. Washington Cherry Growers, Peshastin, WA 81. Washington Fruit & Produce Co., Yakima, WA 82. Western Sweet Cherry Group, LLC, Yakima, WA 83. Western Traders LLC, E. Wenatchee, WA 84. Whitby Farms, Inc. dba: Farm Boy Fruit Snacks LLC, Mesa, WA 85. Yakima Fresh, Yakima, WA 86. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co., Yakima, WA 87. Zirkle Fruit Company, Selah, WA

    The effective date of the amendment is July 25, 2016, the date on which NFE's application to amend was deemed submitted.

    Dated: October 26, 2016. Joseph E. Flynn, Director, Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, International Trade Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26833 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-835] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (sheet and strip) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective November 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 1, 2016, the Department initiated this third sunset review of the CVD order 1 on sheet and strip from Korea pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 The Department received a notice of intent to participate from Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products (ATI) and Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC (Outokumpu) (together, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic producers of sheet and strip in the United States.

    1See Amended Final Determination: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France, Italy, and the Republic of Korea, 64 FR 42923 (August 6, 1999) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 81 FR 43185 (July 1, 2016).

    The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of the CVD order.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the CVD order consists of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Korea. Stainless steel is alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

    The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 7219.13.00.80, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.

    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

    Excluded from the scope of the order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more), (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm), and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

    In response to comments by interested parties, the Department determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of the order. These excluded products are described below.

    Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.

    Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

    Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of the order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of less than 0.002 or greater than 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

    Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of the order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.” 3

    3 “Arnokrome III” is a trademark of the Arnold Engineering Company.

    Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.” 4

    4 “Gilphy 36” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

    Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of the order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.” 5

    5 “Durphynox 17” is a trademark of Imphy, S.A.

    Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of the order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives).6 This steel is similar to AISI grade 420 but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per 100 square microns. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.” 7

    6 This list of uses is illustrative and provided for descriptive purposes only.

    7 “GIN4 Mo,” “GIN5,” and “GIN6” are the proprietary grades of Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice.8 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the Order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance regarding: “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the Order on sheet and strip from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: 9

    9Id.

    Manufacturers/producers/
  • exporters
  • Net countervailable subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • INI/BNG (formerly Inchon and now known as Hyundai) 0.54 DMC 0.67 Taihan 4.64 All-Others 0.63
    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(ii)(c)(2).

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26850 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-588-845, A-580-834, A-583-831] Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on stainless steel sheet and strip (SSSS) in coils from Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective November 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1280.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the AD Orders1 on SSSS in coils from Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 On July 15, 2016, AK Steel Corporation, Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products, North American Stainless, and Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC (collectively, Petitioners or domestic interested parties), notified the Department of their intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 Each of the domestic parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act stating that they are each producers in the United States of a domestic like product.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Japan; 64 FR 40565 (July 27, 1999); and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order; Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From United Kingdom, Taiwan and South Korea; 64 FR 40555 (July 27, 1999) (collectively, Orders).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 43185 (July 1, 2016) (Notice of Initiation).

    3See Petitioners' July 15, 2016, submissions “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan—Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Participate;” “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea—Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Participate;” and “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan—Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Participate.”

    On July 29, 2016, the Department received complete substantive responses to the Notice of Initiation from domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to the orders on SSSS in coils from Japan, Korea, or Taiwan, nor was a hearing requested. As a result, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of the AD Orders on SSSS in coils from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these AD orders is SSSS in coils. The merchandise subject to these orders is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. (Prior to 2001, U.S. imports under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81 were entered under HTS statistical reporting numbers 7219.13.00.30, 7219.13.00.50, 7219.13.00.70, 7219.13.00.80.) Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive.

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice, provides a full description of the scope of the Orders. 4

    4See the Department's memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Third Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in these reviews is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Orders were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD Orders on SSSS in coils from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:

    Country Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Japan 57.89 Korea 58.79 Taiwan 21.10
    Notification to Interested Parties of Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing the results of the reviews and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26848 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-791-806] Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From South Africa: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from South Africa would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective November 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On July 1, 2016, the Department initiated this third sunset review of the CVD order 1 on SSPC from South Africa pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 The Department received a notice of intent to participate from Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products (ATI) and Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC (Outokumpu) (together, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as domestic producers of SSPC in the United States.

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determinations: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium and South Africa; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Italy, and South Africa, 64 FR 25288 (May 11, 1999) (Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 43185 (July 1, 2016).

    The Department received an adequate substantive response from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). However, the Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited review of the CVD order.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by these orders is certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.) provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following such processing. Excluded from the scope of these orders are the following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and strip, and (4) flat bars.

    The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.11.00.30, 7219.11.00.60, 7219.12.00.06, 7219.12.00.21, 7219.12.00.26, 7219.12.00.51, 7219.12.00.56, 7219.12.00.66, 7219.12.00.71, 7219.12.00.81, 7219.31.00.10, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.11.00.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80.

    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to these orders is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice.3 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the Order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    3 See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance regarding: “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from South Africa,” dated concurrently with and adopted by this Notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the Order on stainless steel plate in coils from South Africa would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below: 4

    4Id.

    Manufacturers/producers/
  • exporters
  • Net countervailable subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Columbus Stainless Steel Company (the operating unit of the Columbus Joint Venture) 3.95 All-Others 3.95
    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26851 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-928] Uncovered Innerspring Units From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on uncovered innerspring units (“innerspring units”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. The Department preliminarily determines that the sole respondent, Enchant Privilege Sdn Bhd (“Enchant Privilege”), did not cooperate to the best of its ability and is, therefore, basing its margin on adverse facts available (“AFA”). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6491.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 19, 2009, the Department published an antidumping duty order on innerspring units from the PRC (“the Order”).1 On February 29, 2016, Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted a request for the Department to conduct an administrative review of the Order that examines Enchant Privilege's exports of subject merchandise made during the POR.2 On April 7, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this administrative review of the Order concerning Enchant Privilege's POR exports of subject merchandise.3 4

    1See Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 7661 (February 19, 2009).

    2See Request for Antidumping Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China, dated February 29, 2016.

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    4 Enchant Privilege is located in Malaysia, a market economy country. As a result, the Department is examining Enchant Privilege's PRC-origin exports of subject merchandise for this administrative review.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is uncovered innerspring units composed of a series of individual metal springs joined together in sizes corresponding to the sizes of adult mattresses (e.g., twin, twin long, full, full long, queen, California king and king) and units used in smaller constructions, such as crib and youth mattresses. The product is currently classified under subheading 9404.29.9010 and has also been classified under subheadings 9404.10.0000, 9404.29.9005, 9404.29.9011, 7326.20.0070, 7320.20.5010, 7320.90.5010, or 7326.20.0071 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only; the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.5

    5 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Department Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 2015-2016 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Uncovered Innerspring Units from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). With respect to Enchant Privilege, we relied on facts available and, because Enchant Privilege did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.6

    6See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, please see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department preliminarily determines that a dumping margin of 234.51 percent exists for Enchant Privilege for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.

    Public Comment

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.7 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.8 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.9

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    9See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.10 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Unless extended, the Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of all issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.11 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess duties at the ad valorem margin rate published above. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. The Department will assess duties only on entries of subject merchandise (i.e., PRC-origin innerspring units).

    11See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Enchant Privilege, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required) and the Department will collect cash deposits only on Enchant Privilege's PRC-origin merchandise; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 234.51 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

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

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Methodology a. Facts Otherwise Available i. Use of Facts Available ii. Use of Adverse Facts Available 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-26849 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-602-807, A-351-842, A-570-022, C-570-023, A-560-828, C-560-829, A-471-807] Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiry AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    In response to a request from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; Domtar Corporation; Finch Paper LLC; P.H. Glatfelter Company; and Packaging Corporation of America (collectively, the petitioners), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating an anti-circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), to determine under the minor alterations provision whether uncoated paper with a GE brightness of 83 +/− 1% (83 Bright paper) is “altered in form or appearance in minor respects” from in-scope merchandise such that it may be considered subject to the antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on certain uncoated paper.

    DATES:

    Effective November 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ross Belliveau, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 3, 2016, the Department issued AD orders on certain uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia, and Portugal and CVD orders on certain uncoated paper from the PRC and Indonesia.1 On July 15, 2016, the petitioners alleged that Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), one of the major Indonesian producers of uncoated paper that is subject to the AD and CVD orders, is engaged in circumvention of the Orders by exporting uncoated paper with a GE brightness level of 83 to the United States.2 The petitioners requested that the Department initiate an anti-circumvention proceeding, pursuant to both sections 781(c) and 781(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i)-(j), to determine whether the merchandise at issue involves either a minor alteration to subject merchandise such that it should be subject to the Orders, and/or represents a later-developed product that should be considered subject to the Orders. 3 In the alternative, the petitioners requested that the Department initiate a scope inquiry pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k) to determine whether 83 Bright paper falls within the scope of the Orders because it is “colored paper.” 4 On August 1, 2016, in response to a request from the Department, the petitioners clarified that, consistent with 19 CFR 351.225(m), the intent of their request was that the Department conduct a single inquiry and issue a single ruling applicable to each of the seven outstanding orders on certain uncoated paper identified in their original request.5

    1See Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, and Portugal: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determinations for Brazil and Indonesia and Antidumping Duty Orders; 81 FR 11174 (March 3, 2016) and Certain Uncoated Paper from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order (Indonesia) and Countervailing Duty Order (People's Republic of China); 81 FR 11187, (March 3, 2016) (collectively, the Orders).

    2See Letter from the petitioners entitled, “Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, The People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Petitioners' Request For Minor Alterations And Later-Developed Merchandise Anti-Circumvention Inquiry Or, Alternatively, For A Scope Ruling,” dated July 15, 2016 (Initiation Request). As indicated in the “Scope of the Orders” section, below, the GE brightness level specified in the scope of the Orders is 85 or higher.

    3Id., at 2.

    4Id.

    5See Letter from Petitioners entitled “Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, The People's Republic Of China, Indonesia, and Portugal: Petitioners' Correspondence Pursuant To 19 CFR 351.225(m),” dated August 1, 2016.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise subject to these orders includes uncoated paper in sheet form; weighing at least 40 grams per square meter but not more than 150 grams per square meter; that either is a white paper with a GE brightness level 6 of 85 or higher or is a colored paper; whether or not surface-decorated, printed (except as described below), embossed, perforated, or punched; irrespective of the smoothness of the surface; and irrespective of dimensions (Certain Uncoated Paper).

    6 One of the key measurements of any grade of paper is brightness. Generally speaking, the brighter the paper the better the contrast between the paper and the ink. Brightness is measured using a GE Reflectance Scale, which measures the reflection of light off a grade of paper. One is the lowest reflection, or what would be given to a totally black grade, and 100 is the brightest measured grade. “Colored paper” as used in this scope definition means a paper with a hue other than white that reflects one of the primary colors of magenta, yellow, and cyan (red, yellow, and blue) or a combination of such primary colors.

    Certain Uncoated Paper includes (a) uncoated free sheet paper that meets this scope definition; (b) uncoated ground wood paper produced from bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (BCTMP) that meets this scope definition; and (c) any other uncoated paper that meets this scope definition regardless of the type of pulp used to produce the paper.

    Specifically excluded from the scope of these orders are (1) paper printed with final content of printed text or graphics and (2) lined paper products, typically school supplies, composed of paper that incorporates straight horizontal and/or vertical lines that would make the paper unsuitable for copying or printing purposes. For purposes of this scope definition, paper shall be considered “printed with final content” where at least one side of the sheet has printed text and/or graphics that cover at least five percent of the surface area of the entire sheet.

    Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) categories 4802.56.1000, 4802.56.2000, 4802.56.3000, 4802.56.4000, 4802.56.6000, 4802.56.7020, 4802.56.7040, 4802.57.1000, 4802.57.2000, 4802.57.3000, and 4802.57.4000. Some imports of subject merchandise may also be classified under 4802.62.1000, 4802.62.2000, 4802.62.3000, 4802.62.5000, 4802.62.6020, 4802.62.6040, 4802.69.1000, 4802.69.2000, 4802.69.3000, 4811.90.8050 and 4811.90.9080. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Initiation of Minor Alterations Anti-Circumvention Proceeding Statutory Criteria for Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Proceeding Under Section 781(c) of the Act

    Section 781(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department may find circumvention of an AD and/or CVD order when products which are of the class or kind of merchandise subject to an AD and/or CVD order have been “altered in form or appearance in minor respects . . . whether or not included in the same tariff classification.” Section 781(c)(2) of the Act provides an exception that “{p}aragraph 1 shall not apply with respect to altered merchandise if the administering authority determines that it would be unnecessary to consider the altered merchandise within the scope of the {AD or CVD} order{.}”

    While the statute is silent as to what factors to consider in determining whether alterations are properly considered “minor,” the legislative history of this provision indicates that there are certain factors which should be considered before reaching a circumvention determination. In conducting a circumvention inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act, the Department has generally relied upon “such criteria as the overall physical characteristics of the merchandise, the expectations of the ultimate users, the use of the merchandise, the channels of marketing and the cost of any modification relative to the total value of the imported products.” 7 Concerning the allegation of minor alteration under section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i), the Department examines such factors as: (1) Overall physical characteristics; (2) expectations of ultimate users; (3) use of merchandise; (4) channels of marketing; and (5) cost of any modification relative to the value of the imported products.8 Each case is highly dependent on the facts on the record, and must be analyzed in light of those specific facts. Thus, although not specified in the Act, the Department has also included additional factors in its analysis, such as commercial availability of the product at issue prior to the issuance of the order as well as the circumstances under which the products at issue entered the United States, the timing and quantity of said entries during the circumvention review period, and the input of consumers in the design phase of the product at issue.9

    7See S. Rep. No.71, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 100 (1987) (“In applying this provision, the Commerce Department should apply practical measurements regarding minor alterations, so that circumvention can be dealt with effectively, even where such alterations to an article technically transform it into a differently designated article.”).

    8See, e.g., Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from the People's Republic of China, 74 FR 33991, 33992 (July 14, 2009) (CTL Plate from the PRC) (unchanged in Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; 74 FR 40565 (August 12, 2009)).

    9See, e.g., CTL Plate from the PRC, 74 FR at 33992-33993.

    The Petitioners' Request for Initiation of an Anti-Circumvention Proceeding Under Section 781(c) of the Act

    As discussed above, the petitioners identify the product subject to their request as 83 Bright paper. Specifically, the petitioners state that, after the issuance of the preliminary determinations, APP, one of the major Indonesian producers of uncoated paper, began exporting 81/2 inch by 11 inch copier paper with a GE brightness level of 83, called “Paperline Classic,” from Indonesia to the West Coast of the United States. The petitioners obtained and tested a sample of this paper, demonstrating that it has a GE brightness level of 83.10

    10See Initiation Request at 3.

    The petitioners also provided a bill of lading supporting their claim that imports of the 83 Bright paper were classified under HTSUS category 4802.56.4000—a category identified as subject to the Orders. 11 According to the petitioners, APP first imported 83 Bright paper in February 2016 and, to date, there have been numerous entries of this product totaling 2,300 metric tons.12 The petitioners argue that APP is adding black dye to the pulp to create a paper product which does not meet the brightness level of uncoated paper covered by the scope of the Orders, but is otherwise subject merchandise. The petitioners assert that, as a result, 83 Bright paper represents a minor alteration of subject merchandise, which is thereby circumventing the Orders pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act. Although the petitioners noted that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that minor alteration inquiries are inappropriate when the allegedly altered product is expressly excluded from an order, they claim that such is not the case here, where 83 Bright paper is not expressly excluded from the order.13

    11Id., at 5.

    12Id.

    13See Initiation Request at 12, citing to Deacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Deacero).

    In the Initiation Request, the petitioners presented the following evidence with respect to each of the aforementioned criteria:

    A. Overall Physical Characteristics

    The petitioners state that 83 Bright paper is nearly identical to other uncoated paper in the market—it has the same dimensions, the same basis weight, and is advertised for the same printing and copying purposes.14 The petitioners assert that the only difference between 83 Bright paper and paper covered by the scope of the Orders is the paper's GE brightness level.15 In support of their allegation, the petitioners provide a declaration from a member of the U.S. industry.16

    14See Initiation Request at 14 and Exhibit 2.

    15Id., at 15.

    16Id., at Exhibit 2.

    B. Expectations of the Ultimate Users

    The petitioners assert that the expectations of the ultimate users of 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper covered by the scope of the Orders are exactly the same. Specifically, the petitioners state that 83 Bright paper is advertised for use in the same printing and copying applications as other uncoated paper covered by the scope of the Orders. 17 In support of their allegation, the petitioners provide a declaration from a member of the U.S. industry.18

    17Id., at 15 and Exhibit 2.

    18Id., at Exhibit 2.

    C. Use of Merchandise

    The petitioners assert that 83 Bright paper is used in printing and copying applications, similar to other uncoated paper covered by the Orders. 19 The petitioners also claim that the brightness of 83 Bright paper has no apparent impact on its ultimate use.20 In support of their allegation, the petitioners provide a declaration from a member of the U.S. industry.21

    19Id., at 3.

    20Id., at 15.

    21Id., at Exhibit 2.

    D. Channels of Marketing

    The petitioners assert that the marketing channels for 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper covered by the Orders are the same.22 The petitioners provided documentation demonstrating that 83 Bright paper is offered to the same customers and in the same manner.23 According to the petitioners, this demonstrates that GE brightness level does not affect the marketing channel in which the paper is sold and that for end-users these products are interchangeable.

    22See Initiation Request at 15.

    23Id., at 15-16 and Exhibits 10 and 11.

    E. Cost of Modification Relative to Total Value

    The petitioners assert that the cost of the minor alteration necessary to shift the GE brightness level of 83 Bright paper is minimal.24 Moreover, the petitioners state that the increased costs are insignificant both when compared to either the total value of the imported product or APP's combined AD/CVD cash deposit rate.25 In support of their allegation, the petitioners provide a declaration from a member of the U.S. industry.26

    24Id., at Exhibit 1.

    25Id., at 17 and Exhibit 2.

    26Id., at Exhibit 1.

    APP responded to the petitioners' allegations, noting that merchandise with a brightness level comparable to 83 Bright paper was produced and sold in commercial volumes at the time of the filing of the petitions and, thus, it cannot be considered later-developed merchandise.27 In addition, APP stated the following regarding each criteria under section 781(c) of the Act:

    27See Letter from APP entitled, “Certain Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, The People's Republic of China, Indonesia, and Portugal—Response to Request for Inquiry” dated August 19, 2016 (APP Response), at 10 and Exhibit 3.

    A. Overall Physical Characteristics

    APP states that there are numerous and significant physical differences between 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper covered by the Orders in addition to GE brightness, including whiteness, bleaching chemicals, shade, and opacity.28 Further, APP explains that optical brightening agents (OBAs) are often added during production to increase the GE brightness of paper. APP considers it significant that its 83 Bright paper is produced without adding OBAs and, thus, is “OBA-free.” 29 30

    28See APP Response at 24.

    29Id., at Exhibit 7.

    30 APP noted that the petitioners incorrectly described the production process for 83 Bright paper. Specifically, APP stated that black dye is not added during the production process and, as a result, 83 Bright paper cannot be considered colored paper. See APP Response at 5 Exhibit 2.

    B. Expectations of the Ultimate Users

    APP disagrees that the expectations of the ultimate users of 83 Bright paper are the same as users of other uncoated paper covered by the Orders. According to APP, users of 83 Bright paper expect to benefit from reduced eyestrain, cost savings, and appreciate the generally warmer tones of this paper.31 Further, APP notes that certain purchasers of paper covered by the Orders require photocopy paper with a minimum GE brightness of 92 and, thus, 83 Bright paper would not meet the requirements of such purchasers.32

    31See APP Response at 26.

    32Id., at 24-25.

    C. Use of the Merchandise

    APP states that 83 Bright paper is best for black-and-white copier applications and not suitable for ink- or laser-jet printing.33

    33Id., at 27-28.

    D. Channels of Marketing

    APP claims that 83 Bright paper is marketed differently from other uncoated paper covered by the Orders because it is advertised as a lower brightness product produced to reduce eyestrain, manufactured for 2-sided copying, and is OBA Free.34

    34Id., at 29.

    E. Cost of Modification Relative to Total Value

    APP states that 83 Bright paper is not produced with additional OBAs and contains fewer bleaching chemicals. As a result, APP notes that it is less expensive to produce than other uncoated paper cover by the Orders. 35

    35Id., at 30.

    Analysis

    After analyzing the information summarized above, we determine that the petitioners have satisfied the criteria to warrant an initiation of a formal anti-circumvention inquiry, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i).

    As described above, the petitioners included declarations from members of the U.S. industry addressing the five factors the Department typically examines as part of a minor alterations inquiry under section 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i). These declarations attest that: (1) With the exception of brightness, the overall physical characteristics of 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper cover by the Orders are the same; (2) the expectations of ultimate users of 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper cover by the Orders are the same; (3) the uses of 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper cover by the Orders are the same; (4) the channels of marketing 83 Bright paper and other uncoated paper cover by the Orders are the same; and (5) the relative cost to reduce the brightness of 83 Bright paper to a GE brightness level below 85 is minimal.36 We examined the declarations and found that the persons making them are in a position to have knowledge about the facts described in the declarations with respect to each of the aforementioned factors.

    36See Initiation Request at Exhibits 1 and 2.

    However, we note that APP provided information demonstrating the relative cost of producing 83 Bright paper and the process by which it is produced which differs from that provided by the petitioners. Specifically, by APP's own admission, 83 Bright paper is less expensive to produce because it does not contain the OBAs needed to raise the paper's brightness level to 85 or above and has fewer bleaching chemical than other uncoated paper covered by the Orders. Thus, there is an evidentiary basis to conclude that APP has altered its production process in order to produce a low-brightness paper.37

    37Id.

    As noted above, we are initiating a minor alterations anti-circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(c) of the Act regarding 83 Bright paper. We do not find it appropriate to initiate a later-developed merchandise circumvention inquiry pursuant to section 781(d) of the Act because APP provided information demonstrating that merchandise with a brightness level comparable to 83 Bright paper was produced and sold in commercial volumes at the time of the filing of the petitions and, thus, 83 Bright paper cannot be considered later-developed merchandise.38 Finally, we do not find it appropriate to initiate a scope inquiry pursuant to 19 CFR 351.225(k) because APP provided information demonstrating that 83 Bright paper is not colored paper.39

    38See APP Response at 10 and Exhibit 3.

    39See APP Response at 5 and Exhibit 2.

    Merchandise Subject to the Minor Alterations Anti-Circumvention Proceeding

    This minor alterations anti-circumvention inquiry covers uncoated paper with a GE brightness level of 83 +/− 1. Although only APP Indonesia is discussed in their request, as discussed above, the petitioners clarified that, consistent with 19 CFR 351.225(m), the intent of their request was that the Department conduct a single inquiry and issue a single ruling applicable to each of the Orders. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(m), if the Secretary considers it appropriate, the Secretary may conduct a single inquiry and issue a single scope ruling that applies to all such orders. Therefore, we will examine whether it is appropriate to apply the results of this inquiry to each of the seven Orders.

    The Department will not order the suspension of liquidation of entries of any additional merchandise at this time. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if the Department issues a preliminary affirmative determination, we will then instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on the merchandise.

    Following consultation with interested parties, the Department will establish a schedule for questionnaires and comments on the issues related to each of the Orders. The Department intends to issue its final determinations within 300 days of the date of publication of this initiation.

    This notice is published in accordance with sections 781(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.225(i) and (j).

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26847 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Minority Business Development Agency [Docket No.: 161012956-6956-01] Notice and Request for Comments: Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) Tribal Consultations AGENCY:

    Minority Business Development Agency, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) plans to conduct five tribal consultation meetings with federally recognized tribes, American Indian and Alaska Native business/trade/economic organizations, and American Indian and Alaska Native-owned firms, between November 2016 and February 2017. The purpose of these tribal consultations is to provide a venue for tribal leaders share insights, make recommendations, and discuss concerns regarding MBDA's business development and entrepreneurial services in Indian Country. MBDA is also accepting written comments related to the business development issues stated in this notice.

    DATES:

    Tribal consultations will be conducted in different locations between November 2016 and February 2017. The specific dates, locations and times will be announced on the MBDA Web site at http://www.mbda.gov/tribalconsult . Written comments in response to the questions posed in this notice must be submitted no later than January 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by MBDA-2016-0001, by the following methods: Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=MBDA-2016-001, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments; Mail: Submit written comments to Bridget Gonzales, Chief, Office of Legislative, Education and Intergovernmental Affairs, Minority Business Development Agency, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 5067, Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melvin Tabilas, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Specialist, Office of Legislative, Education and Intergovernmental Affairs, Minority Business Development Agency, at (202) 482-5598; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Minority Business Development Agency's (MBDA) Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs (OLEIA) serves as the focal point for consultation with Tribal governments and Tribal organizations on policy, regulatory and legislative issues that will have a direct impact on American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) communities. The tribal consultations will be conducted in conjunction with the MBDA's Office of Business Development (OBD) which designs and manages the business development services available to Native American entrepreneurs and tribally-owned businesses. Outreach and business development support specific to the AIAN populations is one part of the overall efforts of MBDA to ensure all programs and services of the Agency are available to members of the tribal communities.

    MBDA is the only Federal agency created specifically to foster the establishment and growth of minority business enterprises (MBEs). MBDA actively promotes the strategic growth and expansion of MBEs by offering management and technical assistance through a nationwide network of business centers. All MBDA Business Centers serve businesses owned or controlled by persons or groups of persons from the following groups: American Indians and Native Americans (including Alaska Natives, Alaska Native Corporations, Tribal entities, Tribal universities and Tribal governments), African Americans, Asian Indian Americans, Asian and Pacific Islander Americans, Hasidic Jewish Americans, and Hispanic Americans. MBDA target clients are businesses with $1.0 million or more in revenues.

    The MBDA Business Centers provide services that include, but are not limited to, initial consultations and assessments, business technical assistance, and access to federal and non-federal procurement and financing opportunities. Specific performance requirements and metrics are used by MBDA to evaluate each business center and are a key component of the MBDA's business development programs.

    During fiscal year 2016, MBDA provided dedicated outreach to the AIAN population through the operation of six MBDA Business Centers—AIAN in the following locations: Fresno, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Bismarck, North Dakota; Anchorage, Alaska; and Bridgeport, Connecticut. For more details about the current goals and objectives of the MBDA Business Centers—AIAN, please see the Federal Funding Opportunity notice that was issued in 2012 at http://www.mbda.gov/tribalconsult.

    Funding for the current MBDA Business Center—AIAN program will expire in August 2017. MBDA expects to renew its investment in Indian Country and has designed the tribal consultations to allow tribal governments and organizations an opportunity to provide information on how to better provide business development services and programs. The locations and approximate dates, and times of the meetings are provided below in Supplementary Information. The specific dates and times will be posted on MBDA's Web site at http://www.mbda.gov/tribalconsult. The meetings are open to members of federally recognized tribes. In consideration of tribal leaders who are not able to attend a tribal consultation meeting, MBDA is also accepting written comments based on the questions listed below.

    II. Tribal Consultation Meetings

    Tribal consultation sessions are tentatively scheduled in association with the following events:

    Date Location Event 1. Nov 1-3, 2016 Tulsa, Oklahoma Native American Contractors Association—Annual B2B Conference & Marketplace. 2. Nov 14-17, 2016 Santa Fe, New Mexico National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development—Reservation Economic Summit (RES) New Mexico. 3. November 14-17, 2016 Minneapolis, MN Long Term Services and Supports in Indian Country Conference.

    Details about each Tribal consultation meeting will be posted on the MBDA Web site at: http://www.mbda.gov/tribalconsult. The MBDA Tribal consultation meetings are being hosted by the U.S. Federal Government. They are open and public meetings. They will be tape-recorded and transcribed so that we can retain valuable input and feedback. Registration for the non-governmental organization conferences is not mandatory to participate in in the MBDA Tribal consultations.

    III. Questions for Public Comment

    Comments may be provided in response to any or all of the following questions. Please identify the specific AIAN community represented by the comments (e.g., Cherokee Nation, Alaska Native village, Native American businesses off reservation, tribally-owned businesses):

    1. Describe any self-governance entrepreneurial or business development programs that have resulted in positive impacts to your community's economic development? What were the impacts and how did they come about?

    2. What challenges exist to business development and job creation in AIAN communities? What ideas or solutions do you think would address these challenges?

    3. What are your goals and priorities for advancing AIAN entrepreneurship and business development?

    4. What are some best practices that you've seen implemented that positively address the business development challenges experienced by your community from either a self-governing perspective, and/or from Federal, state, or local programs?

    5. Have you (or businesses from your Tribe/Tribal organization) been a client of a MBDA Business Center—AIAN?

    a. If so, please describe the services and activities that have been most beneficial to growing their business and/or creating jobs:

    1. Access to private sector contracts;

    2. Access to Federal/State or Municipal contracts;

    3. Access to capital;

    4. Exporting;

    5. Joint partnerships/teaming arrangements;

    6. Other.

    b. If you or your business have not been a client of a MBDA Business Center, please state reasons why, if any?

    6. Do the goals and objectives of the MBDA Business Centers—AIAN align with your Tribe's business and economic development goals? If so, please elaborate. If not, please provide recommendations for improvements, enhancements or alternatives.

    Comments must include the following: Name and title of commenter, name of tribe, tribal organization or business, AIAN location (if applicable), city, and state.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Josephine Arnold, Chief Counsel, Minority Business Development Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26832 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0649-XF021 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting via webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Standing and Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC) via webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Tuesday, November 22, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar; you may attend by registering at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3715638296142754308. See below for instructions on how to register.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Tuesday, November 22, 2016; 10 a.m.-11 a.m. I. Introductions, Voice ID, and Adoption of Agenda II. SEDAR 48 (Black Grouper) Benchmark Assessment Preparation a. Review and Approval of Terms of Reference b. Review of Project Schedule c. Selection of Appointees to Data, Assessment, and Review Workshops III. Other Business Meeting Adjourns

    Both participants and observers must register in advance for the webinar. You may register for the SSC: Standing and Reef Fish webinar by going to the Council's Web site (http://www.gulfcoucil.org) and clicking on “Committee & Panel meetings, or by entering the following link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3715638296142754308

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org). The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2016-11 webinar”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. See above for instructions on registering for the webinar.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26855 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF023 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public hearings and webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold eight public hearings and one webinar to solicit public comments on Coastal Migratory Pelagics (CMP) Amendment 29—Allocation Sharing and Accountability Measures for the Gulf of Mexico Migratory Group of King Mackerel.

    DATES:

    The public hearings will be held November 30-December 8, 2016. The meetings will begin at 6 p.m. and will conclude no later than 9 p.m. For specific dates and times, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public documents can be obtained by contacting the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Meeting addresses: The public hearings will be held in Tampa, Key West and Panama City, FL; Port Aransas and Galveston, TX; Pascagoula, MS; Mobile, AL; Houma, LA; and one webinar. For specific locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Public comments: Comments may be submitted online through the Council's public portal by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on “CONTACT US”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The agenda for the following eight hearings and one webinar are as follows: Council staff will brief the public on CMP Amendment 29—Allocation Sharing and Accountability Measures for the Gulf of Mexico Migratory Group of King Mackerel. Staff will then open the meeting for questions and public comments. The schedule is as follows:

    Locations, Schedules, and Agendas

    Wednesday, November 30, 2016; Hilton Tampa Westshore Airport hotel, 2225 N. Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 877-6688;

    Thursday, December 1, 2016; Harvey Government Center, 1200 N. Truman Avenue, Key West, FL 33040; telephone: (305) 295-4385;

    Monday, December 5, 2016; Hampton Inn & Suites, 2208 Highway 361, Port Aransas, TX 78373; telephone: (361) 749-8888; Hilton Garden Inn, 2703 Denny Avenue, Pascagoula, MS 39563; telephone: (228) 762-7182;

    Tuesday, December 6, 2016; Hilton Galveston Island, 5400 Seawall Boulevard, Galveston, TX 77551; telephone: (409) 744-5000; Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza Hotel, 64 South Water Street, Mobile, AL 36602; telephone: (251) 438-4000;

    Wednesday, December 7, 2016; Marriott Courtyard, 142 Library Drive, Houma, LA 70360; telephone: (985) 223-8996; Hilton Garden Inn, 1101 North U.S. Highway 231, Panama City, FL 32405; telephone: (850) 392-1093;

    Thursday, December 8, 2016, Webinar—6 p.m. EST at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1169421153446562050

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26857 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF003 Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of eligible voters; referendum voting period; public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this notice to inform persons of their eligibility to vote and referendum voting period in the fishing capacity reduction program referendum for a second loan in the Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Fishery. NMFS will hold a series of public meetings with Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon permit holders and interested individuals.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before 5 p.m. EST December 7, 2016.

    The meetings will be held between November 14 and November 17, 2016. For specific times, please see the Public Meetings heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held in Sitka, AK, Ketchikan, AK, Petersburg, AK, and Seattle, WA. For specific locations, please see Public Meetings heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Send comments about this notice to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: SE Alaska Purse Seine Salmon Buyback, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael A. Sturtevant at (301) 427-8799, fax (301) 713-1306, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon fishery is a commercial fishery in Alaska state waters and adjacent Federal waters. It encompasses the commercial taking of salmon with purse seine gear, and participation is limited to fishermen designated by the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). Congress authorized a $23.5 million loan to finance a fishing capacity reduction program in the Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon fishery. NMFS published proposed program regulations on May 23, 2011 (76 FR 29707), and final program regulations on October 6, 2011 (76 FR 61986), to implement the reduction program.

    In 2012, NMFS conducted a referendum to determine the remaining fishermen's willingness to repay a $13.1 million fishing capacity reduction loan to remove 64 permits. After a majority of permit holders approved the loan, NMFS disbursed payments to the successful bidders and began collecting fees to repay the loan. Since only $13.1 million was expended from the total loan amount, $10.4 remains available. This second referendum, if approved, will result in a second loan of $5.8 million and permanently retire an additional 22 permits from the fishery.

    In August 2016, the Southeast Revitalization Association submitted a second capacity reduction plan to NMFS and NMFS approved the second plan in October 2016. The final regulations require NMFS to publish this notice before conducting a referendum to determine the industry's willingness to repay a second fishing capacity reduction loan to purchase the permits identified in the second reduction plan.

    As of October 21, 2016, there are 315 permits in the fishery designated as S01A by CFEC. These permanent permit holders are eligible to vote in this second referendum. Comments may address: (1) Persons who appear on the below list but should not; (2) persons who do not appear on the list but should; (3) persons whose names and/or business mailing addresses are incorrect; and (4) any other pertinent matter. NMFS will update the list, as necessary, immediately before mailing referendum ballots. Mailed ballots will be accompanied by NMFS' detailed voting guidance.

    II. Referendum Voting Period

    The referendum voting period will start December 13, 2016 and end on January 13, 2017. Any votes not received by NMFS by 5 p.m. on January 13, 2017, will not be counted.

    III. Public Meetings

    NMFS will hold a series of four public informational meetings with Southeast Alaska purse seine salmon permit holders and interested individuals:

    • Monday, November 14, 2016, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in Sitka, AK, at the Westmark Sitka Hotel (330 Seward Street).

    • Tuesday, November 15, 2016, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. in Ketchikan, AK, at the Best Western Plus Landing Hotel (3434 Tongass Avenue).

    • Wednesday, November 16, 2016, from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. in Petersburg, AK, at the Petersburg Public Library Community Room (14 South Second Street).

    • Thursday, November 17, 2016, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Seattle, WA at CenturyLink Field Event Center Media Room 1D47 (800 Occidental Ave South).

    Comments and questions regarding any aspect of the fishing capacity reduction program are welcome.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Michael A. Sturtevant (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    The following list of eligible voters was provided by CFEC on October 21, 2016:

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-C EN07NO16.003 EN07NO16.004 EN07NO16.005 EN07NO16.006 EN07NO16.007 Dated: November 1, 2016. Brian T. Pawlak, CFO/Director, Office of Management and Budget, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26846 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF022 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Mackerel Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 29, 2016; from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Gulf Council's Conference Room.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; (813) 348-1630 or on their Web site at www.gulfcouncil.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ryan Rindone, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The items of discussion on the agenda are as follows:

    Mackerel Advisory Panel Agenda, Tuesday, November 29, 2016, 9:30 a.m.-3 p.m. I. Introductions and Adoption of Agenda II. Approval of November 30, 2015 Mackerel AP report minutes III. Review of CMP Amendment 29 Public Hearing Draft—Gulf King Mackerel Allocation Sharing and Recreational Accountability Measures a. CMP 29 Decision Document b. AP Recommendations IV. Other Business a. Discussion of King Mackerel Size Limits b. Discussion of Gulf Southern Zone Handline Trip Limits Meeting Adjourns

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the File Server link in the lower left of the Council Web site (http://www.gulfcouncil.org).

    The username and password are both “gulfguest”. Click on the “Library Folder”, then scroll down to “Mackerel AP”.

    The meeting will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26856 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-42] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chang Suh, DSCA/SA&E/RAN, (703) 697-8975.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-42 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN07NO16.000 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-42 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: The Republic of Iraq

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $ 0 million Other 65.3 million TOTAL 65.3 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Non-MDE:

    Two (2) Cessna AC-208 aircraft with dual rail Hellfire launcher capability on each wing Two (2) AN/ALE-47 Electronic Countermeasure Dispensers Two (2) AAR-60 Missile Launch Warning Systems Four (4) AN/AAQ-35 (Wescam MX-15D) Electro-Optical Infrared Imaging Systems Two (2) LAU-131-A Launchers

    Additionally, non-MDE includes contractor aircraft modifications, spare parts, publication updates, aircraft ferry, and miscellaneous parts. The total estimated program cost is $65.3 million

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: IQ-D-QAH for $20M signed on 13 Feb 2009 for C/AC-208 CLS, Transmittal 11-23. IQ-D-QAF for $5M signed 26 Oct 2008 for C/AC-208 CLS, Transmittal 11-23.

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: October 6, 2016

    *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Republic of Iraq—AC-208 Aircraft

    The Government of Iraq requests to purchase two (2) Cessna AC-208 aircraft that include: Dual rail LAU-131 Hellfire launcher capability on each wing, AN/ALE-47 electronic countermeasure dispenser, AN/AAR-60 Missile Launch Warning System, AN/AAQ-35 ElectroOptical Infrared Imaging System, contractor aircraft modifications, spare parts, publication updates, aircraft ferry, and miscellaneous parts. The estimated total case value is $65.3 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. This proposed sale directly supports Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States.

    Iraq originally purchased three (3) AC-208 and three (3) C-208 aircraft in 2008. The Cessna aircraft are used to support Iraqi military operations against al-Qaeda affiliate and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) forces. The purchase of two (2) additional aircraft enables the Iraqi Air Force to continue its fight against ISIL. Iraq will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is Orbital ATK, Falls Church, VA. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. or contractor representatives to Iraq.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. All defense articles and services are approved for release by our foreign disclosure office.

    Transmittal No. 16-42 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. Cessna AC-208: The Armed Caravan is a specifically modified Cessna C-208 capable of operating in austere environments while providing real-time intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and low collateral damage kinetic strike capabilities. It is equipped with an integrated electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR) laser sensor suite which gives it a day/night ISR capability with a laser illuminator, range finder, and designator to allow employment of the AGM-114M missile through a 1760 mil bus interface. The aircraft has two external hard points for weapons and fuel carriage. The Iraq variant will be equipped for use with AGM-114 missiles already in country. Critical components (cockpit and engine) will have aircraft armor able to withstand small arms fire. Hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and documentation to be provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    2. The proposed configuration includes the AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Set (CMDS), the AN/AAR-60 Missile Approach Warning System, the AN/AAQ-35 MX (Wescam MX-15D) Electro-Optical Infrared Imaging System, and dual rail LAU-131 Hellfire launcher capability on each wing.

    3. The AN/ALE-47 CMDS provides an integrated threat-adaptive, computer controlled capability for dispensing chaff, flares, and active radio frequency expendables. The AN/ALE-47 system enhances aircraft survivability in sophisticated threat environments.

    4. The threats countered by the CMDS include radar-directed anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), radar command-guided missiles, radar homing guided missiles, and infrared guided missiles. The U.S. is not providing any threat data. The system is internally mounted and may be operated as a stand-alone system or integrated with other on-board electronic warfare and avionics systems. Expendable routines tailored to the immediate aircraft and threat environment may be dispensed using one of four operational modes. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Software is SECRET. Technical data and documentation provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    5. The AN/AAR-60 Missile Approach Warning System is a passive, true imaging sensor device that is optimized to detect the radiation signature of a threat missile's exhaust plume within the ultra violet solar blind spectral band. Functionally, the architecture detects incoming missile threats and indicates their direction of arrival with the `maximum' of warning time. Hardware and software are UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and documentation provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    6. The AN/AAQ-35 MX (Wescam MX-15D) is a gyro-stabilized, multi-spectral, multi field of view electro-optical infrared imaging system. The system provides surveillance laser illumination and laser designation through use of an externally mounted turret sensor and internally mounted master control. Sensor video imagery is displayed in the aircraft real time and may be recorded for subsequent ground analysis. Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and documentation provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    7. The LAU-131 launcher is tube shaped, 59.8 inches in length, and 10.125 inches in diameter. It weighs 65 pounds and is capable of carrying seven rockets (2.75 inch or 70mm). Hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Technical data and documentation provided are UNCLASSIFIED.

    8. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    9. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    10. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal are authorized for release and export to the Government of Iraq.

    [FR Doc. 2016-26763 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2016-ICCD-0123] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 January 6, 2017.

    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-0123. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Eric Schulz, 202-260-7349.

    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: Application for the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0646.

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

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 6,049.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 20,683.

    Abstract: This data collection is pursuant to the Secretary's authority under Part B of Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, Public Law 114-95) to award funds under two grant programs designed to address the unique needs of rural school districts—the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program (ESSA Section 5211) and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program (ESSA Section 5221). For both grant programs, the Department awards funds based on a calculation of the allocation each eligible LEA should receive according to formulas prescribed in the statute. This data collection package consists of two forms and related documents that are used to accomplish the grant award process: (1) Form 1 is a spreadsheet used by SEAs to submit information to identify RLIS- and SRSA-eligible LEAs and to allocate funds based on the appropriate formula, and (2) Form 2 is an application form for SRSA-eligible LEAs to apply for funding. The REAP Eligibility Spreadsheet (Form 1) has been modified from the previously-approved collection under OMB #1810-0646, to exclude data that is no longer needed because of improvements in processes, and to include data that is now required due to changes in the new statute.

    The main thrust of this revision involves the SRSA Application Package (Form 2). The REAP program office seeks to replace the existing G5 document with the Standard Form (SF) 424 (OMB #4040-0004), available through GRANTS.gov. The move to GRANTS.gov is necessary because beginning with the FY 2017 grant award cycle, all SRSA-eligible LEAs will submit an annual application in order to receive SRSA grant funds. In addition, this revision removes Standard Form-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying activities, which no longer applies to SRSA applicants, and adds the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) Section 427 requirements, which do apply.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26798 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2889-004] San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; Notice of Effectiveness of Surrender

    On April 17, 1981, the Commission issued a Notice of Approval by Operation of Law granting an exemption from licensing to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (exemptee) for the proposed Lytle Creek and Foothills Pipeline Project, FERC No. 2889. The unconstructed project would be located on Lytle Creek, in San Bernardino County, California.

    On March 30, 2016, the exemptee filed a petition with the Commission to surrender the exemption. The exemptee has been unable to construct the project due to changes in water availability and pricing tariffs.

    Accordingly, the Commission accepts the exemptee's surrender of its exemption from licensing, effective 30 days from the date of this notice, at the close of business on Friday, November 25, 2016. No license, exemption, or preliminary permit applications for the project site may be filed until Monday, November 28, 2016.

    Dated: October 26, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26589 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

    NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

    November 7, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-11-07.

    NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

    November 16, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-11-16.

    NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

    November 17, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-11-17.

    NYISO Management Committee Meeting

    November 30, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST).

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.

    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.

    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-11-30.

    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.

    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.

    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or [email protected]

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26845 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-4-000] Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On November 1, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL17-4-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and reasonableness of Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC's rate. Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC, 157 FERC ¶ 61,079 (2016).

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-4-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-4-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2016), within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26837 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1777-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Heartland Consumers Power District Formula Rate Compliance Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2131-003; ER12-2037-008; ER12-2314-006; ER15-2129-002; ER15-2130-003.

    Applicants: Milo Wind Project, LLC, Roosevelt Wind Project, LLC, Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC, Spearville 3, LLC, Spinning Spur Wind LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the EDF-RE MBR Affilliates in SPP BAA.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5301.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-257-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 767 2nd Rev—NITSA with Basin Electric Power Cooperative to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-258-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 312 8th Rev, NITSA with Southern Montana to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-259-000.

    Applicants: Darby Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Darby Power, LLC Reactive Service Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-260-000.

    Applicants: Gavin Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Gavin Power, LLC Reactive Service Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5048.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-261-000.

    Applicants: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC Reactive Service Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5049.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-262-000.

    Applicants: Waterford Power, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Waterford Power, LLC Reactive Service Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-263-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position NQ139, Original Service Agreement No. 4573 to be effective 10/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-264-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP Formula Rate Revisions to be effective 7/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-265-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-11-01_ETEC Tex-La RTO Adder Request to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5087.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-266-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No. 3318, Queue No. X3-075 re: Assignment to Marina Energy to be effective 6/4/2014.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-267-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Tri-County Formula Rate to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-268-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Modifications to Purchase and Sale Agreement with Niagara Mohawk to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-269-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Penelec Modifications to Purchase and Sale Agreement with Niagara Mohawk to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5127.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-270-000.

    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: JCP&L Modifications to Purchase and Sale Agreement with Niagara Mohawk to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-271-000.

    Applicants: DATC Path 15, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Appendix I 2017 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-272-000.

    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: TRBAA 2017 Update to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-273-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Entergy Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-11-01_Filing to update Entergy Schedule 41 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-274-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Tariff to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26842 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-492-000] EcoEléctrica, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed LNG Terminal Sendout Capacity Increase Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the LNG Terminal Sendout Capacity Increase Project involving operation of facilities by EcoEléctrica, L.P. (EcoEléctrica) in Peñuelas, Puerto Rico. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public interest.

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before December 1, 2016.

    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on August 11, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP16-492-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

    Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP16-492-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Summary of the Proposed Project

    EcoEléctrica proposes to use spare vaporization capacity to supply an additional 93 milllion standard cubic feet per day of natural gas. According to EcoEléctrica, no changes will be made to the design of the existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) vaporization system or to the existing LNG storage tank or in-tank LNG sendout pumps as part of the project. The project would not include any construction activities and no ground disturbance would be required for construction or operation of this project.

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.1

    1 The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov using the link called “eLibrary” or from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.

    The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of an Authorization. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

    2 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

    • Air quality and noise;

    • public safety; and

    • cumulative impacts

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

    3 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1501.6.

    Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

    Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

    Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP16-492). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26844 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD16-25-000] Utilization in the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on September 30, 2016 in the above-captioned proceeding,1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will convene a technical conference on November 9, 2016, at the Commission's offices at 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 beginning at approximately 10:00 a.m. and ending at approximately 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Commission staff will lead the conference, and Commissioners may attend.

    1Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services, Docket No. AD16-25-000 (Sept. 30, 2016).

    The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss the utilization of electric storage resources as transmission assets compensated through transmission rates, for grid support services that are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services. Attached to this supplemental notice is an agenda for the technical conference, including a more detailed description of the topics to be considered for discussion at the conference. Questions that speakers should be prepared to discuss are grouped by topic. This notice includes the list of panelists for each of the three topic areas.

    This technical conference will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts of the technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. at (202) 347-3700. A free webcast of this event will be available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with internet access who wants to view this event can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to the workshop via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 993-3100.

    Those interested in attending the technical conference or viewing the webcast are encouraged to register at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/11-09-16-form.asp.

    Commission technical conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected], call (866) 208-3372 (toll free) or (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For more information about this technical conference, please contact:

    Rahim Amerkhail (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8266, [email protected] Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8004, [email protected] Heidi Nielsen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8435, [email protected] Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26835 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-236-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 10-31-16 SAP Ministerial Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-237-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of PST and Associated Service Agreements to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-238-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SAP Ministerial Filing to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-239-000.

    Applicants: TPE Alta Luna, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective 1/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5225.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-240-000.

    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Request to Update Depreciation Rates for Wholesale Production Service to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-241-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of OATT and Associated Service Agreements to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5231.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-242-000.

    Applicants: Gavin Power, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Gavin Power, LLC Application for Market Based Rate Authorization to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-243-000.

    Applicants: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC Application for Market Based Rate Authorization to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5242.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-244-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection Service Agreement No. 4063; Queue AB2-014 to be effective 9/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-245-000.

    Applicants: Waterford Power, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Waterford Power, LLC Application for Market Based Rate Authorization to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5251.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-246-000.

    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Annual RMR Section 205 Filing and RMR Schedule F Informational Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-247-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WPL Changes in Depreciation & Amortization for Wholesale Production Service to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5257.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-248-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCE 2017 ETC Reliability Service Rate Update to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-249-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Stated Rates Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-250-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 TRBAA Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5260.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-251-000.

    Applicants: San Joaquin Cogen, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5261.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-252-000.

    Applicants: 2016 ESA Project Company, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for MBR Authority and Initial BaselineTariff Filing to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-253-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Omaha Public Power District Formula Rate Revisions to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-254-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Temporary Structure Sharing Agreement to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-255-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SWE (PowerSouth Territorial) NITSA Amendment (Add PREC Pitchford Farms DP) to be effective 10/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-256-000.

    Applicants: Darby Power, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Darby Power, LLC Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5271.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26836 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Exempt: 1. P-2082-062 10-17-2016 U.S. House Representative Jared Huffman. 2. P-10482-000 10-20-2016 U.S. House Representative Chris Gibson. 3. P-10482-000 10-20-2016 U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. 4. CP15-558-000 10-26-2016 FERC Staff.1 1 Memo reporting October 11, 2016 phone call with New Jersey Rate Counsel. Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26841 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-239-000] TPE Alta Luna, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding TPE Alta Luna, LLC `s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 21, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26839 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-3-000.

    Applicants: ONEOK Gas Transportation, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(e) + (g): Revised Statement of Operating Conditions for Section 311 Transportation Service to be effective 10/1/2016; Filing Type: 1280.

    Filed Date: 10/28/2016.

    Accession Number: 201610285143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/18/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-97-000.

    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Misc Tariff Filing October 2016 to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-98-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Dominion Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per 154.204: DTI—October 31, 2016 Nonconforming Service Agreement to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-99-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Filing to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5052.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-100-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Chevron Release eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-101-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Colonial Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-102-000.

    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Rager Mountain October 2016 Clean Up Filing to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5068.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-103-000.

    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: OPC K410465 11-1-2016 Negotiated Rate to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-104-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Con Ed Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-105-000.

    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 10-31-16 to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-106-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (Bosco Meter Change) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-107-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Agreements Expiring 10/31/2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-108-000.

    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Filing on 10-31-16 to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-109-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-10-31 ARM to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-110-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts (Bosco Meter Change) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5119.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-111-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (QEP 37657 to Atmos 45527) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-112-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Atlanta Gas 8438 to various shippers eff 11-1-16) to be .effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-113-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (FPL 41618 to Tenaska 47321, DTE 47381) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-114-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Methanex 42805 to BP 47327) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5125.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-115-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (PH 41455 to Texla 47331, BP 47392, Seq 47383) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-116-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (EOG 34687 to Trans LA 47332) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-117-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Encana 37663 to Texla 47333, ConocoPhillips 47386, 47400) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-118-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (EOG 34687 to NJR 47338) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5132.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-119-000.

    Applicants: Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission, L.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: NRA Rate 2016/31/10 Northwestern to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-120-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: TETLP ASA DEC 2016 FILING to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-121-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/31/16 Negotiated Rates—Vitol Inc. (HUB) 7495-89 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-122-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/31/16 Negotiated Rates—Hartree Partners, LP (HUB) 7090-89 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-123-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—KeySpan Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-124-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 10/31/16 Negotiated Rates—Sequent Energy Management (HUB) 3075-89 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-125-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 20161031 Negotiated Rate to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-126-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Q-West/Aethon Negotiated Rate to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-127-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: J-W Gathering Removal of Expired Contract to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-128-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016-10-31 J.Aron Partial Assignment to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5241.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-129-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Assignment of TAPO Energy Agreement to Jerry Poling to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-130-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Con Ed Ramapo Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-131-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Filing (WPX Marketing LLC Nov 2016) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 1, 2016 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26843 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P`
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-228-000] King Forest Industries, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of King Forest Industries, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 21, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26838 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2935-026] Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC; Enterprise Mill LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On October 12, 2016, Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC (transferor) and Enterprise Mill LLC (transferee) filed an application for the transfer of license of the Enterprise Mill Project No. 2935. The project is located on the Augusta Canal of the Savannah River in Richmond County, Georgia. The project does not occupy federal lands.

    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the Enterprise Mill Project Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC to Enterprise Mill LLC.

    Applicants Contact: For transferor: Ms. Karen Hudspeth, Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC, c/o Melaver, Inc., 114 Barnard Street, Suite 1A, Savannah, GA 31401, phone: 912-236-0781. For transferee: Mr. Carlos Imery, Enterprise Mill LLC, 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205, Coral Gables, FL 33134, phone: 561-212-8331.

    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735, [email protected]

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2935-026.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26840 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9954-99-Region 10] Washington State Department of Ecology Prohibition of Discharges of Vessel Sewage; Receipt of Petition and Preliminary Affirmative Determination AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice—receipt of petition and preliminary affirmative determination.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is given that, pursuant Clean Water Act Section 312(f)(3), the Washington State Department of Ecology has determined that the protection and enhancement of the quality of the waters of Puget Sound requires greater environmental protection, and has petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for those waters, so that the State may completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters. Washington State has proposed to establish a “No-Discharge Zone” (NDZ) for all marine waters of Washington State inward from the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and the Discovery Island Lighthouse to the Canadian border, and fresh waters of Lake Washington, Lake Union, and connecting waters between and to Puget Sound.

    The western boundary of the NDZ would be the exit of the Strait of Juan de Fuca near the entrance of Admiralty Inlet. This boundary is known and visible to vessel operators as it is the line between New Dungeness Lighthouse and Discovery Island Lighthouse. The northern boundary would be the border with Canada and heading south including all marine waters down to the south end of the south Sound and Hood Canal. The fresh waters of Lake Washington, Union Bay, Montlake Cut, Portage Bay, Lake Union, Fremont Cut, the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and Salmon Bay (the connecting waters from Lake Washington to Puget Sound) would be included. For more information regarding the State's planned NDZ, please go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/nodischargezone.html.

    Today's notice seeks public comment on EPA's tentative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters subject to Washington's planned NDZ.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this tentative determination must be received on or before December 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joel Salter, Oregon Operations Office, Water Program Coordinator, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 500, Portland OR 97205; telephone number: (503) 326-2653; fax number: (503) 326-3399.; email address: [email protected],

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is given that the Washington State Department of Ecology has petitioned the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, pursuant to section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322, for a determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound. As described in the State's petition, submitted to EPA on July 21, 2016, Ecology included in its application a certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters described in the petition require greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standard along with pumpout facility information required by EPA regulations. See 40 CFR 140.4. Ecology also submitted supplemental information to EPA on October 14, 2016, regarding commercial vessel pumpout availability in Puget Sound. EPA's role under Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act is to determine whether adequate pumpout facilities are reasonably available, and EPA is seeking comments on this determination only.

    Adequacy and Availability of Sewage Pumpout Facilities

    Guidelines issued pursuant to the Clean Vessel Act for recreational vessels recommend one pumpout station for every 300-600 boats [Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 47, March 10, 1994]. In its petition, the State described the recreational vessel population in Puget Sound and the pumpout facilities and mobile pumpout services that are available for use.

    The State used two methods to develop a reasonable estimate of the recreational vessel population in Puget Sound. The first method was based on boater registration records obtained from the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL). Using data from the DOL, the maximum estimated number of recreational vessels in each of the Washington State counties bordering Puget Sound that might require access to pumpout facilities or services under NDZ regulations (i.e., boats larger than 21 feet) is 43,677. Vessels under 21 feet were not included in the estimate because they typically do not have an installed toilet. Because boater registration data may include a number of small, locally registered, commercial vessels such as fishing boats or tug boats, the total may be an overestimate.

    The second method was based on the number of moorages and slips available to boaters, using Google Earth imagery captured during the summers of 2011 and 2012 to count vacant and occupied marina slips and moored vessels. Using this method, the State estimates a recreational vessel population of 23,555. The State believes that this also may be an overestimate, albeit less of an overestimate than the number calculated using the DOL boater registration data.

    The State's petition also provided information about 173 pumpout units at 102 locations, and 21 mobile pumpout boats available for recreational vessels in Puget Sound. Both the location and availability of these pumpout facilities and services appear to approximately track the overall distribution of the recreational vessel population. The ongoing costs for recreational vessels to pumpout is minimal, with most pumpouts being free or $5 per pumpout. The majority of pumped sewage is sent to wastewater treatment plants; however, some is sent to onsite septic tanks that meet federal requirements.

    The most conservative estimate of the ratio of pumpout facilities to recreational vessels is 1:171 boats for each pumpout facility, not including the mobile services. Based on DOL vessel registration data, there is a maximum of 43,677 recreation vessels in Puget Sound that could require access to pumpout facilities. As noted above, this is the State's most conservative (high) estimate. Using a 40 percent peak occupancy rate recommended by the Clean Vessel Act Technical Guidelines cited above, EPA has calculated that 17,471 of the 43,677 boats recreational vessels would require access to a pumpout facility during peak boating season. The State identified 102 recreational pumpout locations, which results in a ratio of 171 recreational vessels for each pumpout location, not including the mobile services. Applying the same 40% occupancy rate to the lower recreational vessel estimate of 23,555 obtained from the moorage count results in a ratio of 92 recreational vessels for each pumpout location, not including the mobile services.

    Based on the number of available recreational pumpouts, which well exceeds the recommended minimum ratio of 1:600 using the most conservative estimates, EPA tentatively determines that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for recreational vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.

    Puget Sound is also used by many different sizes and types of commercial vessels. The State used a study conducted by the Puget Sound Maritime Air Forum (Starcrest, 2007) to develop a reasonable estimate of commercial vessel use of Puget Sound. The study concluded that there were 2,937 entries of large oceangoing vessels into Puget Sound in 2005, and an estimated 678 other commercial vessels that operate mostly within Puget Sound (e.g., escort tugs) or have Puget Sound as their home port (e.g., the fleet of fishing vessels that travels to Alaska each year). According to the State, current vessel statistics are estimated to be similar to the data from 2005.

    The large, oceangoing transient commercial vessels that are only in Puget Sound for a short period of time (e.g., large cruise ships, freighters and tankers) have large enough holding tanks to hold their waste during the time they are in Puget Sound, with some exceptions. All Washington State Ferries (WSDOT ferries) and U.S. military vessels have holding tanks and use large-scale pumpout facilities where they are moored. Smaller commercial vessels, such as ferries, tugboats, excursion vessels, and fishing vessels with installed toilets can use the stationary pumpouts, mobile pumpout service vessels, some of the recreational pumpouts, or shore-based pumper trucks, described in more detail below.

    The State identified eight stationary pumpouts dedicated to WSDOT ferries, three dedicated to U.S. Navy vessels, one dedicated to the Victoria Clipper vessels and one for the McNeil Island Department of Corrections vessels. The Port of Bellingham cruise terminal area also has three stationary pumpouts, one of which is used for Alaska Marine Highway vessels and two other pumpouts that can serve other commercial vessels. Although not included in this analysis, EPA notes that two more commercial pumpouts are being installed, one in Seattle for all commercial vessels and another at the Port of Bellingham mostly for fishing vessels. Estimated dates for completion are March and September 2017, respectively.

    The State's supplemental information identified five companies that specialize in commercial marine work and that are capable of removing sewage from commercial vessel holding tanks. These five companies have a combined total of approximately 52 trucks (capacity ranging from 2,200-7,500 gallons each) and two mobile barges (capacity of 3,000 gallons each). These companies serve all of Puget Sound and can provide pumpout services at a variety of docks and ports for all types of commercial vessels, including tugs, fishing vessels, USCG vessels, smaller cruise ships, tankers, and other vessels.

    The State's petition and supplemental information also identified 21-23 mobile pumpout vessels. These mobile pumpouts primarily service recreational boats, but several have serviced commercial vessels such as charter boats, fishing vessels, U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and passenger vessels. The mobile pumpout boats have a capacity between 40 and 450 gallons and cover vast areas geographically as they are able to move to vessels, although some stay within their own marina or harbor area. In addition to the pumpouts described above, there are approximately 140 licensed or certified pumper truck companies in Puget Sound that primarily pump out septic tanks, but that can also pump out vessel sewage. The number of trucks in each company ranges from 1-13, and approximately half of these companies contacted by the State are currently, or are willing to, pump out commercial vessel sewage.

    The State indicates that the number of commercial vessels that are likely to be in regular need of pumpout facilities with a NDZ would include the non-ocean going vessels that include tugboats, commercial fishing vessels, small passenger vessels, NOAA research and survey vessels, WSDOT Ferries, military and other government vessels, excursion and other commercial vessels. Given that the WSDOT Ferries, military vessels, and Victoria Clipper vessels all have dedicated stationary pumpouts, this leaves an approximate 600 vessels that would be in need of other pumpout facilities. With the two stationary commercial pumpouts, at least 52 Sound-wide commercial pumper trucks, and the two Sound-wide mobile commercial pumpout barges described above, this amounts to at least 56 pumpouts available for commercial vessels which results in an approximate ratio of 11:1. This estimated ratio may be conservative, given that a number of the mobile pumpout boats and pumper trucks described above may also provide commercial pumpout services. Based on this information, EPA tentatively determines that adequate pumpout facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage for commercial vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound.

    Table of Facilities

    A list of pumpout facilities, phone numbers, locations, hours of operation, water depth and fees is provided at this link to the Washington Dept. of Ecology Web site: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/CleanBoating/VesselPumpoutTables.pdf.

    Based on the information above, EPA proposes to make an affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound. A 30-day period for public comment has been opened on this matter, and EPA invites any comments relevant to this proposed determination. As noted above, EPA's authority under Clean Water Act section 312(f)(3) is to determine whether adequate pumpout facilities are reasonably available and EPA is therefore seeking comments on this determination only. If, after the public comment period ends, EPA makes a final affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of Puget Sound, the State may, in accordance with CWA section 312(f)(3), completely prohibit the discharge from all vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into those waters.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26877 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573; FRL-9954-96-OAR] California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements and Enforcement for 2004 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light Duty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles and Engines; Notice of Decision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the California Air Resources Board's (“CARB”) request for a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to enforce amendments to regulations entitled “Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements—2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines” (“OBD II Requirements”) and amendments to CARB's regulations entitled “Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic Systems Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines” (“OBD II Enforcement Regulation”). This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”).

    DATES:

    Petitions for review must be filed by January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The email address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: [email protected], the telephone number is (202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the federal government's electronic public docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0573 in the “Enter Keyword or ID” fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (“CBI”) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. (6405J) NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Fax: (202) 343-2800. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    CARB initially adopted the OBD II regulation in July 1990 and has adopted a number of amendments subsequently. The OBD II regulation directs motor vehicle manufacturers to incorporate vehicle onboard diagnostic systems meeting particular requirements on all new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles and engines. Specifically, manufacturers are required to install OBD II systems that effectively monitor all emission-related components and systems on the motor vehicle for proper operation and for deterioration or malfunctions that cause emissions to exceed specific thresholds. The regulation also requires that OBD II systems provide specific diagnostic information in a standardized format through a standardized serial data link on-board the vehicles to ensure that service and repair technicians can properly and promptly repair identified malfunctions.

    EPA issued a waiver under section 209(b) of the CAA for the OBD II regulations, as last amended through 1995, on October 11, 1996.1 After the granting of the waiver, CARB adopted further amendments to the OBD II regulation in 1997 and 2003.2 CARB subsequently filed requests on December 24, 1997 and October 30, 2003, that the EPA respectively find the amendments to the OBD II Requirements adopted in 1997 and 2003 be found to be within the scope of the previously granted OBD II waiver. The October 30, 2003, request further asked that OBD II Enforcement Regulation be found within the scope of the previously granted waivers for “California's Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle Standards,” title 13, Cal. Code Regs. Section 2100 et seq. 3 EPA published a notice of opportunity for hearing and comment on the 1997 and 2003 California requests on February 5, 2004.4

    1 The decision was signed on October 2, 1996, and published at 61 FR 53371 (October 11, 1996). Included in the waiver decision were the 1992, 1993, and 1995 amendments. CARB's initial OBD II regulations were codified at Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1968.1

    2 The CARB Board (Board) initially approved the amendments at rulemakings held respectively on December 12, 1996 and April 25, 2002. In 2003 (upon the final adoption of the amendments initially adopted in 2002), CARB codified the regulations at section 1968.2 (this section carried over most of the monitoring requirements of section 1968.1, and apply to 2004 and subsequent model year vehicles). The 2003 amendments included several new provisions that expressly applied to vehicles after the date of the amendments. The 2003 amendments also included OBD-II specific enforcement provisions, including requirements for post-assembly line evaluation of production vehicles (section 1968.2(j)) and in-use testing procedures at 1968.5

    3See 61 FR 53371 (October 11, 1996), 43 FR 9344 (March 7, 1978), and 43 FR 25729 (June 14, 1978) for grant of EPA's waivers for “California's Enforcement of New and In-Use Vehicle Standards” at title 13, CCR, section 2100 et seq. CARB's OBD II Requirements generally set monitoring requirements on various emission control components and the OBD II Enforcement Regulation generally sets forth the manufacturing testing requirements and expected follow up from manufacturers based on in-use testing results.

    4See 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004). EPA has not issued a waiver determination regarding the 1997 and 2003 amendments.

    On August 9, 2007, CARB adopted additional amendments to the OBD II Requirements and minor amendments to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation and to its emission warranty regulations. The 2007 OBD II Requirements amendments were made, inter alia, to address manufacturer compliance concerns and to align the monitoring requirements with those adopted by CARB in 2005 for heavy duty diesel engines.5 By letter dated January 22, 2008, CARB requested that EPA find the 2007 amendments fall within the scope of the previous OBD II waiver.

    5 Many of the amendments pertain to monitoring requirements for gasoline vehicles which CARB maintains were adopted to provide relief to manufacturers and to address their concerns about complying with the requirements. CARB also amended the OBD II requirements to address light- and medium-duty manufacturer concerns with complying with the malfunction thresholds for certain diesel emission controls and to better align the OBD II requirements with those that had been adopted for heavy-duty diesel engines in the HD OBD regulation. CARB also amended section 1968.5, including specific criteria in determining whether mandatory recall is appropriate for noncompliant OBD II systems that present valid testing of the affected vehicles in the California Smog Check program.

    On April 5, 2010, CARB adopted additional amendments to the OBD II Requirements, but not to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation.6 The 2010 OBD II Requirements amendments were made to primarily harmonize the medium-duty diesel vehicle requirements with revisions to monitoring requirements for heavy-duty diesel engines.7 By letter dated December 15, 2010, CARB requested that EPA find that the 2010 OBD II Requirements amendments fall within the scope of the previous waiver or alternatively, that a new waiver be granted for the amendments.

    6 The California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the 2010 OBD II amendments on May 18, 2010 and the amendments primarily modify section 1968.2.

    7 The 2010 amendments include changes that relax the malfunction thresholds until the 2013 model year for three major emission controls: Particulate matter (PM) filters, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) catalysts, and NOX sensors.

    On March 12, 2012, and on June 26, 2013, CARB adopted additional amendments to the OBD II Requirements and to the OBD II Enforcement Regulation. The 2012 OBD II Requirements amendments were primarily made to relax and/or clarify OBD II Requirements in response to manufacturer concerns. The 2013 OBD II Requirements amendments primarily affect medium-duty vehicles, to align the OBD II monitoring requirements with those adopted by CARB for heavy duty diesel engines. By letter dated February 12, 2014, CARB requested that EPA find that the 2012 and 2013 OBD II amendments fall within the scope of the previous waiver or, alternatively, that a full waiver be granted for the amendments.

    The various amendments, noted above, to the OBD II Requirements are codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.2. The various amendments, noted above, to the OBD II Enforcement Regulations are codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1968.5. The scope of today's waiver specifically addresses the 2007 through 2013 amendments, and sections 1968.2 and 1968.5.

    II. Principles Governing this Review A. Scope of Review

    Section 209(a) of the CAA provides:

    No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.8

    8 CAA § 209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a).

    Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that its state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.9 However, no such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that: (A) The protectiveness determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious; (B) the state does not need such state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.10

    9 CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). California is the only state that meets section 209(b)(1)'s requirement for obtaining a waiver. See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).

    10 CAA § 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1).

    Key principles governing this review are that EPA should limit its inquiry to the specific findings identified in section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and that EPA will give substantial deference to the policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended the Agency's review of California's decision-making to be narrow. EPA has rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a waiver:

    The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.11

    11 “Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State Standards,” 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). The more stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the 1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.12 Thus, EPA's consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning a waiver decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may be considered under section 209(b)(1).

    12See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“MEMA I”).

    If California amends regulations that were previously waived by EPA, California may ask EPA to determine that the amendments are within the scope of the earlier waiver. A within-the-scope determination for such amendments is permissible without a full authorization review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a) of the Act, following the same criteria discussed above in the context of full waivers. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any “new issues” affecting EPA's prior waivers.13

    13See “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Amendments Within the Scope of Previous Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 46 FR 36742 (July 15, 1981).

    B. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have been met:

    [T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.14

    14MEMA I, note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: “here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.” ' 15 Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act “reasonably.” 16

    15Id. at 1126.

    16Id. at 1126.

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    [. . .]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.17

    17Id. at 1122.

    In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an “accompanying enforcement procedure.” Those findings involve: (1) Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2) whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The principles set forth by the court, however, are similarly applicable to an EPA review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The court instructed that “the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.” 18

    18Id.

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.19 The court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare.20

    19Id.

    20Id.

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof under section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.” 21

    21See, e.g., “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 40 FR 23102 (May 28, 1975), at 23103.

    C. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver decision:

    It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator.. . . Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.22

    22 40 FR 23102, 23103-04 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.23 This interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the CAA. Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.24

    23 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).

    24MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).

    D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's Requests

    On November 20, 2014, EPA published a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment on California's waiver requests (November 20, 2014 Notice). EPA scheduled a public hearing concerning CARB's request for January 14, 2015, and asked for written comments to be submitted by February 16, 2015.25 EPA's notice of CARB's requests invited public comment on the following: Whether CARB's 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD II amendments, individually or collectively assessed, should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or under the “full waiver criteria.” To the extent such amendment(s) should be considered under the within-the-scope criteria, EPA requested comment on whether the amendment(s) “(1) undermine California's previous determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal standards, (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and (3) raise any “new issue” affecting EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations.”

    25 79 FR 69106 (November 20, 2014).

    To the extent any party believed that the 2007, 2010, 2012, or 2013 OBD II amendments do not merit consideration as within-the-scope of the previous waiver, EPA also requested comment on whether those amendments meet the criteria for a full waiver, specifically “Whether (a) California's determination that its motor vehicle emission standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious, (b) California needs such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and (c) California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”

    As noted above, EPA has previously given notice and taken comments on CARB's requests for within-the-scope determinations related to CARB's 1997 and 2003 OBD II amendments. Thus EPA sought additional comment on any relevant effects the more recent OBD II amendments may have on the prior 1997 and 2003 OBD II amendments. EPA received no comment or evidence suggesting that the more recent OBD II amendments, which are the subject of this waiver, would have any effect on them.

    Additionally, EPA received no requests for a public hearing, so EPA did not hold a hearing. EPA received no written comments on the November 20, 2014 Notice. EPA bases its waiver determination on the public record which in this instance consists of the waiver requests dated January 11, 2008, December 15, 2010, and February 12, 2014, and supporting materials submitted by CARB.

    III. Discussion

    As noted, EPA previously issued CARB a waiver for its OBD II Requirements for light- and medium-duty vehicles in 1996. Since that time EPA has offered an opportunity for public hearing and took public comment on CARB's 1997 and 2003 OBD II Requirements and Enforcement Regulation amendments, and EPA has received three additional waiver requests from CARB relating to its 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD II amendments. EPA may evaluate CARB's waiver request under the within-the-scope criteria if three criteria are met, including whether CARB's regulation or amendments raise any new issues. EPA has generally found “new issues” to exist if CARB's regulatory amendments include new more stringent standards or require updated emission control technology or other requirements on manufacturers or fleet operators. EPA believes that new issues may also exist when EPA has adopted its own emission standards, for the regulated industry, in the intervening years between when EPA last considered CARB's regulatory program. In this instance, as a result of the significant evolution of CARB's OBD II regulatory program since 1996, the sheer number of amendments—some in part designed to address a variety of manufacturers concerns with the technological feasibility of complying with previous versions of the OBD II regulations, EPA has evaluated these requests under the full waiver criteria.26 Evaluating the amendments under the criteria for a full waiver has provided EPA and other stakeholders with a full opportunity to explore whether CARB's standards are as protective of public health and welfare, in the aggregate, as applicable federal standards and whether CARB's standards (as amended) are technologically feasible and otherwise consistent with section 202(a). Given that CARB's 2007 and later OBD II amendments significantly modify the OBD II program after the amendments of 1997 and 2003, EPA has considered, and applied the full waiver criteria to, CARB's regulations as of the date of the adoption of the 2007 amendments up through the adoption of the most recent amendments in 2013.

    26 EPA notes that no comment suggested that the amendments do not meet the criteria for a within-the-scope determination. EPA is making no decision on whether the amendments do or do not meet the criteria for a within-the-scope determination.

    A. California's Protectiveness Determination

    Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the Act sets forth the first of the three criteria governing a waiver request—whether California was arbitrary and capricious in its determination that its state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Section 209(b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires EPA to deny a waiver if the Administrator finds that California's protectiveness determination was arbitrary and capricious. However, a finding that California's determination was arbitrary and capricious must be based upon clear and convincing evidence that California's finding was unreasonable.27

    27MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122, 1124 (“Once California has come forward with a finding that the procedures it seeks to adopt will not undermine the protectiveness of its standards, parties opposing the waiver request must show that this finding is unreasonable.”); see also 78 FR 2112, at 2121 (Jan. 9, 2013).

    CARB made protectiveness determinations in adopting each of the OBD II amendments, and found that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation would not cause California motor vehicle emissions standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of the public health and welfare than applicable federal standards.28

    28See CARB Board Resolutions 06-26, 09-37, 12-11, 12-21, and 12-29.

    In adopting the initial OBD II Requirements and subsequent amendments thereto in 1989 through 1994, CARB resolved that its standards, in the aggregate, were at least as protective of public health and welfare as the applicable federal standards, including federal OBD standards. In granting the 1996 waiver, the Administrator held that she could not find the CARB's determination was arbitrary and capricious.29

    29See OBD II Waiver Decision Document at 34.

    CARB maintains that its most recent round of amendments (the 2012 and 2013 Amendments) do not disturb the finding from 1996, even though EPA has since adopted amendments to its federal OBD requirements. “The 2012 amended OBD II requirements, considered as a whole, continue to be more stringent than the federal OBD regulation for light-duty vehicles and trucks and heavy-duty trucks (under the federal regulation) of the same vehicle weight rating as the California medium-duty vehicle category. The Board affirmed this determination in Resolutions 12-11 and 12-21.” 30 Likewise, with regard to the 2013 Amendments pertaining to the OBD II requirements set forth in section 1968.2 of the CCR and the OBD II Enforcement Regulation set forth at 1968.5 of the CCR, CARB notes that in the adoption of Resolution 12-29, the Board “expressly found that the 2013 Amendments to the OBD II Requirements and related enforcement regulations (sections 1968.2 and 1968.5) do not undermine California's previous determinations that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.” 31

    30See 2014 Waiver Request Support Document at 63.

    31Id. at 55.

    In addition, CARB notes similar protectiveness findings with regard to its 2007 and 2010 amendments. In the context of its 2007 amendments, CARB notes that generally the California OBD II Requirements set forth that components be monitored to indicate malfunctions when component deterioration or failures cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the applicable tailpipe emission standards and that the regulation also requires components be monitored for functional performance even if the failure of such components does not cause emissions to exceed 1.5 times the applicable standard threshold. In contrast, CARB notes that the federal requirements only require monitoring of the catalyst, engine misfire, evaporative emission control system and oxygen sensors, and that other emission control systems and components need only be monitored if by their malfunctioning the vehicle would exceed 1.5 times the applicable tailpipe standard (thus, not for functional performance). CARB notes “The amended OBD II requirements, considered as a whole, continue to be more stringent than the federal OBD regulation for light-duty vehicles and trucks and heavy-duty trucks (under the federal regulation) of the same vehicle weight rating as the California medium-duty vehicle category. The Board affirmed this determination in Resolution 12-29.” 32

    32Id. at 56.

    EPA received no comments or evidence suggesting that CARB's protectiveness determination is arbitrary and capricious. In particular, no commenter disputes that California standards, whether looking at the particular California standards analyzed in this proceeding or the entire suite of California standards applicable to light- and medium-duty motor vehicles, are at least as stringent, in the aggregate, as applicable federal standards.

    Because no commenters have presented evidence to show that CARB's protectiveness determinations are arbitrary and capricious, and EPA is not otherwise aware of such evidence, EPA cannot find that California's protectiveness determinations are arbitrary and capricious nor deny the waiver requests under this waiver criterion.

    B. Whether the Standards Are Necessary To Meet Compelling and Extraordinary Conditions

    Section 209(b)(1)(B) instructs EPA not to grant a waiver if the Agency finds that California “does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” EPA's inquiry under this second criterion has traditionally been to determine whether California needs its own mobile source pollution program (i.e. set of standards) to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and not whether the specific standards (i.e., OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation) that are the subject of the waiver request are necessary to meet such conditions.33 In recent waiver actions, EPA again examined the language of section 209(b)(1)(B) and reiterated this longstanding traditional interpretation as the better approach for analyzing the need for “such State standards” to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” 34

    33See California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Notice of Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles,” 74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009), at 32761; see also “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption Notice of Decision,” 49 FR 18887 (May 3, 1984), at 18889-18890.

    34See 78 FR 2112, at 2125-26 (Jan. 9, 2013) (“EPA does not look at whether the specific standards at issue are needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions related to that air pollutant.” See also EPA's July 9, 2009 GHG Waiver Decision wherein EPA rejected the suggested interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B) as requiring a review of the specific need for California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards as opposed to the traditional interpretation (need for the program as a whole) applied to local or regional air pollution problems.

    CARB confirmed in Resolutions 06-26 (2007 Amendments), 09-37 (2010 Amendments) and 12-29 (2013 Amendments) that California continues to need its own motor vehicle program to meet serious ongoing air pollution problems.35 CARB asserted that “[t]he geographical and climatic conditions and the tremendous growth in vehicle population and use that moved Congress to authorize California to establish vehicle standards in 1967 still exist today. EPA has long confirmed the ARB's judgment, on behalf of the State of California, on this matter . . . and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California's need for its own motor vehicle emissions control program.” 36 CARB also notes that “[n]othing in these conditions has changed to warrant a change in EPA's confirmation, and therefore there can be no doubt of the continuing existence of compelling and extraordinary conditions justifying California's need for its own motor vehicle emission program.37

    35 2014 Waiver Request Support Document at 16-17.

    36Id. at 17, 45 (citing 70 FR 50322, 50323 (August 26, 2005), 77 FR 73459, 73461 (December 10, 2012).

    37Id.

    There has been no evidence submitted to indicate that California's compelling and extraordinary conditions do not continue to exist. California, particularly the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins, continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the nation and continues to be in non-attainment with national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter and ozone.38 As previously stated, according to California “nothing in [California's unique geographic and climatic] conditions has changed to warrant a change in this determination.” 39

    38 74 FR 32744, 32762-63 (July 8, 2009).

    39 74 FR 32744, 32762 (July 8, 2009); 76 FR 77515, 77518 (December 13, 2011).

    Based on the record before us, EPA is unable to identify any change in circumstances or evidence to suggest that the conditions that Congress identified as giving rise to serious air quality problems in California no longer exist. Therefore, EPA cannot deny the waiver requests based on this waiver prong.

    D. Consistency With Section 202(a)

    For the third and final criterion, EPA evaluates the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation that are subject to this waiver request for consistency with section 202(a) of the CAA. Under section 209(b)(1)(C) of the CAA, EPA must deny California's waiver request if EPA finds that California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a). Section 202(a) requires that regulations “shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the relevant technology, considering the cost of compliance within that time.”

    EPA has previously stated that the determination is limited to whether those opposed to the waiver have met their burden of establishing that California's standards are technologically infeasible, or that California's test procedures impose requirements inconsistent with the federal test procedure. Infeasibility is shown by demonstrating that there is inadequate lead time, from the time of CARB's adoption, to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation that are subject to the waiver request, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time.40 California's accompanying enforcement procedures would also be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the federal and California test procedures conflicted, i.e., if manufacturers would be unable to meet both the California and federal test requirements with the same test vehicle.41

    40See, e.g., 38 FR 30136 (November 1, 1973) and 40 FR 30311 (July 18, 1975).

    41See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).

    EPA has reviewed the information submitted to the record by CARB to determine whether the parties opposing the waiver (no comments opposing the waiver have been submitted) requests have met their burden to demonstrate that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation subject to the waiver requests are not consistent with section 202(a). Regarding potential test procedure conflict, as CARB notes, there is no issue of test procedure inconsistency because the federal regulations provide that manufacturers of engines and vehicles certified to California's OBD II Requirements are allowed to demonstrate compliance with the federal standards due to the “deemed to comply” provisions of EPA's standards.42 EPA has received no adverse comment or evidence of test procedure inconsistency. Therefore, EPA cannot deny the waiver on the grounds of test procedure inconsistency.

    42See 40 CFR 1806-05(j).

    EPA did not receive comments arguing that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation were infeasible when reviewed purely as a matter of technology or cost.

    In the context of CARB's 2007 amendments, CARB notes that “[a]s set forth in detail in the ISORs [Initial Statement of Reasons] and the Final Statement of Reasons for the 2003 and 2007 amendments . . ., and in the ISOR and Final Statement of Reasons for the HD OBD rule . . ., CARB has identified specific technologies for near-term implementation dates for the amended monitoring requirements as they apply to gasoline and diesel light- and medium-duty vehicles. Consistent with EPA's continuum analysis for determining technical feasibility, all monitoring requirements that manufacturers are required to implement in the near term have been required since adoption of the 2003 amendments and sufficient lead time has been provided. Among other things, the amendments have provided additional lead time and phase-in schedules for several gasoline engine monitors (e.g., catalyst monitoring) and nearly all diesel engine monitors and have relaxed requirements for other monitors (e.g. secondary air system, monitoring on gasoline vehicles).” 43 CARB also notes the 2007 amendments specifically address concerns that were raised about the feasibility of the 2003 OBD II amendments as applied to light- and medium duty diesel vehicles beginning in model year 2004, including by providing higher interim malfunction thresholds through the 2012 model year for both light- and medium-duty vehicles and permanent malfunction thresholds for medium-duty diesel engines starting with the 2013 model year.44

    43 2007 Waiver Support Document at 33.

    44Id. at 33-34.

    As previously explained, in the context of the November 20, 2014 Notice, EPA requested and received no comments stating that the 2003 OBD amendments when read together with the 2007 OBD amendments create requirements that are technologically infeasible. As noted above, CARB has provided additional lead time and phase-in schedules for several of their gasoline engine monitors (e.g., catalyst monitoring) requirements, and nearly all of CARB's diesel engine monitors requirements, and they have relaxed requirements for other monitors (e.g. secondary air system) on gasoline vehicles.

    CARB also addresses the technological feasibility of the new monitoring requirements associated with the 2007 amendments. CARB states and EPA agrees that most of the 2012 and 2013 amendments either relax or clarify existing provisions and therefore, largely provide additional compliance flexibility to the regulated industry. For example, CARB identified the use of front and rear oxygen sensor signals in order for manufacturers to monitor air-fuel ratios, and provided manufacturers with approximately five years of lead time and a phase-in of the requirement for most vehicles between the 2011 and 2013 model years, along with the use of a higher interim threshold during the phase-in period. CARB also identified similar compliance flexibilities for diesel vehicles starting with the 2007 model year and based on CARB's HD OBD regulatory experience.45 CARB makes similar arguments with regards to its 2010 and later amendments. EPA also did not receive any comments arguing that the new monitoring requirements contained in the 2007 Amendments, and the additional requirements found in the 2010, 2012, and 2013 OBD Amendments were technologically infeasible or that the cost of compliance would be excessive, such that California's standards might be inconsistent with section 202(a).46 In EPA's review of the 2007, 2010, 2012 and 2013 OBD Amendments, we likewise cannot identify any requirements that appear technologically infeasible or excessively expensive for manufacturers to implement within the timeframes provided by California at the time of adoption of the amendments. EPA therefore cannot find that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulations do not provide adequate lead time or are otherwise not technically feasible. In summary, no evidence is in the record to show that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation are technologically infeasible, considering costs of compliance. Indeed, such a finding is particularly unlikely where CARB has continued to delay and phase-in the monitoring requirements and in some instances adjust the malfunction thresholds to be less burdensome. As such, the record does not support a finding that the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation are inconsistent with Section 202(a).

    45Id.

    46See, e.g., 78 FR 2134 (Jan. 9, 2013), 47 FR 7306, 7309 (Feb. 18, 1982), 43 FR 25735 (Jun. 17, 1978), and 46 FR 26371, 26373 (May 12, 1981).

    IV. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(b) waivers to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating CARB's amendments to the OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation described above and CARB's submissions for EPA review, EPA is hereby granting a waiver for California's 2007, 2010, 2012, and 2013 amendments to its OBD II Requirements and OBD II Enforcement Regulation.

    This decision will affect not only persons in California, but also manufacturers nationwide who must comply with California's requirements. In addition, because other states may adopt California's standards for which a section 209(b) waiver has been granted under section 177 of the Act if certain criteria are met, this decision would also affect those states and those persons in such states. For these reasons, EPA determines and finds that this is a final action of national applicability, and also a final action of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by January 6, 2017. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866.

    In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities.

    Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Janet McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26861 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699; FRL-9954-95-OAR] California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines; Notice of Decision AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) request for a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for amendments made in 2013 (“2013 HD OBD Amendments”) to its Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Engine (HD OBD Requirements) and to its Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines (“HD OBD Enforcement Regulation”), collectively referred to herein as HD OBD Regulations. EPA also confirms that certain of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments are within the scope of the previous waiver for the HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement Regulation. This decision is issued under the authority of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”).

    DATES:

    Petitions for review must be filed by January 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699. All documents relied upon in making this decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, are contained in the public docket. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the public on all federal government working days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; generally, it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The email address for the Air and Radiation Docket is: [email protected], the telephone number is (202) 566-1742, and the fax number is (202) 566-9744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through the federal government's electronic public docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699 in the “Enter Keyword or ID” fill-in box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (“CBI”) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (“OTAQ”) maintains a Web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver Federal Register notices, some of which are cited in today's notice; the page can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Telephone: (202) 343-9256. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    CARB initially adopted the HD OBD Requirements in December 2005. The HD OBD Requirements require manufacturers to install compliant HD OBD systems with diesel and gasoline powered engines used in vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. HD OBD systems monitor emission-related components and systems for proper operation and for deterioration or malfunctions that cause emissions to exceed specific thresholds.

    EPA issued a waiver under section 209(b) of the CAA for the 2005 HD OBD Requirements in 2008.1 CARB subsequently updated the HD OBD Requirements to align the HD OBD Requirements with OBD II Requirements for medium-duty vehicles, and adopted the HD OBD Enforcement Regulation, in 2010. EPA issued California a waiver for the 2010 HD OBD Regulations in December 2012.2 CARB subsequently amended the HD OBD Regulations again in 2013. CARB formally adopted the 2013 HD OBD Amendments on June 26, 2013, and they became operative under state law on July 31, 2013. The HD OBD Requirements are codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1971.1. The HD OBD Enforcement Regulation is codified at title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1971.5.

    1 73 FR 52042 (September 8, 2008).

    2 77 FR 73459 (December 10, 2012).

    By letter dated February 12, 2014, 3 CARB submitted to EPA a request for a determination that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments are within the scope of the previous HD OBD waiver or, alternatively, that EPA grant California a waiver of preemption for the 2013 HD OBD Amendments.

    3 CARB, “Request for Waiver Action Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(b) for California's Heavy-Duty Engine On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements (HD OBD) and On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II),” February 12, 2014 (“California Waiver Request Support Document”) See www.regulations.gov Web site, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003.

    CARB's February 12, 2014 submission provides analysis and evidence to support its finding that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments satisfy the CAA section 209(b) criteria and that a waiver of preemption should be granted. CARB briefly summarizes the 2013 HD OBD Amendments as accomplishing the following primary purposes:

    “accelerate the start date for OBD system implementation on alternate-fueled engines from the 2020 model year to the 2018 model year, relax some requirements for OBD systems on heavy-duty hybrid vehicles for the 2013 through 2015 model years, relax malfunction thresholds for three major emission control systems (particulate matter (PM) filters, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) catalysts, and NOx sensors) on diesel engines until the 2016 model year, delay monitoring requirements for some diesel-related components until 2015 to provide further lead time for emission control strategies to stabilize, and clarify requirements for several monitors and standardization.” 4

    4 California Waiver Request Support Document, at 11-12.

    The 2013 HD OBD Amendments include several dozen amendments overall.5

    5 The many 2013 HD OBD Amendments are individually summarized by CARB in the California Waiver Request Support Document, from pages 11-39.

    II. Principles Governing this Review A. Scope of Review

    Section 209(a) of the CAA provides:

    “No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.” 6

    6 CAA section 209(a). 42 U.S.C. 7543(a).

    Section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the Administrator, after an opportunity for public hearing, to waive application of the prohibitions of section 209(a) for any state that has adopted standards (other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966, if the state determines that its state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.7 However, no such waiver shall be granted if the Administrator finds that: (A) The protectiveness determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious; (B) the state does not need such state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (C) such state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.8

    7 CAA section 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1). California is the only state that meets section 209(b)(1)'s requirement for obtaining a waiver. See S. Rep. No. 90-403 at 632 (1967).

    8 CAA section 209(b)(1). 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1).

    Key principles governing this review are that EPA should limit its inquiry to the specific findings identified in section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and that EPA will give substantial deference to the policy judgments California has made in adopting its regulations. In previous waiver decisions, EPA has stated that Congress intended the Agency's review of California's decision-making to be narrow. EPA has rejected arguments that are not specified in the statute as grounds for denying a waiver:

    “The law makes it clear that the waiver requests cannot be denied unless the specific findings designated in the statute can properly be made. The issue of whether a proposed California requirement is likely to result in only marginal improvement in California air quality not commensurate with its costs or is otherwise an arguably unwise exercise of regulatory power is not legally pertinent to my decision under section 209, so long as the California requirement is consistent with section 202(a) and is more stringent than applicable Federal requirements in the sense that it may result in some further reduction in air pollution in California.” 9

    9 “Waiver of Application of Clean Air Act to California State Standards,” 36 FR 17458 (Aug. 31, 1971). Note that the more stringent standard expressed here, in 1971, was superseded by the 1977 amendments to section 209, which established that California must determine that its standards are, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards.

    This principle of narrow EPA review has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.10 Thus, EPA's consideration of all the evidence submitted concerning a waiver decision is circumscribed by its relevance to those questions that may be considered under section 209(b)(1).

    10See, e.g., Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“MEMA I”).

    B. Burden and Standard of Proof

    As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has made clear in MEMA I, opponents of a waiver request by California bear the burden of showing that the statutory criteria for a denial of the request have been met:

    “[T]he language of the statute and its legislative history indicate that California's regulations, and California's determinations that they must comply with the statute, when presented to the Administrator are presumed to satisfy the waiver requirements and that the burden of proving otherwise is on whoever attacks them. California must present its regulations and findings at the hearing and thereafter the parties opposing the waiver request bear the burden of persuading the Administrator that the waiver request should be denied.” 11

    11MEMA I, note 19, at 1121.

    The Administrator's burden, on the other hand, is to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record in coming to the waiver decision. As the court in MEMA I stated: “here, too, if the Administrator ignores evidence demonstrating that the waiver should not be granted, or if he seeks to overcome that evidence with unsupported assumptions of his own, he runs the risk of having his waiver decision set aside as `arbitrary and capricious.” ' 12 Therefore, the Administrator's burden is to act “reasonably.” 13

    12Id. at 1126.

    13Id. at 1126.

    With regard to the standard of proof, the court in MEMA I explained that the Administrator's role in a section 209 proceeding is to:

    “[. . .]consider all evidence that passes the threshold test of materiality and . . . thereafter assess such material evidence against a standard of proof to determine whether the parties favoring a denial of the waiver have shown that the factual circumstances exist in which Congress intended a denial of the waiver.” 14

    14Id. at 1122.

    In that decision, the court considered the standards of proof under section 209 for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an “accompanying enforcement procedure.” Those findings involve: (1) Whether the enforcement procedures impact California's prior protectiveness determination for the associated standards, and (2) whether the procedures are consistent with section 202(a). The principles set forth by the court are similarly applicable to an EPA review of a request for a waiver of preemption for a standard. The court instructed that “the standard of proof must take account of the nature of the risk of error involved in any given decision, and it therefore varies with the finding involved. We need not decide how this standard operates in every waiver decision.” 15

    15Id.

    With regard to the protectiveness finding, the court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a waiver, there must be “clear and compelling evidence” to show that proposed enforcement procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's standards.16 The court noted that this standard of proof also accords with the congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in setting regulations it finds protective of the public health and welfare.17

    16Id.

    17Id.

    With respect to the consistency finding, the court did not articulate a standard of proof applicable to all proceedings, but found that the opponents of the waiver were unable to meet their burden of proof even if the standard were a mere preponderance of the evidence. Although MEMA I did not explicitly consider the standards of proof under section 209 concerning a waiver request for “standards,” as compared to a waiver request for accompanying enforcement procedures, there is nothing in the opinion to suggest that the court's analysis would not apply with equal force to such determinations. EPA's past waiver decisions have consistently made clear that: “[E]ven in the two areas concededly reserved for Federal judgment by this legislation—the existence of `compelling and extraordinary' conditions and whether the standards are technologically feasible—Congress intended that the standards of EPA review of the State decision to be a narrow one.” 18

    18See, e.g., “California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of Federal Preemption,” 40 FR 23102 (May 28, 1975), at 23103.

    C. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of Congress in creating a limited review based on specifically listed criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess state policy choices. As the Agency explained in one prior waiver decision:

    “It is worth noting . . . I would feel constrained to approve a California approach to the problem which I might also feel unable to adopt at the federal level in my own capacity as a regulator.. . . Since a balancing of risks and costs against the potential benefits from reduced emissions is a central policy decision for any regulatory agency under the statutory scheme outlined above, I believe I am required to give very substantial deference to California's judgments on this score.” 19

    19 40 FR 23102, 23103-04 (May 28, 1975).

    Similarly, EPA has stated that the text, structure, and history of the California waiver provision clearly indicate both a congressional intent and appropriate EPA practice of leaving the decision on “ambiguous and controversial matters of public policy” to California's judgment.20 This interpretation is supported by relevant discussion in the House Committee Report for the 1977 amendments to the CAA. Congress had the opportunity through the 1977 amendments to restrict the preexisting waiver provision, but elected instead to expand California's flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission controls. The report explains that the amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the preexisting California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying intent of that provision, that is, to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.21

    20 40 FR 23102, 23104 (May 28, 1975); 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).

    21MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977)).

    D. EPA's Administrative Process in Consideration of California's Request

    On November 20, 2014, EPA published a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment on California's waiver request. In that notice, EPA requested comments on whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments should be considered under the within-the-scope analysis or whether they should be considered under the full waiver criteria, and on whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments meet the criteria for a full waiver.22 EPA additionally provided an opportunity for any individual to request a public hearing.

    22 79 FR 69104 (November 20, 2014).

    EPA received no comments and no requests for a public hearing. Consequently, EPA did not hold a public hearing.

    III. Discussion A. Within-the-Scope Determination

    CARB proposes that certain of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments meet all three within-the-scope criteria, i.e. that the amendments: (1) Do not undermine California's previous protectiveness determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards; (2) do not affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act, and (3) do not raise any new issue affecting the prior waiver. CARB identifies the amendments it considers to be within the scope of the prior waiver in Attachments 2, 3, and 4 of the California Waiver Request Support Document.23 CARB does acknowledge that a number of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments potentially establish new or more stringent requirements, and thus will need a new waiver.24 These were identified by CARB in Attachments 1 and 4 of its Waiver Request Support Document.25 EPA must also assess whether the HD OBD Amendments that have been identified by CARB as requirements within the scope of the prior waiver can be confirmed by EPA to not need a new waiver. If EPA determines that the amendments do not meet the requirements for a within-the-scope confirmation, we will then consider whether the amendments satisfy the criteria for full waiver.

    23See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003], at Attachment 2 (“2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Relax Existing Requirements”), at Attachment 3 (“2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Clarify Existing Requirements”), and at Attachment 4 (the portion identified as “Amendments that Relax of Clarify Existing Requirements”).

    24See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003], at 42-43.

    25See Attachment 1 (“2013 Amendments to HD OBD and OBD II Requirements That Potentially Establish New or More Stringent Requirements”) of the California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003, at 72-73], and Attachment 4 (the portion identified as “Amendments that Establish New or More Stringent Requirements”).

    As described previously, EPA specifically invited comment on whether the 2013 HD OBD Amendments are within the scope of the prior waiver. We received no comments disputing CARB's contentions on this issue.

    With regard to the first of the within-the-scope criteria, CARB notes its finding in Resolution 12-29 that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments do not undermine California's previous protectiveness determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards.26 CARB maintains that its HD OBD Regulations are more stringent than comparable federal regulations.27 As there are no comments and EPA is not aware of evidence to the contrary, EPA finds that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments do not undermine the previous protectiveness determination made with regard to California's HD OBD Requirements and HD OBD Enforcement Regulation.

    26See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003], at 43, 51, and Attachment 14 (CARB Resolution 12-29, dated August 23, 2012).

    27Id.

    With regard to the second within-the-scope prong (affecting consistency with section 202(a) of the Act), CARB argues that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments listed in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 as relaxing or clarifying existing requirements do not affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act. For these amendments, CARB states that there is sufficient lead time to permit the development of technology necessary to meet the standards, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance, since the amendments merely relax or clarify existing standards, and that manufacturers can still meet both the state and federal test requirements with one test vehicle or engine.28 California contends that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments (other than those specifically listed in Attachments 1 and 4 as being otherwise) do not create new or more stringent requirements.29 In addition, regarding the third within-the-scope prong, CARB argues that the 2013 HD OBD Amendments (other than those identified in Attachments 1 and 4 as establishing new or more stringent standards) do not raise any new issue affecting the prior waiver.30

    28See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003], at 45-46, 51-52.

    29See California Waiver Request Support Document [EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0699-0003], at 50-54.

    30Id.

    Despite CARB's contentions on the second and third within-the-scope prongs, it was self-evident in EPA's review of the record that some of the amendments identified by CARB as being within the scope of the prior waiver instead require a new waiver because the amendments raise new issues regarding the waiver and may affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202(a) of the Act. As stated in the background section, while the burden of proof rests with opponents of a waiver request (and there were none in this case), EPA retains the burden “to make a reasonable evaluation of the information in the record” before it. In evaluating the record, it is clear that some of the 2013 HD OBD Amendments listed by CARB as clarifying or relaxing existing requirements arguably provide new or more stringent requirements that must be met by manufacturers. Specifically, in addition to the amendments listed by CARB in Attachment 1 to its Waiver Request Support Document, EPA notes that the following additional 2013 HD OBD Amendments also provide new or more stringent requirements and thus require a new waiver:

    [In the order presented in the Waiver Request Support Document, Attachment 2]

    Section 1971.1(d)(4.3.2)(E): Denominator Specifications [providing new