Federal Register Vol. 81, No.217,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 217 (November 9, 2016)

Page Range78701-78897
FR Document

81_FR_217
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 78855 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 78701 - Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda To Achieve a World Safe and Secure From Infectious Disease ThreatsPDF
81 FR 78867 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 78895 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OregonPDF
81 FR 78896 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Adoption and Notice of Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Boost-back and Landing of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust First Stage at SLC-4 West at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California and Offshore Landing Contingency OptionPDF
81 FR 78756 - Proposed Modification of the San Francisco, CA, Class B Airspace Area; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 78707 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS)PDF
81 FR 78812 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10049, Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, North CarolinaPDF
81 FR 78812 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10438, Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, South CarolinaPDF
81 FR 78812 - Notice of the Termination of the Recieverhsip of 10373, Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, ColoradoPDF
81 FR 78811 - Notice of the Termination of the Receivership of 10321, Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 78836 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: MeetingPDF
81 FR 78836 - Performance Review Board Members; AppointmentsPDF
81 FR 78774 - Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 124-Gramercy, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Danos & Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC; Morgan City, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 78777 - Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 78808 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science and Information SubcommitteePDF
81 FR 78809 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Willingness To Pay Survey To Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England WatersPDF
81 FR 78810 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering CouncilPDF
81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc.; Toa Baja, Puerto RicoPDF
81 FR 78789 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 78797 - Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 78806 - Ampex Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 78798 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft General Conformity Analysis for the Atlantic Sunrise ProjectPDF
81 FR 78802 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Cedar Station Upgrade ProjectPDF
81 FR 78803 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 78813 - Submission for OMB Review; USA.gov National Contact Center Customer Evaluation SurveyPDF
81 FR 78794 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environment Impact Statement and Conduct a Public Scoping Meeting for the Proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project Within the Thousand Palms Area of Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Corps File No. SPL-2014-00238-RJV)PDF
81 FR 78893 - North Coast Railroad Authority and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company-Petition for Declaratory Order; North Coast Railroad Authority and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit DistrictPDF
81 FR 78812 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 78757 - Providing Evidence of DisabilityPDF
81 FR 78844 - Notice of the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and Notice of Availability of the Detailed Statement of Sale for the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in AlaskaPDF
81 FR 78865 - Construction Permit Application for the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Medical Radioisotope Production FacilityPDF
81 FR 78722 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Texas; Approval of Substitution for Transportation Control MeasuresPDF
81 FR 78854 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 78811 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point ArchitecturePDF
81 FR 78795 - Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Undeveloped Stream Reaches of the United States; Request for InformationPDF
81 FR 78775 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection for Self-Certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield FrameworkPDF
81 FR 78724 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and RimsPDF
81 FR 78896 - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 78715 - Imposition of Special Measure Against North Korea as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering ConcernPDF
81 FR 78812 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 78864 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78732 - Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic PersonnelPDF
81 FR 78840 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 78839 - Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership CouncilPDF
81 FR 78760 - Medicaid Program; Request for Information (RFI): Federal Government Interventions To Ensure the Provision of Timely and Quality Home and Community Based ServicesPDF
81 FR 78838 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 78843 - Notice of Public Meeting for the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 78759 - Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 78772 - Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 78835 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78838 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 78884 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of and Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice Relating to Processing of Transactions in Money Market InstrumentsPDF
81 FR 78878 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGX Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory DisqualificationPDF
81 FR 78867 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGA Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory DisqualificationPDF
81 FR 78869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BYX Rule, 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory DisqualificationPDF
81 FR 78873 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add to the Rules of the Exchange the Eleventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLCPDF
81 FR 78880 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Rules Concerning Payment of Compensation and Rebates, and Research Analyst Attestation Requirements in Order To Harmonize With Certain FINRA Rules and Make Other Conforming ChangesPDF
81 FR 78875 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend BZX Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory DisqualificationPDF
81 FR 78890 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Institute a New Fee for the Distribution of DataPDF
81 FR 78872 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Requirements in MSRB Rule A-4, on Meetings of the Board, Regarding the Formation of a QuorumPDF
81 FR 78728 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9PDF
81 FR 78851 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 78854 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilty ActPDF
81 FR 78714 - Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
81 FR 78852 - Phosphor Copper from Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 78863 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78862 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78861 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Information Collections: Pertaining to Special Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards ActPDF
81 FR 78793 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 78866 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 78772 - Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Program; Public Comment for Proposed Rule ChangesPDF
81 FR 78814 - Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2018 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On PaymentsPDF
81 FR 78895 - Commission MeetingPDF
81 FR 78864 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 78778 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
81 FR 78722 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular; Monongahela River Mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River Mile 0.00-0.25, Ohio River Mile 0.0-0.3; Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 78860 - Northshore Mining, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Silver Bay Power Company, Silver Bay, Minnesota; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78856 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78860 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78856 - General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Development Dimensions International, Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, Lake Orion, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78855 - Indiana Marujun, LLC, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Adecco, First Call And MS Companies Winchester, Indiana; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78855 - Huntley Power LLC, A Subsidiary Of NRG Energy, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Pontoon Solutions, Inc. And Clean MD Tonawanda, New York; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78859 - Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a Subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio; Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing Working On-Site at Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a Subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
81 FR 78792 - Notice of Availability for Licensing-NIST's Patented Microfluidic Apparatus and Method To Control Liposome FormationPDF
81 FR 78799 - Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes; Notice of the Second Technical Workshop on the Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes Notice of Proposed RulemakingPDF
81 FR 78804 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 78802 - PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway PrescriptionsPDF
81 FR 78801 - City of Vernon, California; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 78799 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator StatusPDF
81 FR 78800 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Abandonment and Capacity Restoration ProjectPDF
81 FR 78801 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 78806 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 78776 - Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 189-Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon Counties, Michigan; Authorization of Production Activity; Southern Lithoplate, Inc. (Aluminum Printing Plates); Grand Rapids, MichiganPDF
81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 100-Dayton, Ohio; Application for Subzone Expansion; Thor Industries, Inc.; Jackson Center, OhioPDF
81 FR 78847 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, BerkeleyPDF
81 FR 78848 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 78844 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PAPDF
81 FR 78849 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, ILPDF
81 FR 78846 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Albion College, Albion, MIPDF
81 FR 78850 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NEPDF
81 FR 78845 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NEPDF
81 FR 78813 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 78813 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 78837 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78837 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78838 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 78748 - Chartering and Field of Membership ManualPDF
81 FR 78816 - Medicaid Program; Announcement of Medicaid Drug Rebate Program National Rebate AgreementPDF
81 FR 78708 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH AirplanesPDF
81 FR 78756 - Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements Under the Federal Power ActPDF
81 FR 78711 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 78733 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured HousingPDF

Issue

81 217 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicaid Program: Federal Government Interventions to Ensure the Provision of Timely and Quality Home and Community Based Services, 78760-78771 2016-27040 NOTICES Medicaid Program: Medicaid Drug Rebate Program National Rebate Agreement, 78816-78835 2016-26834 Meetings: Medicare Program; FY 2018 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments, 78814-78816 2016-27007 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship Programs, 78835-78836 2016-27034 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular, 78722 2016-27003 PROPOSED RULES Safety and Security Zones: New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone; Correction, 78759-78760 2016-27037 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78793-78794 2016-27009
Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Amended Certifications: Huntley Power LLC, a Subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers from Pontoon Solutions, Inc., Tonawanda, NY, 78855 2016-26997 Indiana Marujun, LLC, Including On-Site Leased Workers from Adecco and First Call, Winchester, IN, 78855-78856 2016-26998 Northshore Mining, Silver Bay, MN, 78860 2016-27002 Titan Tire Corp. of Bryan, Bryan, OH; Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing, Bryan, OH, 78859 2016-26996 Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Determinations, 78856-78859 2016-27001 Worker Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Investigations, 78860-78861 2016-27000 Worker and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Amended Certifications: General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Lake Orion, MI, Including On-Site Leased Workers from Development Dimensions International, 78856 2016-26999 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured Housing, 78733-78748 2016-26008
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Requests for Information: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Undeveloped Stream Reaches of the United States, 78795-78797 2016-27054 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project within the Thousand Palms Area of Coachella Valley, Riverside County, CA, 78794-78795 2016-27063 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Texas; Approval of Substitution for Transportation Control Measures, 78722-78724 2016-27057 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Willingness to Pay Survey to Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England Waters, 78809-78810 2016-27075 Meetings: Science and Information Subcommittee, 78808-78809 2016-27078 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes, 78708-78711 2016-26808 The Boeing Co. Airplanes, 78711-78714 2016-26163 Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System, 78707-78708 2016-27088 PROPOSED RULES Class B Airspace; Amendments: San Francisco, CA; Public Meetings, 78756 2016-27089 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Boost-Back and Landing of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust First Stage at SLC-4 West at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, 78896 2016-27092 Surplus Property Release at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, OR, 78895-78896 2016-27095 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings: North American Numbering Council, 78810-78811 2016-27073 Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture, 78811 2016-27055 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, NC, 78812 2016-27087 Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, CO, 78812 2016-27085 Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, MN, 78811 2016-27084 Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, SC, 78812 2016-27086 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements; Withdrawal, 78756-78757 2016-26540 NOTICES Applications: PE Hydro Generation LLC, 78802-78803 2016-26992 Yuba County Water Agency, 78797-78798 2016-27069 Combined Filings, 78801, 78803-78808 2016-26987 2016-26988 2016-26993 2016-27065 Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status: Patua Acquisition Co. LLC, Desert Wind Farm LLC, et al., 78799 2016-26990 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project, 78800-78801 2016-26989 Environmental Reviews: Northern Natural Gas Co., Cedar Station Upgrade Project, 78802 2016-27066 Filings: City of Vernon, CA, 78801 2016-26991 General Conformity Analyses: Atlantic Sunrise Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 78798-78799 2016-27067 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Ampex Energy, LLC, 78806 2016-27068 Technical Workshops: Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, 78799 2016-26994 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 78812 2016-27061 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 2016-26972 78812-78813 2016-27048 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 78813 2016-26974 Financial Crimes Financial Crimes Enforcement Network RULES Imposition of Special Measures: North Korea as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern, 78715-78722 2016-27049 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications, 78838-78843 2016-27039 2016-27043 Meetings: Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 78839-78840 2016-27042 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Subzone Expansion: Thor Industries, Inc.; Foreign-Trade Zone 100, Dayton, OH, 78773-78774 2016-26982 Production Activities: Southern Lithoplate, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone189, Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon Counties, MI, 78773 2016-26983 Subzone Applications: AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 163, Ponce, PR, 78773 2016-27072 Danos and Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 124, Morgan City, LA, 78773 2016-27080 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee, 78772 2016-27035 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: USA.gov National Contact Center Customer Evaluation Survey, 78813-78814 2016-27064 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Meetings: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, 78836 2016-27083 Performance Review Board Members, 78836-78837 2016-27082
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Export Administration Regulations: Statements of Legal Authority, 78714-78715 2016-27017 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Self-Certification to the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, 78775-78776 2016-27053 Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 78789-78792 2016-27071 Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles from the People's Republic of China, 78777-78778 2016-27079 Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 78778-78789 2016-27004 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan, 78774-78775 2016-27081 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China, 78776-78777 2016-26984 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Phosphor Copper from Korea, 78852-78854 2016-27016 Complaints: Certain Single-Molecule Nucleic Acid Sequencing Systems and Reagents, Consumables, and Software for Use With Same, 78851-78852 2016-27019 Justice Department Justice Department See

Parole Commission

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 78854-78855 2016-27018 2016-27056
Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Wage and Hour Division

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee, 78843 2016-27038 Oil and Gas Leases: National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 78844 2016-27059 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Proposed Exclusive Licenses, 78864 2016-27005 National Credit National Credit Union Administration PROPOSED RULES Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, 78748-78756 2016-26921 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Tire Selection and Rims, 78724-78728 2016-27051 NOTICES Meetings: National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, 78896-78897 2016-27050 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Microfluidic Apparatus and Method to Control Liposome Formation, 78792-78793 2016-26995 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 78838 2016-26969 National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 78837-78838 2016-26971 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 78837 2016-26970 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9, 78728-78731 2016-27020 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78793 2016-27012 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PA, 78844-78845 2016-26979 Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL, 78849-78850 2016-26978 Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL; Correction, 78848-78849 2016-26980 Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, 78847-78848 2016-26981 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE, 78850-78851 2016-26976 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Albion College, Albion, MI, 78846-78847 2016-26977 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE, 78845-78846 2016-26975 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78864-78865 2016-27047 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic Personnel, 78732-78733 2016-27046 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Construction Permit Application for the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Medical Radioisotope Production Facility, 78865-78866 2016-27058 Parole Parole Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 78855 2016-27182 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 78866-78867 2016-27011 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 78867 2016-27145 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Global Health Security Agenda; Infectious Disease Prevention Efforts (EO 13747), 78701-78706 2016-27171 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board PROPOSED RULES Providing Evidence of Disability, 78757-78759 2016-27060 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Meetings: Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Program, 78772 2016-27008 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 78869-78872 2016-27026 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 78875-78878 2016-27023 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 78867-78869 2016-27027 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 78878-78880 2016-27028 Depository Trust Co., 78884-78890 2016-27030 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 78872-78873 2016-27021 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 78890-78893 2016-27022 NYSE MKT LLC, 78873-78875, 78880-78884 2016-27024 2016-27025 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Drug Testing Advisory Board, 78838 2016-27032 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Petitions for Declaratory Orders: North Coast Railroad Authority and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co., 78893-78895 2016-27062 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 78895 2016-27006 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Wage Wage and Hour Division NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Special Employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 78861-78862 2016-27013 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 78862-78863 2016-27014 2016-27015 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.

81 217 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 29 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6940; Notice No. 29-039-SW-SC] Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS) AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the electronic CAS. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

These special conditions are effective December 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,000 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16 passengers and a crew of 2.

BHTI proposes that the Model 525 use a novel and unusual design feature, which is an electronic CAS. Section 29.1322 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), prescribes discrete colored lights for warning, caution, and advisory alerts. In this regard, § 29.1322 lacks adequate airworthiness standards for alerting messages and displays that do not use discrete colored lights, that include non-visual cues, that provide alerting information to the flightcrew, and that use integrated and multiple alerts concurrently.

The Model 525 CAS will have more effective integrated visual, aural, tactile, and alert messaging that will require special airworthiness standards, known as special conditions, to address crew alerting of failures or malfunctions in critical systems. These special conditions will add requirements from the airworthiness standards in § 25.1322 (Amendment 25-131) for advanced crew alerting systems in transport category aircraft.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendments 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 15, 2011, the date of application to the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the BHTI Model 525 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: An advanced CAS system. The novel design includes the integration of audio and visual alerts, tactical sensors, and CAS message consolidation. The new technologies associated with integrated visual, aural, tactile, and alert messaging are more effective in alerting the flightcrew and aiding them in decision-making than the discrete colored lights for warning, caution, and advisory alerts prescribed in § 29.1322 alone.

Discussion

The current 14 CFR part 29 standards do not provide adequate standards for the advanced CAS system of the Bell Model 525 helicopter due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and the modes of the fly-by-wire primary flight controls. The special condition will update definitions, define a prioritization scheme, expand color requirements, and address performance for flightcrew alerting to reflect changes in technology and functionality.

Comments

A notice of proposed special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter CAS was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (81 FR 35654). We did not receive any comments.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters.

Flightcrew Alerting

(a) Flightcrew alerts must:

(1) Provide the flightcrew with the information needed to:

(i) Identify non-normal operation or aircraft system conditions, and

(ii) Determine the appropriate actions, if any.

(2) Be readily and easily detectable and intelligible by the flightcrew under all foreseeable operating conditions, including conditions where multiple alerts are provided.

(3) Be removed when the alerting condition no longer exists.

(b) Alerts must conform to the following prioritization hierarchy based on the urgency of flightcrew awareness and response.

(1) Warning: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew awareness and immediate flightcrew response.

(2) Caution: For conditions that require immediate flightcrew awareness and subsequent flightcrew response.

(3) Advisory: For conditions that require flightcrew awareness and may require subsequent flightcrew response.

(c) Warning and caution alerts must:

(1) Be prioritized within each category, when necessary.

(2) Provide timely attention-getting cues through at least two different senses by a combination of aural, visual, or tactile indications.

(3) Permit each occurrence of the attention-getting cues required by paragraph (c)(2) of these special conditions to be acknowledged and suppressed, unless they are required to be continuous.

(d) The alert function must be designed to minimize the effects of false and nuisance alerts. In particular, it must be designed to:

(1) Prevent the presentation of an alert that is inappropriate or unnecessary.

(2) Provide a means to suppress an attention-getting component of an alert caused by a failure of the alerting function that interferes with the flightcrew's ability to safely operate the helicopter. This means must not be readily available to the flightcrew so that it could be operated inadvertently or by habitual reflexive action. When an alert is suppressed, there must be a clear and unmistakable annunciation to the flightcrew that the alert has been suppressed.

(e) Visual alert indications must:

(1) Conform to the following color convention:

(i) Red for warning alert indications.

(ii) Amber or yellow for caution alert indications.

(iii) Any color except red, amber, yellow, or green for advisory alert indications.

(2) Use visual coding techniques, together with other alerting function elements in the cockpit, to distinguish between warning, caution, and advisory alert indications, if they are presented on monochromatic displays that are not capable of conforming to the color convention in paragraph (e)(1) of these special conditions.

(f) Use of the colors red, amber, and yellow in the cockpit for functions other than flightcrew alerting must be limited and must not adversely affect flightcrew alerting.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 3, 2016. Lance Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27088 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9369; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-034-AD; Amendment 39-18710; AD 2016-23-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 40 NG airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as possible loss of engine power and emergency landing with consequent damage to the airplane and occupant injury caused by a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps that could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective November 29, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 29, 2016.

We must receive comments on this AD by December 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com. You may 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9369.

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-2016-9369; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2016-0203, dated October 10, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Failures of V-clamps, Part Number (P/N) E4A-41-000-002, installed on the turbochargers, have been reported on DA 40 NG aeroplanes. One of the failures resulted in engine power loss and subsequent emergency landing. Preliminary investigations identified a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps as the possible cause of these failures.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further occurrences of engine power loss, possibly resulting in an emergency landing with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

To address this potential unsafe condition, DAI designed an improved V-clamp, P/N D44-9081-26-03, and issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 40NG-046 (later revised), providing instructions to identify all the parts suspected to be part of the affected batch, and to replace these with the new V-clamp. The MSB also introduces repetitive inspections of all turbocharger V-clamps, irrespective of P/N.

For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive visual inspections of the V-clamps and, depending on findings, replacement. This AD also requires replacement of certain V-clamps with improved clamps.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9369. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016. In combination, this service information describes procedures for inspecting the V-clamp for cracks and for correct installation and for replacing cracked and incorrectly installed V-clamps with parts of improved design. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. Failure of the V-clamp could result in loss of engine power and possible emergency landing, which could result in damage to the airplane and occupant injury. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9369; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-034-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the inspection requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspection in this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the replacement requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $75 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the replacement in this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,520, or $160 per product.

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2016-23-03 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Amendment 39-18710; Docket No. FAA-2016-9369; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-034-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 29, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 40 NG airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 81: Turbocharging.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps that could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the V-clamp and possible loss of engine power, which could result in emergency landing with consequent damage to the airplane and occupant injury.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions.

(1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 2 months after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the V-clamp following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.

(2) If any crack or incorrect installation is found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the V-clamp with an improved V-clamp, P/N D44-9081-26-03. After this replacement, continue with the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.

(3) Unless already replaced as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within the next 100 hours TIS after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 4 months after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp with an improved P/N D44-9081-26-03 V-clamp. After this replacement, continue with the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.

(4) Within 10 days after each inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, report the results to DAI at the address in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD using the Execution Report on page 3 of DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016. If the initial inspection was done before November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), then the report for this inspection is required within 10 days after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD).

(5) At the following compliance times, installing a V-clamp P/N E4A-41-000-002 is prohibited.

(i) Anytime a P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp is replaced with an improved P/N D44-9081-126-03 V-clamp, as required by paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this AD; and

(ii) As of November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), if a P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp is not currently installed.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

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

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0203, dated October 10, 2016, and Diamond Aircraft Temporary Revision AMM-TR-MÄM 40-853/b, dated July 15, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9369.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.

(ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016.

(3) For Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.diamondaircraft.com.

(4) You may view this 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9369.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 31, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26808 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0462; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-144-AD; Amendment 39-18703; AD 2016-22-14] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. This AD requires an inspection for chafing damage of wire bundles and a hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and corrective action if necessary; and installation of clamps between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0462.

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-2016-0462; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2016 (81 FR 6475) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the MLG wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for chafing damage of wire bundles and a hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and corrective action if necessary; and installation of clamps between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

The Air Line Pilots Association, International and an anonymous commenter supported the NPRM.

Request for Clarification

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested that we respond to the following questions.

• EASA stated that the NPRM looks very similar to AD 2013-19-03, Amendment 39-17585 (78 FR 59798, September 30, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-03”). EASA asked if there is a more fundamental problem with wiring harnesses in the landing gear bay in the Model 737 fleet.

We agree that the unsafe conditions identified in this AD and in AD 2013-19-03 are similar; however, the reasons for the unsafe conditions, and the associated corrective actions in these ADs, differ. This difference is due to the occurrence of wire chafing in different locations in the landing gear bay. The underlying issue is limited space for the electrical system routing in the landing gear bay.

• EASA asked whether there is sufficient accessibility to inspect the affected area.

We have determined that there is sufficient space to inspect the landing gear bay.

• EASA asked why the spacer is only an optional action.

The source of service information that we reference in this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016 (“ASB 737-29A1119 R1”), specifies that the spacer addition is optional for cases where additional spacing is needed to allow adequate clearance.

• EASA asked what measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of the fleet, pending the proposed inspection.

We consider that the standard operational procedures that are in place regarding loss of system B hydraulic pressure or a wheel well fire to be adequate to ensure the safety of the fleet, pending the completion of the actions required in this AD.

• EASA asked if the wire chafing issue is one of design with regulations, or non-compliance of the product with the design data.

We have determined that the issue is due to nonconformance to the design data.

No changes to the final rule are necessary in regard to the questions asked by EASA.

Requests To Reference New Service Information

All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, Japan Airlines, Qantas Airways, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines (UA) requested that we reference Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 737-29A1119 IN 01, dated August 25, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 737-29A1119 IN 02, dated November 02, 2015; and new service information ASB 737-29A1119 R1. ANA commented that Boeing will not ship the top kits of needed parts until the release of ASB 737-29A1119 R1. UA requested that ASB 737-29A1119 R1 incorporate the Required for Compliance (RC) format.

We agree with the commenters' requests to incorporate ASB 737-29A1119 R1 as an appropriate source of service information. This service information incorporates the revisions in the Boeing information notices referenced by the commenters. In ASB 737-29A1119 R1, the part number of the subject wiring harness clamp has been corrected, the work instructions have been rewritten to improve operator usability, and the RC steps have been added. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g)(1), and (g)(2) of this AD to specify ASB 737-29A1119 R1. We have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also added new paragraph (i)(4) to this AD to address the RC language specified in ASB 737-29A1119 R1.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD

One commenter, Evki Meto, requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, which proposed inspecting for chafing damage. The commenter requested that we expand the inspection to look for any damage. No reason was provided by the commenter.

We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined that the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD should emphasize chafing damage, as that damage relates to the unsafe condition being addressed by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that we revise the 24-month compliance time to 30 months. KLM stated that it intends to do the modification during C-check maintenance, but will not be able to comply without impact to its maintenance program with the 24-month compliance time due to its C-check maintenance interval, which is 30 months.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the required actions. Further, we arrived at the compliance time with manufacturer concurrence. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time of 24 months represents an appropriate interval in which the inspections can be done in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, however, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an alternate compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed ASB 737-29A1119 R1. The service information describes procedures for doing an inspection for chafing damage of the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, corrective actions, and installation of clamps and an optional spacer between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 1,270 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection and Installation 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $9 $179 $227,330

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-22-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18703; Docket No. FAA-2016-0462; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-144-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 14, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, 737-900, and 737-900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016 (“ASB 737-29A1119 R1”).

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic power.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection and Corrective Action and Clamp Installation

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection for chafing damage of the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-29A1119 R1. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (2) Install new clamps and an optional spacer between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-29A1119 R1.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 25, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26163 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Parts 730 and 744 [Docket No. 161012953-6953-01] RIN 0694-AH15 Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite the most recent Presidential notice continuing an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a non-substantive rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective November 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Kook, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The authority for parts 730 and 744 of the EAR rests, in part, on Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001—Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786 and on annual notices continuing the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts of the EAR to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on September 15, 2016.

    This rule is purely non-substantive and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This rule does not involve any collection of information.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

    4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. Accordingly, no Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects 15 CFR Part 730

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.

    15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, parts 730 and 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:

    PART 730—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 730 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 10 U.S.C. 7420; 10 U.S.C. 7430(e); 22 U.S.C. 287c; 22 U.S.C. 2151 note; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6004; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 15 U.S.C. 1824a; 50 U.S.C. 4305; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 11912, 41 FR 15825, 3 CFR, 1976 Comp., p. 114; E.O. 12002, 42 FR 35623, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 133; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12214, 45 FR 29783, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 256; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12854, 58 FR 36587, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28205, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 899; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 12981, 60 FR 62981, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 419; E.O. 13020, 61 FR 54079, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 219; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; E.O. 13338, 69 FR 26751, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p 168; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2014 Comp., p. 223; Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016); Notice of May 3, 2016, 81 FR 27293 (May 5, 2016); Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343 (September 19, 2016).

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 2. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016); Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343 (September 19, 2016).

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27017 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 31 CFR Part 1010 RIN 1506-AB35 Imposition of Special Measure Against North Korea as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern AGENCY:

    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FinCEN is issuing this final rule to prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, North Korean banking institutions. The rule further prohibits U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions for the correspondent account of a foreign bank in the United States if such a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution, and requires institutions to apply special due diligence to guard against such use by North Korean financial institutions.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective December 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The FinCEN Resource Center, (800) 949-2732.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Statutory Provisions

    On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (the USA PATRIOT Act). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.1

    1 Therefore, references to the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act apply equally to the Director of FinCEN.

    Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 311), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, financial institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern. The special measures enumerated under Section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that defend the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from these threats. Special measures one through four, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)-(b)(4), impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. The fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows FinCEN to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the identified jurisdiction by U.S. financial institutions. Section 311 identifies factors for the Secretary to consider and requires consultations with Federal agencies before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions or type of account is of primary money laundering concern. The statute also provides similar procedures, including factors to consider and consultation requirements for selecting and imposing the fifth special measure.

    II. FinCEN's Section 311 Rulemaking Regarding North Korea A. Notice of Finding Regarding North Korea

    In a Notice of Finding (NOF) published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2016, FinCEN found that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) is a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5318A.2 FinCEN's NOF noted four main areas of concern: North Korea (1) uses state-controlled financial institutions and front companies to conduct international financial transactions that support the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the development of ballistic missiles in violation of international and U.S. sanctions; (2) is subject to little or no bank supervision or anti-money laundering or combating the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) controls; (3) has no mutual legal assistance treaty with the United States; and (4) relies on the illicit and corrupt activity of high-level officials to support its government.

    2 81 FR 35441 (June 2, 2016).

    In the NOF, FinCEN also noted that the North Korean government continues to access the international financial system to support its WMD and conventional weapons programs through its use of aliases, agents, foreign individuals in multiple jurisdictions, and a long-standing network of front companies and North Korean embassy personnel which support illicit activities through banking, bulk cash, and trade. Front company transactions originating in foreign-based banks have been processed through correspondent bank accounts in the United States and Europe. Further, the enhanced due diligence required by United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) related to North Korea is undermined by North Korean-linked front companies, which are often registered by non-North Korean citizens, and which conceal their activity through the use of indirect payment methods and circuitous transactions disassociated from the movement of goods or services.

    B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In light of this Finding, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016, FinCEN (1) proposed a prohibition on covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution; (2) proposed a prohibition on covered financial institutions from processing a transaction involving a North Korean financial institution through the United States correspondent account of a foreign banking institution; and (3) proposed a requirement for covered financial institutions to apply special due diligence to their foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against their use to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.3 The comment period for the NPRM closed on August 2, 2016. The final rule is largely identical to that found in the June 2016 notice, except that the term “North Korean banking institution” has been defined in order to clarify the types of institutions subject to the prohibition, and the term “foreign banking institution” has been replaced by “foreign bank,” with a corresponding change in the term's definition to conform with the definition of “foreign bank” under 31 CFR 1010.100(u). The final rule also explicitly incorporates the special due diligence concepts into the prohibition on processing transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. By incorporating these due diligence requirements into the prohibition, the final rule clarifies that if a covered financial institution suspects transactions involve a North Korean financial institution, then the covered financial institution shall take steps to further investigate and prevent such transactions, including steps that do not necessarily lead to the closing of the account.

    3 81 FR 35665 (June 3, 2016).

    As further described below, FinCEN is adopting this proposal as a final rule. In so doing, FinCEN considered public comment and the relevant statutory factors, and engaged in the required consultations prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 5318A.

    III. Consideration of Comment

    In response to the NPRM and NOF, FinCEN received only one comment. The comment agreed with FinCEN's proposal of a prohibition under the fifth special measure, but recommended that FinCEN also impose an additional special measure under 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(2) to require domestic financial institutions to obtain beneficial ownership information of “property” held by nationals of North Korea or their representatives that is located in North Korea or that otherwise involves North Korea. The comment explained that such a requirement would help identify and expose networks of non-bank institutions and agents that establish and manage shell or front companies on behalf of the North Korean government.

    As described above and in the NOF, FinCEN shares the concerns raised by the comment regarding North Korea's extensive use of deceptive financial practices, including the use of shell and front companies to obfuscate the true originator, beneficiary, and purpose behind its transactions. However, FinCEN's authority, as granted by Congress in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(2), applies only to information concerning the beneficial ownership of “account[s] opened or maintained in the United States” and thus would not extend to information relating to the beneficial ownership of property writ large, or to property outside the United States as the comment suggested. Nonetheless, FinCEN believes that the risks to the U.S. financial system posed by North Korea can be addressed through the prohibition on correspondent accounts and the related due diligence. Taken together, these requirements should, by and large, help prevent the flow of illicit funds from North Korea from entering the U.S. financial system. Accordingly, FinCEN believes that the prohibition and due diligence requirements imposed under the fifth special measure sufficiently address both FinCEN's concerns and the concerns raised by the comment.

    IV. Imposition of a Special Measure Against North Korea as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern

    In light of the Finding as detailed in the NOF, and based upon additional consultations with required Federal agencies and departments, and the consideration of public comments, the statutory factors discussed below, and all relevant factors, FinCEN has concluded that the prohibition under the fifth special measure as proposed in the NPRM is the appropriate course of action.4

    4 Throughout the rulemaking process, FinCEN has consulted with relevant departments and agencies in accordance with 5318A.

    The prohibition on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts imposed by the fifth special measure will help guard against the money laundering and WMD proliferation finance risks to the U.S. financial system posed by North Korean financial institutions and their front companies. Imposing a prohibition under the fifth special measure also complements U.S. efforts to satisfy the requirement under UNSCR 2270 Paragraph 33, discussed in section IV.A.1 below, for all UN member states to sever correspondent relationships with North Korean banks.

    A. Discussion of Section 311 Factors

    In determining which special measures to implement to address the finding that DPRK is of primary money laundering concern described in the NOF, FinCEN considered the following factors:

    1. Whether Similar Action Has Been or Will Be Taken by Other Nations or Multilateral Groups Against North Korea

    FinCEN's action is consistent with steps taken by the international community to address North Korea's illicit financial activity. Between 2006 and 2016, the United Nations Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions, 1718,5 1874,6 2087,7 2094,8 and 2270,9 which generally restrict North Korea's financial and operational activities related to its nuclear and missile programs and conventional arms sales. Most recently, in March 2016, the United Nations adopted UNSCR 2270, which imposes additional sanctions on North Korea in response to a January 6, 2016 nuclear test and February 7, 2016 launch using ballistic missile technology. This UNSCR contains provisions that generally require nations to: (1) Prohibit North Korean banks from opening branches in their territory or engaging in certain correspondent relationships with these banks; (2) terminate existing representative offices or subsidiaries, branches, and correspondent accounts with North Korean banks; (3) prohibit their financial institutions from opening new representative offices or subsidiaries, branches, or bank accounts in North Korea; and (4) close existing representative offices or subsidiaries, branches, or bank accounts in North Korea if reasonable grounds exist to believe such financial services could contribute to North Korea's nuclear or missile programs, or UNSCR violations.10

    5See United Nations Security Council Resolution (“UNSCR”) 1718 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1718(2006)).

    6See UNSCR 1874 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1874(2009).

    7See UNSCR 2087 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2087(2013)).

    8See UNSCR 2094 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2094(2013)).

    9See UNSCR 2270 (http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2270(2016)).

    10See UNSCR 2270.

    The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued a series of public statements expressing its concern that North Korea's lack of a comprehensive AML/CFT regime represents a significant vulnerability within the international financial system. The statements further called upon North Korea to address those deficiencies with urgency, and called upon FATF members and urged all jurisdictions to advise their financial institutions to give special attention to business relationships and transactions with North Korea in order to protect their correspondent accounts from being used to evade countermeasures and risk mitigation practices. Starting in February 2011, the FATF called upon its members and urged all jurisdictions to apply effective counter-measures to protect their financial sectors from the money laundering and financing of terrorism risks emanating from North Korea.11

    11See “Public Statement—21 October 2016,” Financial Action Task Force (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/high-riskandnon-cooperativejurisdictions/documents/public-statement-october-2016.html).

    2. Whether the Imposition of the Fifth Special Measure Would Create a Significant Competitive Disadvantage, Including Any Undue Cost or Burden Associated With Compliance, for Financial Institutions Organized or Licensed in the United States

    The prohibition under the fifth special measure imposed by this rulemaking prohibits covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. It also prohibits the use of a foreign bank's U.S. correspondent account to process a transaction involving a North Korean financial institution. As noted in FinCEN's NOF, none of North Korea's financial institutions currently maintain correspondent accounts directly with U.S. banks. Further, as noted above, U.S. financial institutions are currently subject to a range of prohibitions related to sanctions concerning North Korea, which has generally limited their direct exposure to the North Korean financial system. Therefore, FinCEN believes this action will not present an undue regulatory burden on U.S. financial institutions.

    Under this final rule, covered financial institutions are also required to apply special due diligence to their foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against their use to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. U.S. financial institutions may satisfy their due diligence requirement by transmitting a notice to certain foreign correspondent account holders concerning the prohibition on processing transactions involving a North Korean financial institution through the U.S. correspondent account. U.S. financial institutions generally apply some level of screening and, when required, conduct some level of reporting of their transactions and accounts, often through the use of commercially available software such as that used for compliance with the economic sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and to detect potential suspicious activity. FinCEN believes financial institutions should be able to leverage these current screening and reporting procedures to detect transactions involving a North Korean financial institution.

    3. The Extent to Which the Action or Timing of the Action Will Have a Significant Adverse Systemic Impact on the International Payment, Clearance, and Settlement System, or on Legitimate Business Activities of North Korea

    Financial institutions in North Korea are not major participants in the international payment system and are not relied upon by the international banking community for clearance or settlement services. In addition, given existing domestic and multilateral sanctions, coupled with the FATF's calls for countermeasures to address North Korea's AML/CFT deficiencies, it is unlikely that the imposition of a prohibition under the fifth special measure with respect to North Korea would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system. In light of the reasons described in this rulemaking for imposing the fifth special measure, and based on available information, FinCEN believes that the need to protect the U.S. financial system outweighs any burden on legitimate North Korean business activity, and, therefore, the imposition of a prohibition under the fifth special measure would not impose an undue burden on such activities.

    4. The Effect of the Action on United States National Security and Foreign Policy

    The exclusion from the U.S. financial system of jurisdictions that serve as conduits for significant money laundering activity, for the financing of WMD or their delivery systems, and for other financial crimes enhances national security by making it more difficult for proliferators and money launderers to access the U.S. financial system. To the extent that this action serves as an additional tool in preventing North Korea from accessing the U.S. financial system, this action supports and upholds U.S. national security and foreign policy goals. Further, imposing a prohibition under the fifth special measure both complements the U.S. Government's worldwide efforts to expose and disrupt international money laundering, and satisfies the requirement under UNSCR 2270 Paragraph 33 for all UN member states to sever correspondent relationships with North Korean banks.

    B. Consideration of Alternative Special Measures

    FinCEN concludes that a prohibition under the fifth special measure is the only viable measure to protect the U.S. financial system against the money laundering threats posed by the DPRK. In making this determination, FinCEN considered alternatives to a prohibition under the fifth special measure, including the first four special measures and imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. For the reasons explained below, FinCEN believes that a prohibition under the fifth special measure would be the most effective and practical measure to employ to safeguard the U.S. financial system from the risks of illicit finance involving the DPRK.

    As noted above, and in the NOF, North Korea is subject to numerous UNSCRs 12 and U.S. sanctions authorities,13 and it has been consistently identified by the FATF for its AML deficiencies.14 Additionally, the UN has specifically called for enhanced monitoring of financial transactions to prevent the financing of North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and for the freezing of any assets suspected of supporting these illicit programs. Further, as noted in the NOF and NPRM, FinCEN has issued three advisories since 2005 detailing specific concerns of the deceptive financial practices used by North Korea and North Korean entities and calling on U.S. financial institutions to take appropriate risk mitigation measures.15 However, North Korea has not taken any substantial action to address the range of concerns and continues to be involved in an array of illicit activities, as reflected in the NOF. Although North Korea is subject to wide-ranging bilateral and multilateral sanctions, it continues to access the international financial system to support its WMD and conventional weapons programs through its use of aliases, agents, foreign individuals in multiple jurisdictions, and a long-standing network of front companies. As such, FinCEN believes that only the most stringent measure—a prohibition under the fifth special measure—would be effective in mitigating the illicit finance risks associated with North Korea.

    12See UNSCRs 1718, 1874, 2087, 2094, and 2270.

    13See, e.g., Executive Order (“E.O.”) 13382 “Blocking Property of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators and Their Supporters” (2005) (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2005/07/01/05-13214/blocking-property-of-weapons-of-mass-destruction-proliferators-and-their-supporters); E.O. 13551 “Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to North Korea” (2010) (https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-01/pdf/X10-10901.pdf); E.O. 13687 “Imposing Additional Sanctions with Respect to North Korea” (2015) (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/06/2015-00058/imposing-additional-sanctions-with-respect-to-north-korea); E.O. 13722 “Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers' Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to North Korea,” (2016) (https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-18/pdf/FR-2016-03-18.pdf).

    14See “Public Statement—21 October 2016,” Financial Action Task Force (http://www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/high-riskandnon-cooperativejurisdictions/documents/public-statement-october-2016.html).

    15See “Guidance to Financial Institutions on the Provision of Banking Services to North Korean Government Agencies and Associated Front Companies Engaged in Illicit Activities,” FinCEN (2005) (https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/advisory.pdf); “North Korea Government Agencies' and Front Companies' Involvement in Illicit Financial Activities,” FinCEN (2009) (https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/fin-2009-a002.pdf); “Update on the Continuing Illicit Finance Threat Emanating from North Korea,” FinCEN (2013) (https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-A005.pdf).

    Special measures one through four enable FinCEN to impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. Special measure five enables FinCEN to impose conditions as an alternative to a prohibition on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. Given North Korea's flagrant disregard for multiple UN resolutions related to the proliferation of WMD, FinCEN does not believe that any condition, additional recordkeeping, or reporting requirement would be an effective measure to safeguard the U.S. financial system. Such measures would not prevent North Korea from accessing directly or indirectly the correspondent accounts of U.S. financial institutions, thus leaving the U.S. financial system vulnerable to processing the types of illicit transfers described in the NOF. Moreover, as OFAC sanctions prohibit a variety of financial transactions with the DPRK, recordkeeping related to transactions with the DPRK would be impractical as would conditioning the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. As noted above, because North Korea has a history of engaging in deceptive financial practices to evade international sanctions and is known to utilize networks of front companies to engage in illicit activity, any conditions that would continue to allow the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts for North Korean banks would not sufficiently protect the U.S. financial system. Therefore, in the case of the jurisdiction of North Korea, FinCEN views a prohibition under the fifth special measure as the only special measure that can adequately protect the U.S. financial system from North Korean illicit financial activity.

    V. Section-by-Section Analysis for Imposition of a Prohibition Under the Fifth Special Measure A. 1010.659(a)—Definitions 1. North Korean Banking Institution

    Section 1010.659(a)(1) of the rule defines a “North Korean banking institution” as any bank organized under North Korean law, or any agency, branch, or office located outside the United States of such a bank. This definition is consistent with the definition of “foreign bank” at 31 CFR 1010.100(u).

    2. North Korean Financial Institution

    Section 1010.659(a)(2) of this rule defines a “North Korean financial institution” as all branches, offices, or subsidiaries of any foreign financial institution, as defined at 31 CFR 1010.605(f), chartered or licensed by North Korea, wherever located, including any branches, offices, or subsidiaries of such a financial institution operating in any jurisdiction, and any branch or office within North Korea of any foreign financial institution.

    3. Foreign Bank

    Section 1010.659(a)(3) of this rule states that “foreign bank” has the same meaning as provided in 31 CFR 1010.100(u).

    4. Correspondent Account

    Section 1010.659(a)(4) of this rule defines the term “correspondent account” by reference to the definition contained in 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(1)(i). Section 1010.605(c)(1)(i) defines a correspondent account to mean an account established to receive deposits from, or make payments or other disbursements on behalf of, a foreign financial institution, or to handle other financial transactions related to the foreign financial institution. Under this definition, “payable through accounts” are a type of correspondent account.

    In the case of a U.S. depository institution, this broad definition includes most types of banking relationships between a U.S. depository institution and a foreign bank that are established to provide regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions, including a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other transaction or asset account, and a credit account or other extension of credit. FinCEN is using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for depository institutions in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.16

    16See 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(2)(i).

    In the case of securities broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers-commodities, and investment companies that are open-end companies (“mutual funds”), FinCEN is also using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for these entities in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.17

    17See 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(2)(ii)-(iv).

    5. Covered Financial Institution

    Section 1010.659(a)(5) of this rule defines “covered financial institution” with the same definition used in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act,18 which in general includes the following:

    18See 31 CFR 1010.605(e)(1).

    • An insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h));

    • a commercial bank;

    • an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States;

    • a Federally insured credit union;

    • a savings association;

    • a corporation acting under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611);

    • a trust bank or trust company;

    • a broker or dealer in securities;

    • a futures commission merchant or an introducing broker-commodities; and

    • a mutual fund.

    6. Subsidiary

    Section 1010.659(a)(6) of this rule defines “subsidiary” as a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting stock or analogous equity interest is owned by another company.

    B. 1010.659(b)—Prohibition on Accounts and Due Diligence Requirements for Covered Financial Institutions 1. Prohibition on Opening or Maintaining Correspondent Accounts

    Section 1010.659(b)(1) and (2) of this rule prohibits covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. It also requires covered financial institutions to take reasonable steps to not process a transaction for the correspondent account of a foreign bank in the United States if such a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution. Such reasonable steps are described in 1010.659(b)(3), which sets forth the special due diligence requirements a covered financial institution must take when it knows or has reason to believe a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution. By expressly incorporating these due diligence requirements into the prohibition, the final rule clarifies that if a covered financial institution suspects transactions involve a North Korean financial institution, then the covered financial institution shall take steps to further investigate and prevent such transactions, including steps that do not necessarily lead to the closing of the account.

    2. Special Due Diligence for Correspondent Accounts To Prohibit Use

    As a corollary to the prohibition set forth in section 1010.659(b)(1) and (2), section 1010.659(b)(3) of this rule requires a covered financial institution to apply special due diligence to all of its foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against processing transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. As part of that special due diligence, covered financial institutions must notify those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institutions know or have reason to believe provide services to a North Korean financial institution that such correspondents may not provide a North Korean financial institution with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution. A covered financial institution may satisfy this notification requirement using the following notice:

    Notice: Pursuant to U.S. regulations issued under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, see 31 CFR 1010.659, we are prohibited from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. The regulations also require us to notify you that you may not provide a North Korean financial institution, including any of its branches, offices, or subsidiaries, with access to the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution. If we become aware that the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution has processed any transactions involving a North Korean financial institution, including any of its branches, offices, or subsidiaries, we will be required to take appropriate steps to prevent such access, including terminating your account.

    Covered financial institutions should implement appropriate risk-based procedures to identify transactions involving a North Korean financial institution. A covered financial institution may, for example, have knowledge through transaction screening software that a correspondent account processes transactions for a North Korean financial institution. The purpose of the notice requirement is to aid cooperation with correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving a North Korean financial institution from accessing the U.S. financial system. FinCEN does not require or expect a covered financial institution to obtain a certification from any of its correspondent account holders that access will not be provided to comply with this notice requirement.

    Methods of compliance with the notice requirement could include, for example, transmitting a notice by mail, fax, or email. The notice should be transmitted whenever a covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe that a foreign correspondent account holder provides services to a North Korean financial institution.

    Special due diligence also includes implementing risk-based procedures designed to identify any use of correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. A covered financial institution is expected to apply an appropriate screening mechanism to identify a funds transfer order that on its face listed a North Korean financial institution as the financial institution of the originator or beneficiary, or otherwise referenced a North Korean financial institution in a manner detectable under the financial institution's normal screening mechanisms. An appropriate screening mechanism could be the mechanisms used by a covered financial institution to comply with various legal requirements, such as the commercially available software programs used to comply with the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC.

    A covered financial institution is also required to implement risk-based procedures to identify indirect use of its correspondent accounts, including through methods used to disguise the originator or originating institution of a transaction. As noted above, and in the NOF, FinCEN is concerned that a North Korean financial institution may attempt to disguise its transactions through the use of front companies, which would not explicitly identify the North Korean institution as an involved party in the transaction. A financial institution may develop a suspicion of such misuse based on other information in its possession, patterns of transactions, or any other method available to it based on its existing systems. Under this rule, a covered financial institution that knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account is being used to process a transaction involving a North Korean financial institution must take all appropriate steps to attempt to verify and prevent such use. Such steps may include a notification to its correspondent account holder requesting further information regarding a transaction, requesting corrective action to address the perceived risk, and, where necessary, terminating the correspondent account. If a covered financial institution deems it appropriate to terminate a correspondent account, it may re-establish such an account if it determines that the account will not be used to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.

    3. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Section 1010.659(b)(4) of this rule clarifies that paragraph (b) of the rule does not impose any reporting requirement upon any covered financial institution that is not otherwise required by applicable law or regulation. A covered financial institution must, however, document its compliance with the notification requirement under section 1010.659(b)(3)(i)(A).

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    When an agency issues a final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will “describe the impact of the final 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 final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    A. Prohibition on Covered Financial Institutions From Opening or Maintaining Correspondent Accounts With Certain Foreign Banks Under the Fifth Special Measure 1. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Whom the Fifth Special Measure Will Apply

    For purposes of the RFA, both banks and credit unions are considered small entities if they have less than $550,000,000 in assets.19 Of the estimated 6,192 banks, 80 percent have less than $550,000,000 in assets and are considered small entities.20 Of the estimated 6,021 credit unions, 92.5 percent have less than $550,000,000 in assets.21

    19Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes, Small Business Administration Size Standards (SBA Feb. 26, 2016) [hereinafter “SBA Size Standards”]. (https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).

    20 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Find an Institution, http://www2.fdic.gov/idasp/main.asp; select Size or Performance: Total Assets, type Equal or less than $: “550000” and select Find.

    21 National Credit Union Administration, Credit Union Data, http://webapps.ncua.gov/customquery/; select Search Fields: Total Assets, select Operator: Less than or equal to, type Field Values: “550,000,000” and select Go.

    Broker-dealers are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(h) as those broker-dealers required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SEC has defined the term small entity to mean a broker or dealer that: (1) Had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) or, if not required to file such statements, a broker or dealer that had total capital (net worth plus subordinated debt) of less than $500,000 on the last business day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business if shorter); and (2) is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization as defined in this release.22 Based on SEC estimates, 17 percent of broker-dealers are classified as small entities for purposes of the RFA.23

    22 17 CFR 240.0-10(c).

    23 76 FR 37572, 37602 (June 27, 2011) (the SEC estimates 871 small broker-dealers of the 5,063 total registered broker-dealers).

    Futures commission merchants (FCMs) are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(x) as those FCMs that are registered or required to be registered as a FCM with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), except persons who register pursuant to section 4f(a)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6f(a)(2). Because FinCEN and the CFTC regulate substantially the same population, for the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the CFTC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. In the CFTC's “Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of `Small Entities' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,” the CFTC concluded that registered FCMs should not be considered to be small entities for purposes of the RFA.24 The CFTC's determination in this regard was based, in part, upon the obligation of registered FCMs to meet the capital requirements established by the CFTC.

    24 47 FR 18618, 18619 (Apr. 30, 1982).

    For purposes of the RFA, an introducing broker-commodities dealer is considered small if it has less than $35,500,000 in gross receipts annually.25 Based on information provided by the National Futures Association, 95 percent of introducing brokers-commodities dealers have less than $35.5 million in adjusted net capital and are considered to be small entities.

    25 SBA Size Standards at 28.

    Mutual funds are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(gg) as those investment companies that are open-end investment companies that are registered or are required to register with the SEC. For the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. The SEC has defined the term “small entity” under the Investment Company Act to mean “an investment company that, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.” 26 Based on SEC estimates, seven percent of mutual funds are classified as “small entities” for purposes of the RFA under this definition.27

    26 17 CFR 270.0-10.

    27 78 FR 23637, 23658 (April 19, 2013).

    As noted above, 80 percent of banks, 92.5 percent of credit unions, 17 percent of broker-dealers, 95 percent of introducing broker-commodities dealers, no FCMs, and seven percent of mutual funds are small entities.

    B. Description of the Projected Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements of the Fifth Special Measure

    The imposition of the fifth special measure requires covered financial institutions to provide a notification intended to aid cooperation from foreign correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving North Korean financial institutions from being processed by the U.S. financial system. FinCEN estimates that the burden on institutions providing this notice is one hour. Covered financial institutions are also required to take reasonable measures to detect use of their correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.

    All U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, currently must comply with OFAC sanctions, and U.S. financial institutions have suspicious activity reporting requirements. U.S. financial institutions are currently subject to a range of sanctions prohibitions related to North Korea, which has limited their direct exposure to the North Korean financial system. More recently, on March 15, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13722, which places additional sanctions on North Korea and has the effect of generally prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions involving persons located in North Korea and the North Korean government, unless authorized by OFAC or exempt.28 Therefore, current transactional activity between U.S. financial institutions and North Korean banks is very constricted. Further, North Korea is subject to a range of United Nations sanctions resolutions and it has been consistently recognized by the FATF for its AML deficiencies. The special due diligence that is required under this rule—i.e., the transmittal of notice to certain correspondent account holders, the screening of transactions to identify any use of correspondent accounts, and the implementation of risk-based measures to detect use of correspondent accounts—will not impose a significant additional economic burden upon small U.S. financial institutions.

    28See E.O. 13722 “Blocking Property of the Government of North Korea and the Workers Party of Korea, and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to North Korea” (2016) (https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-18/pdf/FR-2016-03-18.pdf).

    C. Certification

    For these reasons, FinCEN certifies that this final rulemaking would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collection of information contained in this rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and has been assigned OMB Control Number 1506-0071. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

    A. Information Collection Under the Fifth Special Measure

    The notification requirement in section 1010.659(b)(3)(i)(A) is intended to aid cooperation from correspondent account holders in denying North Korea access to the U.S. financial system. The information required to be maintained by section 1010.659(b)(4)(i) will be used by federal agencies and certain self-regulatory organizations to verify compliance by covered financial institutions with the provisions of 31 CFR 1010.659. The collection of information is mandatory.

    Description of Affected Financial Institutions: Banks, broker-dealers in securities, futures commission merchants and introducing brokers-commodities, money services businesses, and mutual funds.

    Estimated Number of Affected Financial Institutions: 5,000.

    Estimated Average Annual Burden in Hours per Affected Financial Institution: The estimated average burden associated with the collection of information in this rule is one hour per affected financial institution.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,000 hours.

    VIII. Executive Order 12866

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 1010

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks and banking, Brokers, Counter-money laundering, Counter-terrorism, Foreign banking.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1010, chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:

    PART 1010—GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1010 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332; Title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.

    2. Subpart F of part 1010 is amended by adding § 1010.659 to read as follows:
    § 1010.659 Special measures against North Korea.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (1) North Korean banking institution means any bank organized under North Korean law, or any agency, branch, or office located outside the United States of such a bank.

    (2) North Korean financial institution means all branches, offices, or subsidiaries of any foreign financial institution, as defined at § 1010.605(f), chartered or licensed by North Korea, wherever located, including any branches, offices, or subsidiaries of such a financial institution operating in any jurisdiction, and any branch or office within North Korea of any foreign financial institution.

    (3) Foreign bank has the same meaning as provided in § 1010.100(u).

    (4) Correspondent account has the same meaning as provided in § 1010.605(c)(1)(i).

    (5) Covered financial institution has the same meaning as provided in §  1010.605(e)(1).

    (6) Subsidiary means a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting stock or analogous equity interest is owned by another company.

    (b) Prohibition on accounts and due diligence requirements for covered financial institutions—(1) Opening or maintenance of correspondent accounts for a North Korean banking institution. A covered financial institution shall not open or maintain in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution.

    (2) Prohibition on use of correspondent accounts involving North Korean financial institutions. A covered financial institution shall take reasonable steps to not process a transaction for the correspondent account of a foreign bank in the United States if such a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution.

    (3) Special due diligence of correspondent accounts to prohibit use. (i) A covered financial institution shall apply special due diligence to its foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against their use to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. At a minimum, that special due diligence must include:

    (A) Notifying those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe provide services to a North Korean financial institution that such correspondents may not provide a North Korean financial institution with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution; and

    (B) Taking reasonable steps to identify any use of its foreign correspondent accounts by a North Korean financial institution, to the extent that such use can be determined from transactional records maintained in the covered financial institution's normal course of business.

    (ii) A covered financial institution shall take a risk-based approach when deciding what, if any, other due diligence measures it reasonably must adopt to guard against the use of its foreign correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.

    (iii) A covered financial institution that knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account has been or is being used to process transactions involving a North Korean financial institution shall take all appropriate steps to further investigate and prevent such access, including the notification of its correspondent account holder under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section and, where necessary, termination of the correspondent account.

    (4) Recordkeeping and reporting. (i) A covered financial institution is required to document its compliance with the notice requirement set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section.

    (ii) Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall require a covered financial institution to report any information not otherwise required to be reported by law or regulation.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Jamal El-Hindi, Acting Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27049 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0954] Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular; Monongahela River Mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River Mile 0.00-0.25, Ohio River Mile 0.0-0.3; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular on the Monongahela River mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River mile 0.00-0.25, and Ohio River mile 0.0-0.3 extending the entire width of the three rivers. This zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the barge based firework event. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 66 will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on November 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Pittsburgh Santa Spectacular listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 66 from 8 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on November 18, 2016. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the marine event. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring entrance into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. Vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the regulated area.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and updates via Marine Information Broadcasts.

    L. Mcclain, Jr., Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27003 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0329; FRL-9954-36-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Texas; Approval of Substitution for Transportation Control Measures AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of administrative change.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an administrative change to update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a change made to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on May 31, 2016, as a result of EPA's concurrence on a substitute transportation control measure (TCM) for the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) portion of the Texas SIP. On August 16, 2016, the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted a revision to the Texas SIP requesting that EPA update its SIP to reflect a substitution of a TCM. The substitution was made pursuant to the TCM substitution provisions contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA concurred on this substitution on May 31, 2016. In this administrative action, EPA is updating the non-regulatory provisions of the Texas SIP to reflect the substitution. In summary, the substitution was a replacement of a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane TCM within the DFW 8-hour ozone nonattainment area with traffic signalization projects. EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes an agency to make an action effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA.

    DATES:

    This action is effective November 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0329. 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 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Riley, 214-665-8542, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 31, 2016, EPA issued a concurrence letter to TCEQ stating that the substitution of the DFW area US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM with traffic signalization project TCMs met the CAA section 176(c)(8) requirements for substituting TCMs in an area's approved SIP. See also EPA's Guidance for Implementing the CAA section 176(c)(8) Transportation Control Measure Substitution and Addition Provision contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users which was signed into law on August 10, 2005, dated January 2009. The DFW area US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM was originally approved into the SIP on September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56374).1 The TCM was also included for applicable NOX and VOC benefits in the May 2007 DFW 1997 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision, which was conditionally approved by EPA on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903).

    1 EPA's May 31, 2016 concurrence letter to TCEQ provided an incorrect SIP citation for EPA approval of the US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM. September 27, 2005 (70 FR 56374) is the correct SIP citation.

    As a part of the concurrence process, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed TCM substitution. Public notice and comment was provided by the DFW metropolitan planning organization, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), during a Regional Transportation Council meeting held on May 12, 2016. Public notice for this meeting was published in 20 DFW area newspapers and circulars.

    Through this concurrence process, EPA determined that the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(8) were met, including the requirement that the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions than the control measure to be replaced. Upon EPA's concurrence, the HOV Lane substitution took effect as a matter of federal law. A copy of EPA's concurrence letter is included in the Docket for this action. This letter can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0871. In accordance with the requirements for TCM substitution, on August 16, 2016, TCEQ submitted a request for EPA to update the DFW portion of the Texas SIP to reflect EPA's previous approval of the TCM substitution of the HOV Lane with the traffic signalization project TCMs in its SIP (the subject of this administrative change). Today, EPA is taking administrative action to update the non-regulatory provisions of the Texas SIP in 40 CFR 52.2270(e) to reflect EPA's concurrence on the substitution of a TCM for the conversion of the US67/IH-35E HOV Lane to traffic signalization projects:

    Table 1—Revised Annual Stress Test Timeline for Covered Institutions with $50 Billion or More in Assets  Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date/effective date
    DFW nine-county area US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM to traffic signalization TCMs. Affected counties are Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, Rockwall Dallas-Fort Worth 8/16/2016

    Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The substitution was made through the process included in CAA section 176(c)(8). Effective immediately, today's action codifies provisions which are already in effect. The public had an opportunity to comment on this substitution during the public comment period prior to approval of the substitution. Immediate notice of this action in the Federal Register benefits the public by providing the updated Texas SIP Compilation and “Identification of Plan” portion of the Federal Register.

    Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this administrative action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA.

    This administrative action also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    This administrative action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This administrative action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The administrative action also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This administrative action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Today's administrative action simply codifies a provision which is already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). These announced actions were effective upon EPA's concurrence. 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 this action in the Federal Register. This update to Texas' SIP Compilation is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart SS—Texas 2. In § 52.2270(e), the table titled “EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP” is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State
  • submittal/
  • effective
  • date
  • EPA approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * DFW nine-county area US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM to traffic signalization TCMs Dallas-Fort Worth: Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman and Rockwall Counties 8/16/2016 11/9/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation]
    [FR Doc. 2016-27057 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0058] RIN 2127-AL24 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 to make it clear that special trailer (ST) tires are permitted to be installed on new trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. It also excludes these trailers from a requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). The agency proposed these changes and, after a review of the comments received, has determined that these two revisions are appropriate and will not result in any degradation of motor vehicle safety.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on November 9, 2016.

    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by December 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical issues, you may contact Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366-9146, and by fax at (202) 493-2990. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of the March 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 26, 2003, the agency published a final rule amending several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) related to tires and rims.1 That rulemaking was completed as part of a comprehensive upgrade of existing safety standards and the establishment of new safety standards to improve tire safety, as required by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act of 2000 (TREAD Act). That final rule included extensive revisions to the tire standards and to the rim and labeling requirements for motor vehicles.

    1 68 FR 38116.

    That final rule expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except for motorcycles. Prior to the enactment of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 110 only applied to passenger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on passenger cars. In an effort to coordinate the upgraded vehicle standard, intended to apply to all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, with the standards used on tires for vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the language in FMVSS No. 110 was amended to require the use of tires meeting the new FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. The only exceptions provided in FMVSS No. 110 were for the use of spare tire assemblies with pneumatic spare tires meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 109 or non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 129.

    With the expansion of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the performance tests and criteria within the standard became applicable to all light vehicles, including light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trailers that had previously been subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 120. However, FMVSS No. 110 specified a minimum performance requirement for rim retention among its many requirements. This requirement was not previously included in FMVSS No. 120 and, therefore, was not applicable to light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trailers. The effective date for these requirements was September 1, 2007, which provided approximately four years of lead time from publication of the final rule.2

    2 See 71 FR 877 (Jan. 6, 2006).

    After the 2003 rule took effect, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) shared two concerns with NHTSA that the trailer manufacturing industry had with FMVSS No. 110. First, RVIA and its members stated, from a literal reading of S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110, that special trailer (ST) tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below cannot be equipped on new trailers that are under 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less because that section only permits FMVSS No. 139-compliant tires to be equipped on trailers. Second, RVIA and its members questioned the need for the rim retention requirement for trailers in S4.4.1(b) and whether the dynamic rapid tire deflation test specified in that section could be conducted on trailers.

    After reviewing these concerns, NHTSA issued, on its own initiative, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of March 13, 2013, proposing amendments to FMVSS No. 110 to address RVIA's concerns.3 Specifically, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to make clear that ST tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below can be installed on new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. Second, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to exclude these trailers from the requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). NHTSA tentatively determined that these two revisions would be appropriate and would not result in any degradation of motor vehicle safety.

    3 78 FR 15920.

    II. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received six comments on the proposal.4 RVIA, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers were fully supportive of the proposal. The Tire and Rim Association (TRA) suggested two revisions to the proposal, both of which were also supported by the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). First, TRA suggested the addition of farm implement (FI) tires to the list of tire types that are allowed to be equipped on trailers. Second, TRA suggested that, with respect to ST tires, FI tires, and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below, NHTSA require such tires to be compliant with FMVSS No. 119 rather than FMVSS No. 109. NHTSA also received a comment from an individual, Mr. Steve Brady. Mr. Brady expressed concern about the safety impact from excluding trailers from the rim retention requirement.

    4 All of the comments may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0030.

    III. Response to Comments A. Use of ST Tires on Trailers With a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 Pounds) or Less

    As stated in the March 2013 NPRM, NHTSA believes that S4.1 unnecessarily and unintentionally restricts the types of tires that can be used on light trailers. None of the commenters who addressed the issue opposed allowing ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 of less to be used on light trailers. NHTSA has not identified any increased safety risk associated with the use of ST tires and tires with rim diameter code of 12 or less on light trailers. Accordingly, NHTSA is finalizing its proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less to be equipped on light trailers.

    TRA's comments, supported by RMA, suggest two additions to the proposal that require brief explanation. First, TRA suggested that FI tires be added to the list of tires that can be equipped on light trailers. We agree that, as with ST and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less, NHTSA did not intend to exclude the use of FI tires on light trailers. Nor have we identified any risks associated with the use of FI tires on light trailers. Accordingly, this final rule adds FI tires to the list of tires that may be equipped on light trailers contained in FMVSS No. 110.

    Second, TRA suggested that the language of the proposal requiring that ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less be compliant with FMVSS No. 109 be changed to refer to FMVSS No. 119 instead. TRA's rationale behind this comment was that these tires could not be tested using FMVSS No. 109 because FMVSS No. 109 does not contain inflation pressures to use during testing.

    After submitting its comments on this issue, in June 2013, TRA submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA clarify that ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and not those in FMVSS No. 109.5 The broader issue of whether and how ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less can meet FMVSS No. 109 are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. That issue may be addressed in NHTSA's response to TRA's petition. For now, NHTSA believes it is sufficient to refer to both FMVSS No. 109 and FMVSS No. 119 as the standards under which ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less may comply.

    5 See Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0004.

    Therefore, we have revised our proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 of less that comply with FMVSS No. 109 to be used on light trailers by adding FI tires to the list of allowable tires and by also noting that such tires may also be compliant with FMVSS No. 119.

    B. Rim Retention Requirement for Trailers

    The commenters, with the exception of Mr. Brady, expressed support for the proposed amendment to exclude trailers from the rim retention requirement. Mr. Brady opposed excluding trailers from the rim retention requirement. He stated that the test could be performed by towing trailers at 60 mph. He also expressed concern with the number of tire failures identified in the NPRM. He directed NHTSA to complaints about a single ST tire model with 85 complaints. Further, he noted that even if injury rates are low, there can be significant property damage resulting from blowouts. He stated that the proposal appears to have been made to lower costs to manufacturers while exposing the public to risk.

    In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that 963 complaints had been received containing both the words “tire” and “trailer”, but 942 of those complaints were related to the towing vehicle. Only 10 complaints were related to the tire issues the towed vehicle and 11 were not sufficiently specific to determine whether the complaint was related to the towing vehicle or the trailer.6 Of the 10 complaints relating to trailer tires, the agency found that only nine complaints are related to tire failure (either blowout or tread separation) of one or more trailer tires. None of the nine VOQs appear to be related to the rim retention requirement, and there were no reported injuries or fatalities mentioned in any of these cases. The 85 complaints about the single model that Mr. Brady referred to in his comments were among the 963 complaints that were reviewed. Based on all of those complaints, NHTSA tentatively concluded that there was no continued safety need to justify the requirement that trailers comply with the rim retention requirement.

    6 These complaints were discussed in more detail in the NPRM. See 78 FR 15922.

    Prior to the TREAD Act rulemaking, only vehicles such as passenger cars were subject to the tire retention requirement in FMVSS No. 110, which requires that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure. Light trailers were not included because they were covered by FMVSS No. 120. However, after the TREAD Act rulemaking, light trailers and other vehicles such as light trucks and vans were added to FMVSS No. 110. Although the agency only expressly stated its intent to extend the applicability of the rim retention requirement to light trucks and vans, there was no limitation in the regulatory text that excluded trailers or any other vehicle type subject to FMVSS No. 110 from this requirement. The extension of the applicability of this requirement to trailers resulted in the implementation of the first on-road compliance test that NHTSA would conduct on light trailers.

    Although Mr. Brady stated that NHTSA could simply require that a trailer be towed at 60 mph in order to conduct the test, the agency notes that neither the text of S4.4.1(b), nor NHTSA's compliance test procedure contemplate the use of a towing vehicle. Without specificity, light trailer manufacturers cannot know how NHTSA would perform compliance testing of the rim retention requirement on trailers. Consequently, light trailer manufacturers would be responsible for certifying that their trailers comply with the rim retention requirement in any towing-towed vehicle configuration, which creates testing and certification issues.

    Based upon NHTSA's review of the nine cases of trailer tire failures discussed in the NPRM, the agency found no injuries or fatalities nor was it apparent that any of these cases could be addressed by the rim retention requirement. Based on that information, NHTSA concludes that there are no data available to document a safety problem related to rim retention of trailer tires. NHTSA also concludes that there is no continued safety need for trailers to comply with the rim retention requirements in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. Accordingly, this final rule implements the proposal to exclude trailers from the rim retention requirement. NHTSA does not believe that this change will have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.

    IV. Effective Date

    This final rule clarifies which tires can be installed on new light trailers and removes the requirement that trailers meet the rim retention requirement in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. It does not impose any substantive requirements. Instead it removes a restriction on the manufacture of light trailers. Consequently, these amendments may be given immediate effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

    Similarly, good cause exists for these amendments to be made effective immediately pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). These amendments would allow light trailers to be equipped with tires designated for use on trailers, and it would relieve trailers from a performance requirement for which NHTSA has no associated test for compliance. We do not believe that these amendments will have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.

    V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has further determined that the impact of this final rule is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.

    This final rule will not impose costs upon manufacturers. It clarifies the types of tires that can be installed on new light trailers and removes the rim retention requirement for light trailers. This final rule might result in cost savings to manufacturers associated with the certification of compliance with the rim retention requirement. However, we are unable to quantify any such cost savings. This final rule is not expected to have any impact on safety.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers of trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. Although we believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on those manufacturers. This final rule will not impose any costs upon manufacturers and may result in cost savings. This final rule will relieve light trailer manufacturers of the burden and costs associated with the rim retention requirement.

    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would 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.”

    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.

    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.

    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.

    D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.

    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.

    E. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.

    This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.

    F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not any information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process or material.”

    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.

    There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

    H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

    This final rule would not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation.

    I. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

    J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

    K. 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 (65 FR 19477-78).

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

    PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    2. Amend § 571.110 by revising S4.1 and S4.4.1(b) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 571.110 Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.

    S4.1 General (a) Subject to the exceptions set forth in S4.1(b), vehicles shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of § 571.139.

    (b) Notwithstanding the requirement in S4.1(a),

    (1) Passenger cars may be equipped with pneumatic T-type temporary spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of § 571.109 or non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of § 571.129 and S6 and S8 of this standard. Passenger cars equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall also meet the requirements of S4.3(e), S5, and S7 of this standard.

    (2) Trailers may be equipped with ST tires, FI tires, or tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or below that meet the requirements of § 571.109 or § 571.119.

    S4.4.1 * * *

    (b) Except for trailers, in the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 km/h (60 mph), retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

    Issued on November 3, 2016 in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5. Mark R. Rosekind, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27051 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 160615524-6999-02] RIN 0648-BG13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action changes the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern Gear Restricted Area, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This rule is intended to increase access to traditional squid fishing areas, while maintaining protection for juvenile scup.

    DATES:

    Effective December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the Scup Gear Restricted Area Modification Framework, including the draft Environmental Assessment, and the Regulatory Impact Review prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at: http://www.mafmc.org/actions/scup-gear-restricted-areas-framework or http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/species/scup/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9244; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) is managed jointly by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission through the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The management unit specified in the FMP for scup is U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35°13.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the U.S./Canada border. Currently, the scup stock is not overfished and it is not experiencing overfishing.

    When scup was overfished prior to 2009, the Council and NMFS determined that juvenile scup mortality in small-mesh fisheries (i.e., those fisheries using mesh smaller than the minimum size specified in the scup regulations) was highly problematic. Two seasonal Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) were implemented to prohibit vessels fishing for squid, black sea bass, or silver hake (also known as whiting) from using mesh smaller than the 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) minimum scup mesh size in the areas during certain times of year. The GRAs were implemented in 2000 (May 24, 2000, 65 FR 33486) and modified several times between 2000 and 2005 (December 27, 2000, 65 FR 81761; March 1, 2001, 66 FR 12902; January 2, 2003, 68 FR 60; January 4, 2005, 70 FR 303). Details on the changes to the GRAs are described in those actions and are not repeated here. Most often the changes were enacted to accommodate access for one of the regulated small-mesh fisheries, while still maintaining an effective level of protection for juvenile scup. The GRAs in their current forms have been in effect since 2003 (Northern GRA) and 2005 (Southern GRA). Scup has been considered rebuilt since 2009 and is currently estimated to be approximately 210 percent of the biomass target. Research by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center suggests that minimizing juvenile mortality in the GRAs likely contributed to the recovery and expansion of the scup population. This action only modifies the Southern GRA. The Northern GRA remains unchanged.

    The background on the Council's development of this action is described in the proposed rule and not repeated here (August 18, 2016, 81 FR 55166).

    Final Southern GRA Modifications

    This action removes the southern portions of the GRA that overlap statistical areas 631 and 632. Additionally, this action shifts the eastern boundary of the Southern GRA west, roughly following the outermost points of the proposed Deep-Sea Coral Protection Areas (September 26, 2016, 81 FR 66245). If approved, the Council's pending Deep-Sea Coral Amendment would implement area closures that would further restrict access to several canyon areas year-round. Many of these canyons are partially contained within the current boundaries of the Southern GRA, and this action would align those boundaries. The current and final Southern GRA are shown in the figure below. The updated Southern GRA coordinates are provided in the final regulatory text.

    BILLING CODE 3510-22-P ER09NO16.015 BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

    The Council designed these modifications to minimize overlap between the GRA and the recommended discrete deep-sea coral areas. The eastern boundary is intended to restore access to the squid fishery in areas approximately 55 to 60 fathoms (100 to 110 m) and deeper. The shift of the southern boundary north is based on analysis suggesting there are very few scup in statistical areas 631 and 632 from January through March. This action will marginally reduce the amount of protection for the scup stock in return for a modest increase in squid availability. The updated Southern GRA is smaller than the current one; slightly reducing coverage of the scup estimated to be covered by the GRA. However, analysis shows that this change will result in a modest increase in access for the squid and whiting fisheries and a slight increase in the availability of black sea bass in the GRA from January 1-March 15. It is important to note, however, that the amount of each stock (by weight) currently estimated to be within the GRA during the winter is only a small fraction of the total stock abundance. As a result, we do not expect the boundary changes to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting.

    Comments and Responses

    We received five comments on the measures outlined in the August 18, 2016 (81 FR 55166), proposed rule. All commenters expressed their support for the boundary modifications, noting the importance of balancing the needs of the squid fishing industry with the ability to protect juvenile scup.

    One commenter also suggested that NMFS and the Council continue to monitor the squid fishery in the modified GRA area to see how the squid fishery benefits from these changes and how scup discards may be affected. Although we do not expect this boundary change to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting, we agree that continued review of scup discards in this area is important. The Council can further modify this GRA in a future framework adjustment action if available information indicates the need to do so.

    Changes From Proposed Rule

    The Southern GRA coordinates at § 648.124(a)(1) are slightly adjusted from those presented in the proposed rule to remove an extraneous point and to better align with the coordinates proposed for the Deep-Sea Coral Protection Areas.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.124, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 648.124 Scup commercial season and commercial fishery area restrictions.

    (a) Southern Gear Restricted Area—(1) Restrictions. From January 1 through March 15, all trawl vessels in the Southern Gear Restricted Area that fish for or possess non-exempt species as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must fish with nets that have a minimum mesh size of 5.0-inch (12.7-cm) diamond mesh, applied throughout the codend for at least 75 continuous meshes forward of the terminus of the net. For trawl nets with codends (including an extension) of fewer than 75 meshes, the entire trawl net must have a minimum mesh size of 5.0 inches (12.7 cm) throughout the net. The Southern Gear Restricted Area is an area bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated (copies of a chart depicting the area are available from the Regional Administrator upon request):

    Southern Gear Restricted Area Point Latitude Longitude SGA1 39°20′ N 72°37′ W. SGA2 39°4.38′ N 72°47.22′ W. SGA3 38°28.65′ N 73°29.37′ W. SGA4 38°29.72′ N 73°30.65′ W. SGA5 38°26.32′ N 73°33.44′ W. SGA6 38°25.08′ N 73°34.99′ W. SGA7 38°13.15′ N 73°49.77′ W. SGA8 38°13.74′ N 73°50.73′ W. SGA9 38°11.98′ N 73°52.65′ W. SGA10 37°29.53′ N 74°29.95′ W. SGA11 37°29.43′ N 74°30.29′ W. SGA12 37°28.6′ N 74°30.6′ W. SGA13 37°6.97′ N 74°40.8′ W. SGA14 37°5.83′ N 74°45.57′ W. SGA15 37°4.43′ N 74°41.03′ W. SGA16 37°3.5′ N 74°40.39′ W. SGA17 37° N 74°43′ W. SGA18 37° N 75°3′ W. SGA19 38° N 74°23′ W. SGA20 39°20′ N 72°53′ W. SGA1 39°20′ N 72°37′ W.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27020 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 217 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 34 [Docket No. PRM-34-7; NRC-2016-0182] Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic Personnel AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated July 14, 2016, from Dr. Arny Bereson of the Nondestructive Testing Management Association (NDTMA) and Mr. Walt Cofer of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT). The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to authorize use of improved individual monitoring devices for industrial radiographic personnel. The PRM was docketed by the NRC on August 12, 2016, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-34-7. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-34-7 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by January 23, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0182. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Edward Lohr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0253, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0182 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-2016-0182.

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

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

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0182 in your comment submission.

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

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

    II. The Petitioners

    The petition was filed jointly by Dr. Arny Bereson and Mr. Walt Cofer on behalf of NDTMA and the ASNT. The petitioners state, among other things, that the NDTMA is a “U.S. non-profit organization dedicated to nondestructive testing (NDT) management, technology and regulation.” In addition, the petitioners state that the ASNT is a “U.S. non-profit technical society for NDT professionals that provides a forum for exchange of NDT technical information, NDT educational materials and programs, and standards and services for the qualification and certification of NDT personnel. The ASNT promotes NDT as a profession and facilitates NDT research and technology applications. As an independent certifying entity, the ASNT operates the only non-state-administered radiographer radiation safety certification program in the U.S.A.”

    III. The Petition

    The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to authorize use of particular individual monitoring devices for industrial radiographic personnel. Specifically, the petitioners request authorization to use “improved electronic personnel monitoring dosimeters” and “dual-function alarming rate meters and electronic dosimeters.” The PRM is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16228A045.

    IV. Discussion of the Petition

    The petitioners propose that the NRC (1) amend parts 20 and 34 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); and (2) change the guidance in NUREG-1556, Vol. 2, “Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses; Program-Specific Guidance About Industrial Radiography Licenses” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16062A091), to reflect the changes in the proposed amendments.

    The petitioners propose NRC amend 10 CFR 34.47(a) to authorize the use of dual-function electronic dosimeters (ED) and alarm ratemeters (ARM) in place of separate devices. The petitioners state that the proposed revisions would conform to the requirements in 10 CFR 30.33, “in that the equipment in question (dual-function ED/ARM, digital dosimeter) is adequate to protect health and minimize the danger to workers and the public.” The petitioners also state that the dual-function ED and ARM digital dosimeters “provide improved efficiencies, lower costs, and enhanced safety features.”

    The petitioners are also proposing NRC amend 10 CFR 34.47(a)(3) to replace the reference to “ `other personnel dosimeters' with TLDs and OSLDs,” in order to leave open the option to use digital dosimeters without replacement. The petitioners note that “[t]his option should be mentioned in NUREG-1556, Vol. 2.”

    V. Specific Request for Comment

    The NRC is seeking comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following three questions:

    1. Please comment on how the use of a dual-function device could achieve the current safety purpose of using independent devices, or if that requirement should be changed. Please reference publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information to support your position.

    2. Please comment on whether changes similar to those proposed in the petition should be applied to other radiation protection regulatory requirements, such as 10 CFR parts 36 and 39. Please explain your position.

    3. Please comment on what experiences or challenges users have encountered in the use of these dosimeters. Please reference publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information to support your position.

    VI. Conclusion

    The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for docketing a PRM under 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking—requirements for filing,” and the PRM has been docketed as PRM-34-7. The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-34-7, to determine whether they should be considered in the rulemaking process. The NRC is requesting public comments on the petition for rulemaking.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of November, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27046 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 460 [Docket No. EERE-2016-BT-TP-0032] RIN 1904-AC11 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured Housing AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a proposed rule to establish test procedures for manufactured housing (MH). This test procedure would support standards DOE is directed to establish by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. DOE proposes to establish test procedures applicable to manufactured homes for determining compliance with the following metrics that were included in a June 17, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking: The R-value of insulation; the U-factor of windows, skylights, and doors; the solar heat gain coefficient of fenestration; U-factor alternatives to R-value requirements; the air leakage rate of air distribution systems; and mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. DOE will accept comments regarding this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than December 9, 2016. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any comments submitted must identify the “Test Procedures NOPR for Manufactured Housing” and provide docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0032 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC11. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Email: [email protected] Include the docket number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

    (3) Mail: Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages respondents to submit electronically to ensure timely receipt.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).

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

    The docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2016-BT-TP-0032. The docket Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V.A for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected] For information on legal issues presented in this document, contact: Ms. Kavita Vaidyanathan, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Office of the General Counsel (GC-33), 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-0669; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 460:

    (1) ANSI/NFRC 1 100-2014, (“ANSI/NFRC 100”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors.

    1 American National Standards Institute (ANSI). National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC).

    (2) NFRC 200-2014, (“NFRC 200”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence.

    Copies of ANSI/NFRC 100 and NFRC 200 can be obtained from the National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, 301-589-1776. http://www/nfrc/org/.

    (3) ASTM 2 C518-15, (“ASTM C518-15”), Standard Test Method for Steady State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.

    2 American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM.

    (4) ASTM C1045-07(2013), (“ASTM C1045-07”), Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties Under Steady-State Conditions.

    (5) ASTM E1554-13, (“ASTM E1554-13”), Standard Test Methods for Determining Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization.

    Copies of ASTM C518-15, ASTM C1045-07, and ASTM E1554-13 can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500. http://www.astm.org.

    (6) HVI 3 Publication 916, (“HVI 916”), Air Flow Test Procedure, updated September 29, 2015.

    3 Home Ventilating Institute. HVI.

    Copies of HVI 916 can be obtained from the Home Ventilating Institute, 4915 Arendell St., Ste. J, PMB 311, Morehead City, NC 28557, 855-484-8368. http://www.hvi.org.

    See section IV.M for a more detailed discussion of each of these industry standards.

    Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Authority B. Background 1. The International Energy Conservation Code 2. Development of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Discussion of Proposed Test Procedures A. Applicability to All Manufactured Home Designs and Construction B. Energy Efficiency Metrics C. Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standard(s) for Proposed Metrics 1. R-Value of Insulation 2. U-Factor of Fenestration 3. Uo Value, Performance Path 4. U-Factor Alternatives to R-Value of Insulation 5. SHGC of Fenestration 6. Duct Air Leakage 7. Mechanical Ventilation Fan Efficacy D. Sampling Plan and Represented Value E. Test Procedure Effective Date IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Review of Manufactured Housing Manufacturers 2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE MH Test Procedure C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background A. Authority

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, Pub. L. 110-140) directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. EISA directs DOE to base the standards on the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and any supplements to that document, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost-effective or where a more stringent standard would be more cost-effective, based on the impact of the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(1).

    Section 413 of EISA also provides that DOE may consider the design and factory construction techniques of manufactured housing; base the climate zones under the proposed rule on the climate zones established by HUD in 24 CFR part 3280 rather than the climate zones under the IECC; and provide for alternative practices that, while not meeting the specific standards established by DOE, result in net estimated energy consumption equal to or less than the specific energy conservation standards as proposed. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2). Finally, section 413 of EISA authorizes DOE to impose civil penalties on any manufacturer that violates a provision of part 460. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(c).

    DOE is publishing this test procedure NOPR to implement the directive in EISA 2007 to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. Test procedures are necessary to provide for accurate, comprehensive information about energy characteristics of manufactured homes and provide for the subsequent enforcement of the standards. See 42 U.S.C. 7254, 17071. The test procedure NOPR proposes applicable test methods to support the energy conservation standards for the proposed thermal envelope requirements, air leakage requirements, and fan efficacy requirements. The test procedure would therefore dictate the basis on which a manufactured home's performance is represented and how compliance with the proposed energy conservation standards, if adopted, would be determined.

    B. Background 1. The International Energy Conservation Code

    The IECC is a nationally recognized model code, developed under the auspices of, and published by, the International Code Council (ICC), which many state and local governments have adopted in establishing minimum design and construction requirements for the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings, including site-built residential and modular homes. The IECC is developed through a consensus process that seeks input from industry stakeholders and is updated on a rolling basis, with new editions of the IECC published approximately every three years. The IECC was first published in 1998, and it has been updated continuously since that time. The 2015 edition of the IECC (the 2015 IECC) was published in May 2014.

    Chapter 3 of the 2015 IECC provides general requirements for the code, including referenced test procedures for determining U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of fenestration, and R-values of insulation. U-factor is the measure of the rate of heat loss or gain through fenestration. A lower U-factor value represents a lower rate of heat loss or gain. SHGC is the fraction of incident solar radiation admitted through fenestration. The lower the SHGC, the less solar heat fenestration transmits. R-value is the measure of a building component's ability to resist heat flow (thermal resistance). A higher R-value represents a greater ability to resist heat flow and generally corresponds with a thicker level of insulation.

    Chapter 4 of the 2015 IECC sets forth specifications for residential energy efficiency, including specifications for building thermal envelope energy conservation, thermostats, duct insulation and sealing, mechanical system piping insulation, circulating hot water system piping, and mechanical ventilation. Chapter 4 of the 2015 IECC was developed for residential buildings generally and are is not specific to manufactured housing.

    The 2015 IECC references NFRC 100 to determine the U-factor of fenestration, generally, and NFRC 200 to determine the SHGC of fenestration. To measure the R-value of insulation, the 2015 IECC references the R-value rule established by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (i.e., 16 CFR part 460). Chapter 3 of the 2015 IECC does not address test procedures for determining U-factor alternatives to R-values, air leakage rates of duct work, or mechanical ventilation fan efficacy.

    2. Development of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

    On June 17, 2016, DOE published a NOPR to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing (hereafter the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR). See 81 FR 39756. The proposed standards were based upon consideration of information ascertained from consultation with HUD, state agencies, the manufactured housing industry, and the public. The NOPR also was based on consensus recommendations from a working group established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. See 79 FR 41456; 5 U.S.C. 561-70, App. 2. The manufactured housing working group (MH working group) consisted of representatives of interested stakeholders with a directive to consult, as appropriate, with a range of external experts on technical issues in development of a term sheet with recommendations on proposed energy conservation standards. The MH working group's recommendations were based on the 2015 IECC and did not address proposed systems of compliance or enforcement. Further detail on the MH working group, stakeholder comments, and the rulemaking history was provided in the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR. See 81 FR 39756, 39761-39766.

    A public meeting regarding the manufactured housing energy conservation standards was held on July 13, 2016, and the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR provided for a comment period ending August 16, 2016. Comments provided to the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR and prior opportunities for comment, and the transcript from the public meeting, are available for public viewing at the regulations.gov Web page.4

    4See http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021.

    In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed two compliance options for building thermal envelope requirements: A prescriptive option and a performance option. See 81 FR 39765, 39804. Under the prescriptive option DOE proposed minimum R-value requirements for ceiling, wall, and floor insulation; maximum U-factors for windows, skylights, and doors; and maximum SHGC requirements for glazed fenestration. The proposed prescriptive option also would provide manufacturers with the option of relying on U-factor alternatives to the R-value requirements. Under the performance option, DOE proposed a maximum U o (i.e., overall thermal transmittance) for the building thermal envelope allowing manufacturers to optimize the performance of the various components of the manufactured house to meet the standards presumably with the least cost.

    In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE did not propose test procedures for determining R-value, U-factor, or SHGC, for use under the prescriptive or performance option.5 DOE did propose to reference the test procedure incorporated in the current HUD regulations for determining U-factor alternatives under the performance option, i.e., “Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads-Manufactured Home.” Conner, C.C., Taylor, Z.T., Pacific Northwest Laboratory, published February 1, 1992 (Battelle Method). However, DOE did not propose a test procedure for determining U-factor alternatives under the prescriptive option.

    5 The June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR proposes prescriptive default values for the U-factor and SHGC of certain fenestration products and doors.

    DOE also proposed standards for the maximum air leakage rate for duct systems and minimum mechanical ventilation system fan efficiencies. 81 FR 39756, 39806. DOE did not include test procedures for these proposed requirements.

    II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedures to support the proposed manufactured housing thermal envelope requirements, air leakage requirements, and fan efficacy requirements proposed in a new part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 10 CFR part 460. See 81 FR 39756. The proposed test procedures are used as the basis for manufacturers to show compliance with the energy conservation standards, once finalized and compliance is required. This notice describes a method of test for each energy-related metric, how manufacturers select units for testing, the method by which representations are developed for each model, and the potential impacts of the proposed test procedures. Representations refer to any instance in which a manufacturer describes the ratings associated with the energy efficiency metric(s) are measured by the DOE test procedure.

    While DOE has proposed test methods for manufactured housing, DOE has not included or proposed any additional compliance or enforcement provisions at this time. DOE anticipates that it will address issues related to certification, compliance, and enforcement of the proposed standards in a separate rulemaking. DOE will address any associated costs resulting from the compliance or enforcement as part of that rulemaking.

    DOE's proposed actions relating to the test procedure are addressed in detail in the following sections of this notice.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Test Procedures

    The following sections focus on DOE's test procedure proposal, including metrics being measured, industry standards incorporated by reference, and effective date.

    A. Applicability to All Manufactured Home Designs and Construction

    To support the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, this test procedure applies to all manufactured homes meeting the proposed definition of manufactured home. In June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE defined manufactured home as a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length or which when erected on-site is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure. See 81 FR 39756 at 39799, 39780 (June 17, 2016) for the full proposed definition of manufactured home.

    Typically, manufactured homes are one-story, single- or multi-section homes. However, multi-story manufactured homes can be manufactured, and other less common constructions may also exist or be possible to manufacture. DOE requests comment on whether the proposed test procedures in section III.C apply to all constructions and designs of manufactured homes, and whether alternative test procedures are needed for certain manufactured housing constructions or designs. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    B. Energy Efficiency Metrics

    In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes test methods to determine the represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics in the manufactured housing energy conservation standards. See 81 FR 39756. Table III-1, Table III-2, Table III-3, Table III-4, and Table III-5 summarize the proposed energy conservation standards that would require test methods. MH manufacturers have the option of either using the prescriptive or performance path when designing a compliant manufactured home. All homes must follow the duct air leakage, hot water pipe insulation, and mechanical ventilation fan efficacy requirements. Additional prescriptive installation requirements (that do not involve testing) and other limitations are also outlined in the energy conservation standard NOPR. See 81 FR 39756.

    6 The SHGC requirements listed in this table also apply to the performance path.

    7 The U-factor alternatives can be used in place of the R-values listed in Table III-1.

    Table III-1—Prescriptive Path Climate zone Ceiling
  • R-value
  • Wall R-value Floor R-value Window
  • U-factor
  • Skylight
  • U-factor
  • Door U-factor Glazed
  • fenestration
  • SHGC 6
  • 1 30 13 13 0.35 0.75 0.40 0.25. 2 30 13 13 0.35 0.75 0.40 0.33. 3 30 21 19 0.35 0.55 0.40 0.33. 4 38 21 30 0.32 0.55 0.40 No Rating.
    Table III-2—U-Factor Alternatives for Prescriptive Path Climate zone Ceiling
  • U-factor 7
  • Wall U-factor Floor U-factor
    1 0.0446 0.0943 0.0776 2 0.0446 0.0943 0.0776 3 0.0446 0.0628 0.0560 4 0.0377 0.0628 0.0322
    Table III-3—Performance Path Climate zone Single-section U o Multi-
  • section
  • U o
  • 1 0.087 0.084 2 0.087 0.084 3 0.070 0.068 4 0.059 0.056
    Table III-4—Mechanical Ventilation Fan Efficacy Fan type description Minimum efficacy (cubic feet per minute [cfm]/Watt) Range hoods (all air flow rates) 2.8 In-line fans (all air flow rates) 2.8 Bathroom and utility room fans (10 cfm ≤ air flow rate < 90 cfm) 1.4 Bathroom and utility room fans (air flow rate ≥ 90 cfm) 2.8 Table III-5—Other Energy Conservation Standards Requirement
  • description
  • Minimum requirement
    Duct Air Leakage 4 cubic feet per minute per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area. Hot Water Pipe Insulation R-3.

    The test methods that are proposed in this NOPR are for the following metrics: (1) R-value of insulation, (2) U-factor of fenestration, (3) U o value performance path, (4) Alternate U-factor of insulation, (5) SHGC of fenestration, (6) Duct air leakage, and (7) Mechanical ventilation fan efficacy.

    C. Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standard(s) for Proposed Metrics

    To determine represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics described in section III.A, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference industry-accepted test standards. Additionally, as described in section I.A, EISA directs that the proposed energy conservation standards be based on the most recent version of the IECC. Therefore, to align this test procedure with the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE has aligned the test methods in this test procedure with those specified by the 2015 IECC while accounting for the unique aspects of manufactured housing design and construction. Also, by aligning with industry-accepted test methods, it is expected that the DOE test procedures will be less burdensome than if DOE were to establish new test procedures for manufactured housing manufacturers (MH manufacturers).

    While the MH manufacturer would be responsible for complying with the proposed energy conservation standards, if finalized, DOE expects that MH manufacturers would choose to get the testing data from the entities manufacturing the components for manufactured homes. For the R-value of insulation, U-factor and SHGC of fenestration, and the mechanical ventilation fan efficacy, DOE anticipates that MH manufacturers would be able to rely on testing performed by and data supplied by the component manufacturers, DOE does not expect these particular proposed testing procedures to have a large cost impact on manufactured home entities. Instead, this specifies a pathway to demonstrate compliance with the proposed energy conservation standards. This NOPR proposes test methods to determine represented values for each of these energy efficiency metrics, based on current industry practice. As such, DOE anticipates that MH manufacturers would be able to rely on values currently being determined by component manufacturers and that are provided as part of the component specification sheets. DOE does expect that the MH manufacturer would have to perform the calculations to determine the U o value if following the performance path (in proposed section § 460.102(c)), and the alternate U-factor of insulation, in addition to having to perform the test for the total duct air leakage as this depends on the manufactured home design as a whole and not just the individual components.

    In the following sections, DOE describes the industry test standards being proposed to be incorporated by reference in this NOPR to determine represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics. DOE proposes that the regulatory text for the test procedure NOPR is inserted within the same sections of the proposed regulatory text from the energy conservation standards.

    1. R-Value of Insulation

    DOE proposes to cross-reference U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations at 16 CFR part 460 (“FTC R-value rule”) to determine the R-value of insulation, with certain exceptions. The FTC R-value rule references industry standards for testing insulation, which are specific to the type of insulation and intended use. The rule is required for the labeling and advertising of home insulation. As such, the FTC R-value rule is widely used in industry to determine R-value of insulation. Additionally, FTC requires maintenance of records of the test procedures relied upon for compliance with the FTC R-value rule. See 16 CFR 460.9. Furthermore, the 2015 IECC references the same FTC R-value rule in section R303.1.4 for determination of R-value of insulation.

    The FTC R-value rule provides a specification to test the insulation at a mean temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit and with a temperature differential of 50 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit. DOE proposes to test at the same conditions in this NOPR.

    The exceptions to the FTC R-value rule that DOE is proposing include the following:

    (1) For all types of insulation except aluminum foil, heat flux would be measured only in accordance with ASTM C518-15, with the heat meter apparatus in the horizontal orientation. R-value would be calculated in accordance with ASTM C1045-07 (based upon heat flux measured according to ASTM C518-15,

    (2) In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation R-value would be the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) corresponding to the minimum weight or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer.

    The following sections provide further discussion on each of the exceptions. In general, DOE requests comment on the percentage of insulation models used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for those models that have not been tested in accordance with the proposed test procedure, and to what alternative test procedure these insulation models are testing in accordance with.

    a. R-Value for All Types of Insulation Except Aluminum Foil

    DOE is proposing to include the following exception for measuring the heat flux to calculate R-value for all types of insulation except aluminum foil: For all types of insulation except aluminum foil, heat flux would be measured only in accordance with ASTM C518-15, with the heat meter apparatus in the horizontal orientation. Then, R-value would be calculated in accordance with ASTM C1045-07 based upon heat flux measured according to ASTM C518-15.

    The FTC R-value rule provides a number of industry standards as options for testing all types of insulation except aluminum foil. They include the following: ASTM C177-04, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus”; ASTM C518-04, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.”; ASTM C1114-00, “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-Heater Apparatus.”; and, ASTM C1363-97, “Standard Test Method for the Thermal Performance of Building Assemblies by Means of a Hot Box Apparatus.” 8

    8 The FTC regulations cite specific versions of the ASTM test methods; however, the FTC regulations also require use of any updates to the referenced ASTM test methods unless a person affected by the change can petitions the FTC not to adopt the change. See 16 CFR 460.7.

    DOE reviewed each of the industry standards to determine the differences between the standards, and whether any one of the standards could be used to test all types of insulation except aluminum foil. The primary difference among the industry standards is with respect to the apparatus used for measuring heat flow through the insulation sample, which could lead to slightly different measured values. Based on a review of specification sheets of insulation from multiple manufacturers, DOE determined that insulation manufacturers most commonly use ASTM C518 to test insulation for heat flux measurement. DOE understands that this is because ASTM C518-15 is comparable with the other listed test procedures, but is more cost-effective, and less time consuming. DOE's understanding was supported by a discussion with a test lab that performs insulation testing. In addition, the same test lab informed DOE that it uses ASTM C518-15 more often than any other standard to test insulation. Therefore, it is DOE's understanding that ASTM C518-15 is the most widely-used industry standard to test all types of insulation except aluminum foil. To minimize the potential test burden on MH manufacturers, and reduce potential for variation in measured heat flux to calculate R-value for DOE's compliance or enforcement process, DOE is proposing to cross-reference the FTC R-value rule, but specify the use of the ASTM C518-15 option only.

    Within ASTM C518, there are provisions to use the heat meter apparatus either in the horizontal or vertical orientation. Based on discussions with the test lab, DOE proposes to test only in the horizontal orientation, as this orientation is what is widely used in the industry. Additionally, it is DOE's understanding that the horizontal orientation provides a more conservative R-value result because in a horizontal position, convective heat flow within the sample will make the sample less resistant to heat transfer, leading to a lower R-value than a vertical test.

    DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference only ASTM C518-15 for determinations of R-value of insulation for all types of insulation except aluminum foil. In addition, DOE also seeks comment regarding testing only using the horizontal orientation. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    b. Ceiling Insulation R-Value

    In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, DOE proposes that the ceiling insulation R-value for loose-fill insulation would be the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) corresponding to the minimum weight or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer. To calculate the minimum weight of insulation, DOE proposes the MH manufacturer multiply the minimum weight per square foot of insulation for the required ceiling insulation R-value (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) by the surface area of the ceiling in square feet. To calculate the number of bags of insulation, DOE proposes the MH manufacturer multiply the number of bags of insulation per 1,000 square feet for the required ceiling insulation R-value (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) by the surface area of the ceiling in square feet divided by 1,000 square feet.

    In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed that ceiling insulation must have either a uniform thickness or a uniform density. 81 FR 39756, 39804. However, DOE understands that there might be instances, specifically near the truss heel at the eaves of the roof, where uniform thickness might not be possible. The FTC R-value rule does not address determining the R-value in such an application-specific instance. Therefore, in this case, DOE proposes to determine the ceiling insulation R-value corresponding to the mass or number of bags of insulation installed by the MH manufacturer. The FTC labeling requirements in 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2) require this information to be provided by insulation manufacturers.

    DOE seeks comment on the proposed exception that if uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation R-value is based on the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label corresponding to the mass or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    The test procedure for the determination of R-value of insulation is proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(d)(1) of the regulatory text.

    2. U-Factor of Fenestration

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI/NFRC 100 to determine the U-factor of fenestration. ANSI/NFRC 100 is an industry-accepted standard, which is based on simulation software to measure energy performance ratings. This standard provides specifications for simulation and testing, which include temperature, wind speed and solar irradiance. If simulation does not apply to a particular fenestration product, ANSI/NFRC 100 requires that NFRC 102 be used as a testing alternative to determine the tested total fenestration product U-factor.9 NFRC 102 measures the thermal transmittance of fenestration systems mounted vertically in the thermal chamber.

    9 Section 4.1.2 of NFRC 100 states that if an individual product cannot be simulated in accordance with section 4.3.1, the testing alternative [NFRC 102] shall be used. Section 4.5 states that an accredited laboratory will have to state in the simulation report that it cannot simulate an individual product to a reasonable accuracy. Section 4.1.2 of NFRC 100 provides some examples of products that cannot be simulated, including non-planar products, for example, domed skylights without frames or flashing, and certain complex glazed products.

    Under ANSI/NFRC 100, an NFRC accredited laboratory is required to perform the simulation. For simulation under ANSI/NFRC 100, accredited laboratories must attend a certification workshop and pass examinations to achieve the status of NFRC Certified Simulator. In addition, NFRC accredited laboratories must maintain their simulation certification every year by participating in annual inter-laboratory comparison and by attending mandatory training workshops.

    NFRC standards are widely used by industry, in a variety of capacities. Many component manufacturers affix an NFRC label to their fenestration products, which includes the U-factor, SHGC, visible transmittance and air leakage values. While component manufacturers are not required to certify using the NFRC test standard, the NFRC program has a large number of participants (more than 500 manufacturers), and NFRC-certified products are frequently used to comply with local energy code requirements. In addition, a fenestration product must be NFRC-certified to meet the criteria for becoming an ENERGY STAR product. Lastly, the 2015 IECC references ANSI/NFRC 100 in section R303.1.3 for fenestration product rating.

    The test procedure for the determination of U-factor of fenestration is proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(d)(3) of the regulatory text.

    DOE seeks comment on whether ANSI/NFRC 100 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the U-factor of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration models used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning those fenestration models that have not been tested in accordance with the proposed test procedure, and to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with . DOE notes that any fenestration redesign cost for complying with the proposed MH fenestration requirements is addressed as part of the energy conservation standard. 81 FR 39756 (June 17, 2016). See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    3. U o Value, Performance Path

    In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed that U o10 would be determined in accordance with the Battelle Method. 81 FR 39756, 39804. The Battelle Method currently is referenced in the HUD Code for calculation of overall thermal transmittance. See 24 CFR 3280.508. In this test procedure NOPR, DOE continues to propose the Battelle Method, but with certain exceptions.

    10U o is a measurement of the heat loss or gain rate through the building thermal envelope of a manufactured home; therefore, a lower U o corresponds with a more insulated building thermal envelope.

    The Battelle Method requires several inputs to calculate U o, which include the R-value of insulation and the U-factor of fenestration products. In sections III.C.1 and III.C.2, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference certain industry test standards to measure the R-value of insulation and the U-factor of fenestration products, respectively. In this NOPR, DOE continues to propose that U o must be determined in accordance with the Battelle Method. However, to provide consistency between the prescriptive option and performance option, DOE proposes that for the U o calculation, the R-value of insulation must be determined as proposed in section III.C.1, and the U-factor of fenestration products must be determined as proposed in section III.C.2. The methods in proposed sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 would be used instead of the methods referenced by the Battelle Method.

    The additional instructions for the calculation of U o are proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(e)(1)(i)-(ii) of the regulatory text.

    4. U-Factor Alternatives to R-Value of Insulation

    DOE proposes to calculate the U-factor alternatives to R-value requirements in accordance with section 3.1 from the Battelle Method, with the additional instructions described in section III.C.3. Section 3.1 of the Battelle Method provides a step-by-step method to calculate the component U-factors. In Step 1, the Battelle method states that window U-factors must be determined according to sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, and Step 3 requires determining R-value for each material of each heat flow path. As discussed in section III.C.3, DOE is proposing reliance on the test methods for determining U-factor and R-values referenced in the proposed regulation in place of the test methods used in the Battelle method. Therefore, DOE is proposing the same approach to calculate the U-factor alternatives to R-value requirements.

    The calculation of the U-factor alternatives to R-value of insulation is proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(d)(5) of the regulatory text.

    DOE seeks comment on whether section 3.1 from Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured Homes is appropriate to calculate the U-factor alternative to R-value of insulation. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    5. SHGC of Fenestration

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference NFRC 200 to determine the SHGC for fenestration. Similar to ANSI/NFRC 100, NFRC 200 is also an industry-accepted standard, which is based on simulation software to measure energy performance ratings. This standard provides specifications for simulation and testing conditions. Under NFRC 200, an NFRC accredited laboratory is required to perform the simulation. The NFRC laboratory accreditation process is described in section III.C.2. If simulation cannot be performed to a reasonable accuracy, as determined by the NFRC accredited laboratory, NFRC 200 requires that NFRC 201 be used as a testing alternative to determine the component or total fenestration product SHGC. NFRC 201 measures the fenestration SHGC installed in a solar calorimeter.

    The NFRC test standards are also used for the NFRC label, which includes the U-factor, SHGC, visible transmittance and air leakage values. Further details regarding the NFRC label is provided in section III.C.2. Furthermore, the 2015 IECC references NFRC 200 in section R303.1.3 for fenestration product rating.

    The test procedure for the determination of the SHGC of fenestration is proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(d)(7) and 10 CFR 460.102(e)(2) of the regulatory text.

    DOE seeks comment on whether NFRC 200 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the SHGC of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration models used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for fenestration models not already following the proposal, and to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with. DOE notes that any fenestration redesign cost for complying with the proposed MH fenestration requirements is addressed as part of the energy conservation standard. 81 FR 39756 (June 17, 2016). See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    6. Duct Air Leakage

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM E1554-13 to determine the total air leakage standard for duct systems. In this NOPR, DOE proposes that duct air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area (Qduct leakage,total) would be determined according to the following equation:

    EP09NO16.016 Where: Qduct air leakage = duct air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area, (cubic feet per minute per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area) Qduct leakage,total = measured total air leakage of the duct system, determined in accordance with ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, as calculated in section 9.4 (cubic feet per minute) Afloor,conditioned = total conditioned floor area (square feet)

    ASTM E1554-13 is the industry standard for measuring duct air leakage via pressurization.11 ASTM E1554-13 prescribes four test methods for measuring air leakage from a duct system (Test Methods A through D). Test Methods A, B, and C determine air leakage only to the outside of the building, while Test Method D measures total air leakage, including leakage to the inside of the building. Of the methods provided in ASTM E1554-13, DOE has initially determined that Test Method D produces the ratings needed to determine total air leakage. Further, Test Method D is consistent with the test conditions described in section R403.3.3 of the 2015 IECC (the basis of the proposal in the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR), which calls for measurement of total air leakage of the duct system. The 2015 IECC describes certain test conditions for duct testing to determine total air leakage from the duct system (pressure differential of 0.1 inch w.g. [25 Pa] and sealing all registers during testing). However, the 2015 IECC does not prescribe a specific procedure for duct testing. Therefore, DOE proposes that duct air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area be determined in accordance with Test Method D of ASTM E1554, as calculated in section 9.4 of the ASTM standard.

    11 “Field Test Best Practices—Duct Pressurization Testing.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory Building Research. https://buildingsfieldtest.nrel.gov/duct_pressurization_testing.

    DOE expects that testing will be performed by the MH manufacturer in the factory before being installed in the field for both single- and multi-section homes. For multi-section homes, in many cases it will be impractical and/or costly to assemble the homes (by connecting the duct systems). For this reason, DOE proposes that the MH manufacturer test each section of the multi-section home separately. As with single section homes, the manufacturer would follow ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, and seal all interior air vents and registers. In addition, the manufacturer would seal any duct openings that are intended to connect ducts between sections of the home, unless that duct opening is being used as an inlet to pressurize the duct system. The MH manufacturer would then compute the total duct air leakage for the entire home based on the summation of the leakage measured for each section.

    The test procedure for determination of total duct air leakage is proposed in 10 CFR 460.201(b) of the regulatory text.

    DOE seeks comment on whether ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, is an appropriate industry standard to determine total duct air leakage for both single- and multi-section homes. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal for determining the total duct air leakage of multi-section homes by measuring the duct air leakage of each section separately, and whether alternative methods should be considered. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    7. Mechanical Ventilation Fan Efficacy

    DOE proposes to incorporate by reference HVI 916 to determine the mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. HVI 916 is published by the Home Ventilating Institute (HVI), and used for HVI-certified ratings programs. DOE has initially determined that the HVI 916 air flow test procedure establishes uniform methods for laboratory testing of powered home ventilating equipment for airflow rate (in cubic feet per minute per Watt, or cfm/W). HVI 916 describes the test equipment and the test methods for specific HVI classification groups.

    DOE also sought to propose a fan efficacy test procedure consistent with the basis of the proposed energy conservation standard. While the 2015 IECC (the basis of the proposed fan efficacy standards) does not provide any specific test methods to determine fan efficacy, the prescribed efficacy levels in the 2015 IECC are based on the current ENERGY STAR specifications. HVI 916 is one of the referenced test methods for ENERGY STAR, so through incorporating by reference HVI 916, DOE ensures that the test procedure produces ratings on which the energy conservation standard is based.

    ENERGY STAR provides another test method to determine airflow rating in addition to HVI 916, i.e., ANSI/Air Movement and Control Associations International, Inc. (AMCA) 210-07, (“ANSI/AMCA 210-07”), “Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Aerodynamic Performance Rating”.12 ANSI/AMCA 210-07 provides general test methods to determine airflow rate for several different types of fans, not just home ventilation fans. However, this NOPR is focused only with the mechanical ventilation fan efficacy requirement, and HVI 916 is a test standard that is specific to home ventilation fans. Additionally, HVI 916 references ANSI/AMCA 210 as the primary standard for HVI airflow test and calculation within the standard. Therefore, because HVI 916 is specific to home ventilation fans and also references the general fan test standard, incorporating by reference HVI 916 is sufficient to determine mechanical ventilation fan efficacy.

    12 Energy Star Ventilation Fans Key Product Criteria. https://www.energystar.gov/products/heating_cooling/fans_ventilating/key_product_criteria.

    DOE is also proposing to use test conditions specified by ENERGY STAR instead of the corresponding test conditions specified in HVI 916. DOE is specifying these test conditions to keep consistent with how the industry is currently testing fans to certify to ENERGY STAR (for consistency with the basis of DOE's proposed fan efficacy standard). Specifically, ENERGY STAR includes test conditions specifying test static pressures, test speeds, and testing configurations when using HVI 916. The test conditions that DOE proposes in this test procedure are the following:

    (1) Bathroom and utility room fans with more than one speed that are vented externally, and in-line fans with more than one speed, must be tested and meet the performance criteria at each speed. A fan of this type that has a rotary speed dial or similar mechanism that allows for a theoretically infinite number of speeds must be tested and meet the applicable efficacy of this specification at its minimum and maximum speeds.

    (2) Fans must be tested at the following static pressures to determine the airflow and efficacy: For ducted fans, conduct tests at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure; for direct discharge (non-ducted) fans, conduct tests at 0.03 inch water gauge static pressure; for in-line fans,13 conduct tests at 0.2 inch water gauge static pressure.

    13 An in-line fan is a fan designed to be located within the building structure and that requires ductwork on both intake and exhaust.

    (3) Test range hood fans at working speed, as specified in HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 460.3), to determine the airflow and efficacy. Range hoods must meet the minimum efficacy requirements in each possible configuration (horizontal and vertical) at working speed.

    (4) When calculating efficacy, only measure the fan motor electrical energy consumption. Energy used for other fan auxiliaries (e.g., lights, sensors, heaters, timers, or night lights) is not included in the determination of fan efficacy. Therefore, to measure fan power, switch off all fan auxiliaries.

    DOE is also aware that ENERGY STAR includes a qualification criteria beyond efficacy requirements for the installed fan performance, with the exception of in-line, direct discharge fans and range hood models. This qualification criteria requires that ducted products be tested at 0.25 inch water gauge static pressure in addition to 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure, and that the airflow delivered at 0.25 inch water gauge static pressure shall be equal to or greater than 70 percent of tested airflow delivered at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure. This additional qualification criteria was added to ENERGY STAR specifications to allow for quality assurance of installed efficacy. DOE has only included testing at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure because the energy conservation standard is based on fan performance at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure.

    The test procedure for determination of mechanical ventilation fan efficacy is proposed in 10 CFR 460.204(c) of the regulatory text.

    DOE seeks comment on incorporating by reference only HVI 916 to determine mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. In addition, DOE seeks comment on the number of speeds, and the static pressures being proposed. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of mechanical ventilation fan units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal, and to what alternative test procedure these mechanical ventilation fan units are testing in accordance with. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    D. Sampling Plan and Represented Value

    As previously discussed, DOE potentially will address the certification requirements 14 for MH manufacturers in a separate rulemaking. DOE is considering that for some of the requirements, the basis on which a manufactured home's performance is represented and how the manufactured home's performance would be compared to energy conservation standards would be the average of values generated from testing at least one unit. In this notice, DOE proposes that to the extent that a represented value for the purpose of certification is based on an average value, the represented value must be based on a sample size of at least one tested unit. DOE is requesting comments on the certification costs and requirements associated with conducting these manufactured home performance test(s). The represented value would be the arithmetic mean of the test values and that testing of at least one sample would be required. Samples for testing would be required to be selected at random.

    14 Certification requirements refer to the administrative process of demonstrating compliance to DOE. This process would rely on data generated in accordance with this proposed test procedure, including the sampling plan.

    For testing applicable to components, DOE is proposing that the individual components tested would not be required to be selected from components actually installed by the MH manufacturer in a manufactured home. DOE is not proposing to require that a MH manufacturer directly perform the testing of components. DOE expects that MH manufacturers would be able to rely on testing performed by the component manufacturer. DOE expects that the tests can be performed on components prior to installation in the home. As such, DOE is proposing that the individual components selected for testing be representative of the components installed in the manufactured home.

    DOE is further proposing that any representation made by a MH manufacturer of the performance of a manufactured home or a component, as compared to an energy conservation standard established by DOE, could not be more favorable than the mean value derived from sampling. For example, if a MH manufacturer were to make a representation of the efficacy of a mechanical ventilation fan, for which a minimum standard is proposed, the MH manufacturer would be prohibited from representing the fan as more efficient than the mean value calculated from sampled units, and as less efficient than the energy conservation standard. DOE is also clarifying that the proposed energy conservation standards should also be computed with the mean values for those standards that are expressed as functions.

    DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan and method for calculating a represented value. DOE is particularly seeking comment on the proposed minimum sample size.

    E. Test Procedure Effective Date

    If adopted, the effective date for this manufactured housing test procedure would be 30 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register.

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

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this test procedure rulemaking is a “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

    DOE reviewed the proposals for testing various categories of manufactured homes as proposed in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE preliminarily certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth in the following paragraphs. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    1. Review of Manufactured Housing Manufacturers

    For the manufacturers of manufactured homes, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small business-size-standards. The covered manufacturers are classified under NAICS 321991, “Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

    To assess the potential impacts of this rulemaking on small entities, DOE conducted a focused inquiry of the companies that could be small business manufacturers of manufactured homes. During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved individual company Web sites and market research tools (e.g., Hoovers reports 15 ) to create a list of companies that manufacture homes covered by this rulemaking. DOE also asked stakeholders and industry representatives if they were aware of any other small manufacturers.

    15 Hoovers. http://www.hoovers.com/.

    DOE identified thirty-seven manufacturers of manufactured homes. Of the thirty-seven, DOE identified thirty-one manufacturers that qualified as domestic small businesses.

    2. Burden of Conducting the Proposed DOE MH Test Procedure

    DOE currently does not have a test procedure for manufactured housing. As described in the preamble, this test procedure proposes test methods for the following metrics: (1) R-value of insulation, (2) U-factor of fenestration, (3) U o value, performance path, (4) Alternate U-factor of insulation, (5) SHGC of fenestration, (6) Duct air leakage, and (7) Mechanical ventilation fan efficacy.

    For the R-value of insulation, U-factor and SHGC of fenestration, and mechanical ventilation fan efficacy, DOE anticipates that MH manufacturers would be able to use values currently provided by component manufacturers as part of the component specification sheets (because DOE's proposed test procedure matches current industry practice). Insulation manufacturers are required to test and label the R-value of insulation under the FTC R-value rule. It is DOE's understanding based on a review of the market that fenestration manufacturers routinely provide the U-factor and SHGC values of their products. Similarly, DOE understands that manufacturers of mechanical ventilation fans routinely provide the fan efficacy of their products consistent with the test procedures proposed in this notice. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate added test costs for MH manufacturers related to these metrics.

    For the U o value—performance path and the alternate U-value of insulation calculations, DOE proposes using the Battelle Method, which is currently referenced in the HUD Code for calculation of overall thermal transmittance. Because MH manufacturers are already required to perform these calculations for the HUD Code, DOE believes there would be no added test cost for these calculations as proposed in this NOPR. Therefore, in this IRFA, DOE is only assessing the potential impacts of duct air leakage test method on small manufacturers.

    To determine the costs of the duct air leakage, DOE obtained input from the MH working group and estimates from publically available literature. During discussions of the MH working group, manufacturers expressed a view they would likely test every home's duct leakage to minimize risk of non-compliance with duct leakage standards. See 9/22/2014 WG Transcript, EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021-0102 at pp. 318-338. Hammon and Modera estimated a testing cost range of $131 to $163 per home in 1996, derived from a survey of 12 builders and 19 HVAC subcontractors.16 For this analysis, DOE used the high limit of this range, $163 per home in 1996 dollars, inflated to $233 per home in 2015 dollars using the GDP price deflator from the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    16 Hammon, R.W. and Modera, M.P. “Improving the Energy Efficiency of Air Distribution Systems in New California Homes.” Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Vol. 2. 1996.

    DOE estimated the average number of homes produced per small manufacturer to be 682 homes. DOE determined this based on manufacturer interviews, manufactured housing shipments per year, and number of small manufacturers. Based on interviews, DOE determined that the top five large manufacturers control 70 percent of the market. Therefore, DOE assumed that the small manufacturers represented the remainder of the market, which is 30 percent. Based on the manufacturer housing institute (MHI) shipment data for 2015, there were 70,519 manufactured home shipments for that year. Therefore, the total number of manufactured homes produced by small manufacturers is 21,156. Based on thirty-one small manufacturers, DOE calculated the average number of homes produced per small manufacturer to be 682 homes. Therefore, to test each home at a cost of $233 per unit, the average total cost of testing is $158,906 per manufacturer.

    DOE requests comment on the estimate of duct testing costs of $233 per home and any costs data or information on the duct testing cost for all types of manufactured housing covered by the rule including single section, multi-section, and multi-story manufactured housing. DOE also requests comment on testing burden specific to small MH manufacturers, and whether testing alternatives are available to reduce testing burden for all manufacturers. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not include any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE proposes test procedures that it expects will be used for energy conservation standards for manufactured homes. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would establish test procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that is strictly procedural. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735.

    DOE has examined this action and has determined that it would not pre-empt State law. This action impacts testing procedures applicable to energy efficiency requirements for manufacturers of manufactured homes. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

    The proposed regulatory action to establish test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of manufactured housing is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

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

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

    The test procedures for manufactured homes proposed in this document incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: ANSI/NFRC 100-2014, Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors; NFRC 200-2014, Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence; ASTM C518-15, Standard Test Method for Steady State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus; ASTM C1045-07(2013), Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties Under Steady-State Conditions; ASTM E1554-13, Standard Test Methods for Determining Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization; and HVI Publication 916, Air Flow Test Procedure, updated September 29, 2015.

    DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE will consult with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by National Fenestration Rating Council, titled ANSI/NFRC 100-2014, (“ANSI/NFRC 100”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors. ANSI/NFRC 100 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the U-factor of fenestration and doors. Copies of ANSI/NFRC 100 be obtained from the National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, or by going to http://www/nfrc/org/.

    In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by National Fenestration Rating Council, titled NFRC 200-2014, (“NFRC 200”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence. NFRC 200 is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures the solar heat gain coefficient of fenestration. Copies of NFRC 200 be obtained from the National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, or by going to http://www/nfrc/org/.

    Additionally, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled ASTM C518-15, (“ASTM C518”), Standard Test Method for Steady State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus. ASTM C518 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring values used to calculate the R-value of insulation that is typically used in manufactured homes. Copies of ASTM C518 may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by going to http://www.astm.org.

    Also proposed to be incorporated by reference is the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled ASTM C1045-07(2013), (“ASTM C1045”), Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties Under Steady-State Conditions. ASTM C1045 is an industry-accepted test procedure for calculating the R-value of insulation that is typically used in manufactured homes. Copies of ASTM C1045 may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by going to http://www.astm.org.

    DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference Method D, as calculated in section 9.4, of the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled ASTM E1554-13, (“ASTM E1554”), Standard Test Methods for Determining Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization. ASTM E1554 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring air leakage of air distribution systems (e.g., duct work employed in manufactured homes). Copies of ASTM C1554 may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by going to http://www.astm.org.

    Finally, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the test standard published by the Home Ventilating Institute, titled HVI Publication 916, (“HVI 916”), Air Flow Test Procedure, updated September 29, 2015. HVI 916 is an industry-accepted test procedure for determining mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. Copies of HVI 916 may be obtained from the Home Ventilating Institute, 4915 Arendell St., Ste. J, PMB 311, Morehead City, NC 28557, or by going to http://www.hvi.org.

    V. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.

    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:

    (1) DOE requests comment on whether the proposed test procedures apply to all constructions and designs of manufactured homes including multi-section and multi-story homes, and whether alternative test procedures should be considered for certain MH constructions or designs. See section III.A.

    (2) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference only ASTM C518-15 for determination of the R-value of insulation for all types of insulation except aluminum foil. In addition, DOE also seeks comment regarding testing only using the horizontal orientation. See section III.C.1.a.

    (3) DOE seeks comment on the proposed exception that if uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation R-value is based on the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label corresponding to the mass or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer. See section III.C.1.c.

    (4) DOE requests comment on the percentage of insulation materials used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these insulation models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options.

    (5) DOE seeks comment on whether ANSI/NFRC 100 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the U-factor of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.2.

    (6) DOE seeks comment on whether section 3.1 from Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured Homes is appropriate to determine the U-factor alternative to R-value of insulation. See section III.C.4.

    (7) DOE seeks comment on whether NFRC 200 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the SHGC of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.5.

    (8) DOE seeks comment on whether ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, is an appropriate industry standard to determine total duct leakage requirements for both single- and multi-section homes. DOE also requests comment on the cost of carrying out the duct leakage test procedure on a per-home basis for both single-section, multi-section, and multi-story homes. See section III.C.6.

    (9) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to sum the measured duct air leakage of each section of a multi-section home to calculate the total duct air leakage for multi-section homes. DOE also seeks comment on other alternative assemblies for determining total duct air leakage testing for multi-section homes. See section III.C.6.

    (10) DOE seeks comment on incorporating by reference only HVI 916 to determine mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. In addition, DOE seeks comment on the number of speeds, and the static pressures being proposed. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of mechanical ventilation fan units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these mechanical ventilation fan units are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.7.

    (11) DOE seeks comment on the proposed sampling plan and method for calculating a represented value. DOE is particularly seeking comment on the proposed minimum sample size. See section III.D.

    (12) DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that the proposed test procedure will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See section IV.B.

    (13) DOE requests comment on the estimate of duct testing costs of $233 per home. See section IV.B.

    (14) DOE requests comment on any duct leakage testing alternatives that are available to reduce testing burden for all manufacturers as well as any burden reducing alternatives for the other proposed test requirements. See section V.B.

    VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 460

    Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Energy conservation, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 460, as proposed to be added at 81 FR 39756 (June 17, 2016), of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 460—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES 1. The authority citation for part 460 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 17071; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

    2. Section 460.3 is amended by: a. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d); b. Adding a new paragraph (c); and c. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f).

    The additions read as follows:

    § 460.3 Materials incorporated by reference.

    (c) ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500, or http://www.astm.org.

    (1) ASTM C518-15, (“ASTM C518-15”), Standard Test Method for Steady State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus. IBR approved for § 460.102 of subpart B.

    (2) ASTM C1045-07 (2013), (“ASTM C1045-07”), Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties under Steady-State Conditions. IBR approved for § 460.102 of subpart B.

    (3) ASTM E1554-13, (“ASTM E1554-13”), Standard Test Methods for Determining Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization. IBR approved for § 460.204 of subpart C.

    (e) HVI. Home Ventilating Institute, 4915 Arendell St., Ste. J, PMB 311, Morehead City, NC 28557, 855-484-8368, or http://www.hvi.org.

    (1) HVI Publication 916, (“HVI 916”), Air Flow Test Procedure, Updated September 29, 2015. IBR approved for § 460.201 of subpart C.

    (2) [Reserved]

    (f) NFRC. National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, 301-589-1776, or http://www.nfrc.org/.

    (1) ANSI/NFRC 100-2014, (“ANSI/NFRC 100”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product U-factors. IBR approved for § 460.102 of subpart B.

    (2) NFRC 200-2014, (“NFRC 200”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence. IBR approved for § 460.102 of subpart B.

    3. Section 460.102 is amended by: a. Adding paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (4), and (5); b. Revising paragraph (d)(3) and (d)(6); c. Adding paragraph (d)(7); d. Revising paragraph (d)(8); e. Adding paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii), and (e)(2); f. Revising paragraph (e)(3).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 460.102 Building thermal envelope requirements.

    (d) Determination of compliance with § 460.102(b).

    (1) The R-value of insulation must be determined in accordance with the FTC R-value rule at 16 CFR part 460, in units of h·ft2 ·°F/Btu, with the following exceptions:

    (i) For all types of insulation except aluminum foil, heat flux would be measured only in accordance with ASTM C518-15 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), with the heat meter apparatus in the horizontal orientation. Calculate R-value of insulation except aluminum foil in accordance with ASTM C1045-07 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) based upon heat flux measured according to ASTM C518-15.

    (ii) In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation R-value would be the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) corresponding to the minimum weight or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer. To calculate the minimum weight of insulation, multiply the minimum weight per square foot of insulation for the required ceiling insulation R-value (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) by the surface area of the ceiling in square feet. To calculate the number of bags of insulation, multiply the number of bags of insulation per 1,000 square feet for the required ceiling insulation R-value (developed in accordance with 16 CFR 460.12(b)(2)) by the surface area of the ceiling in square feet divided by 1,000 square feet.

    (2) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section for R-value of insulation:

    (i) Randomly select a sample of insulation of at least one unit.

    (ii) Test the insulation in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

    (iii) Determine the represented value of R-value by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample (X1), calculated as follows:

    EP09NO16.017 where Xi is the measured R-value of unit i and N1 is the total number of units.

    Round representations of R-value calculated in this paragraph (d)(3)(iii) to the nearest whole number. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (iv) The represented value of R-value must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(3)(iii) of this section, and equal to or greater than the standard described in § 460.204(a).

    (v) If multiple layers of insulation are used, the total R-value is the sum of the R-value of each layer of insulation that comprise the component (as calculated in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section).

    (3) Determine the U-factor of fenestration products and doors in accordance with ANSI/NFRC 100 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) in units of Btu/h·ft2 ·°F. Alternatively, use the prescriptive default values specified for the corresponding fenestration products and doors in Tables 460.102-4 and 460.102-5.

    (4) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section for U-factor of fenestration products and doors:

    (i) Randomly select a sample of fenestration products or doors of at least one unit.

    (ii) Test the fenestration product or door (or use the prescriptive default value) in accordance with the test procedure at this paragraph (d)(4).

    (iii) Determine the represented value of U-factor by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of U-factor calculated in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (iv) The represented value of U-factor must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, and equal to or less than the standard described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (5) Calculate the U-factor alternatives to R-value Requirements in accordance with section 3.1 from Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured Homes (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) with the exceptions provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, in units of Btu/h·ft2 ·°F.

    (6) To show compliance with the U-factor alternatives to R-value Requirements (if this alternative is used):

    (i) Randomly select a select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).

    (ii) Calculate the U-factor alternatives in accordance with the test procedure at this paragraph (d)(6).

    (iii) Determine the represented value of U-factor alternative by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of U-factor alternative calculated in paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (iv) The represented value of the U-factor alternatives must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and equal to or less than the standard described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (7) Determine the SHGC of glazed fenestration products in accordance with NFRC 200 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3). Alternatively, use the prescriptive glazed fenestration SHGC default values specified for the corresponding glazed fenestration in Tables 460.102 through 460-106.

    (8) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section with respect to glazed fenestration SHGC:

    (i) Randomly select a sample of glazed fenestration products of at least one unit.

    (ii) Test the glazed fenestration products in accordance with paragraph (d)(6) of this section.

    (iii) Determine the represented value of SHGC by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of SHGC calculated in paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (iv) The represented value of SHGC must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section, and equal to or less than the standard described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Determine the represented value of R-value of insulation in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (ii) Determine the represented value of U-factor of fenestration products and doors in accordance with paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    (2) To show compliance with paragraph (c) of this section with respect to U o:

    (i) Randomly select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).

    (ii) Determine the U o of each home in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.

    (iii) Determine the represented value of U o by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of U o calculated in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (iv) The represented value of U o must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section, and equal to or less than the standard described in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (3) Determine the represented value of SHGC of glazed fenestration products in accordance with paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.

    4. Section 460.201 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
    § 460.201 Duct system.

    (b) Determine the total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area according to the following equation:

    EP09NO16.018 Where: Qduct air leakage = total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area, (cubic feet per minute per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area) Qduct leakage,total = measured total air leakage of the duct system, determined in accordance with ASTM E1554-13, Method D, as calculated in section 9.4 (cubic feet per minute) (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3) Afloor,conditioned = total conditioned floor area (square feet)

    (1) For multi-section homes, Qduct leakage,total is the summation of the air leakage of the duct system for each section of the manufactured home measured individually.

    (2) When measuring the duct leakage of an individual section of a multi-section manufactured home, follow ASTM E1554-13, Method D, and also seal any duct openings used to connect ducts between the sections of the home, unless the duct opening is being used as the inlet to pressurize the duct system.

    (c) To show compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:

    (1) Randomly select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).

    (2) Test the manufactured home duct system in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (b) of this section.

    (3) Determine the represented value of total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to one significant digit. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (4) The represented value must be equal to or less than the value calculated under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and equal to or greater than the standard described in § 460.204(a).

    5. Section 460.204 is amended by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 460.204 Mechanical ventilation fan efficacy.

    (c) Determine the fan airflow (cfm) and efficacy (cfm/W) in accordance with HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), with the following exceptions.

    (1) Bathroom and utility room fans with more than one speed, and in-line fans with more than one speed, must be tested and meet the performance criteria at each speed. A fan of this type that has a rotary speed dial or similar mechanism that allows for a theoretically infinite number of speeds must be tested and meet the applicable efficacy of this specification at its minimum and maximum speeds.

    (2) Fans must be tested at the following static pressures to determine the airflow and efficacy: For ducted fans, conduct tests at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure; for direct discharge (non-ducted) fans, conduct tests at 0.03 inch water gauge static pressure; for in-line fans, conduct tests at 0.2 inch water gauge static pressure.

    (3) Test ducted range hood fans at working speed, as specified in HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), to determine the airflow and efficacy. Range hoods must meet the minimum efficacy requirements in each possible configuration (horizontal and vertical) at working speed.

    (4) When calculating efficacy, only measure the fan motor electrical energy consumption. Energy used for other fan auxiliaries (e.g., lights, sensors, heaters, timers, or night lights) is not included in the determination of fan efficacy. Therefore, to measure fan power, switch off all fan auxiliaries.

    (d) To show compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:

    (1) Randomly select a sample of whole-house mechanical ventilation system fan(s) of at least one unit.

    (2) Test the whole-house mechanical ventilation system fan(s) in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (c) of this section.

    (3) Determine the represented value of fan efficacy by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of fan efficacy calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.

    (4) The represented value must be equal to or less than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and equal to or greater than the standard described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2016-26008 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 701 RIN 3133-AE31 Chartering and Field of Membership Manual AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board proposes to amend its chartering and field of membership rules to give applicants for community charter approval, expansion or conversion the option, in lieu of a presumptive community, to submit a narrative to establish common interests or interaction among residents of the area it proposes to serve, thus qualifying the area as a well-defined local community. The Board also proposes to increase up to 10 million the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area or a portion thereof. Finally, when such an area is subdivided into metropolitan divisions, the Board will permit a credit union to designate a portion of the area as its community without regard to division boundaries.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments 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.

    NCUA Web site: http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/proposed_regs/proposed_regs.html. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name] Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re Community Common Bond” 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, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    Public Inspection: You may view all public comments on NCUA's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/PropRegs.aspx as submitted, except for those we cannot post for technical reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove any identifying or contact information from the public comments submitted. You may inspect paper copies of comments in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Biliouris, Deputy Director, or Robert Leonard, Director, Division of Consumer Access, or Rita Woods, Director, Division of Consumer Access South, Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Access, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-1140; or Senior Staff Attorney Steven Widerman or Staff Attorney Marvin Shaw, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. Overview

    NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, incorporated as Appendix B to part 701 of its regulations (“Chartering Manual”),1 implements the field of membership (“FOM”) requirements established by the Federal Credit Union Act (“the Act”) for federal credit unions (each an “FCU”).2 An FOM consists of those persons and entities eligible for membership according to an FCU's type of charter.

    1 Appendix B to 12 CFR part 701 (“Appendix B”).

    2 12 U.S.C. 1759.

    In adopting the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 (“CUMAA”), Congress reiterated its longstanding support for credit unions, noting their “specif[ic] mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.” 3 As amended by CUMAA, the FCU Act provides a choice among three charter types: A single group sharing a single occupational or associational common bond; 4 a multiple common bond of groups that each have a distinct occupational or associational common bond among group members; 5 and a community common bond among “persons or organizations within a well-defined local community, neighborhood, or rural district.” 6

    3 Public Law 105-219, § 2, 112 Sta. 913 (Aug 7, 1998).

    4 12 U.S.C. 1759(b)(1).

    5Id. § 1759(b)(2)(A).

    6Id. § 1759(b)(3).

    As amended in 1998, the FCU Act directs the Board to define what constitutes a well-defined local community (“WDLC”), neighborhood, or rural district for purposes of “making any determination” regarding a community credit union,7 and to establish applicable criteria for any such determination.8 To qualify as a WDLC, neighborhood, or rural district, the Board requires the proposed area to have “specific geographic boundaries,” such as those of “a city, township, county (single or multiple portions of a county) or their political equivalent, school districts or a clearly identifiable neighborhood.” 9 The boundaries themselves may consist of political borders, streets, rivers, railroad tracks, or other static geographical features.10 The Board continues to emphasize interaction or common interests among residents within those boundaries as essential features of a local community.

    7Id. § 1759(g)(1)(A).

    8Id. § 1759(g)(1)(B).

    9 Appendix B, Ch. 2, section V.A.2.

    10 Appendix B, Ch. 2, section V.A.5.

    Until 2010, the Chartering Manual required FCUs to submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by documentation, that presents indicia of common interests or interaction among residents of a proposed community (the “narrative model”). In 2010, the Board abandoned the narrative model in favor of an objective model that gives credit unions a choice between two “presumptive communities” that each by definition qualifies as a WDLC (the “presumptive community model”).11 The first of these is a “Single Political Jurisdiction . . . or any contiguous portion thereof” (each an “SPJ”), regardless of population.12 The other is a single Core Based Statistical Area as designated by the U.S. Census Bureau (“Census”) or a well-defined portion thereof (each a “CBSA”), subject to a 2.5 million population limit.13

    11 As explained in the final rule that discontinued use of the subjective model, the Board “does not believe it is beneficial to continue the practice of permitting a community charter applicant to provide a narrative statement with documentation to support the credit union's assertion that an area containing multiple political jurisdictions meets the standards for community interaction and/or common interests to qualify as a WDLC. As [the proposed rule] noted, the narrative approach is cumbersome, difficult for credit unions to fully understand, and time consuming. . . . While not every area will qualify as a WDLC under the statistical approach, NCUA stated it believes the consistency of this objective approach will enhance its chartering policy, assure the strength and viability of community charters, and greatly ease the burden for any community charter applicant.” 75 FR 36257, 36260 (June 25, 2010).

    12 Appendix B, Ch. 2, section V.A.2.

    13Id. “A total population cap of 2.5 million is appropriate in a multiple political jurisdiction context to demonstrate cohesion in the community.” 75 FR 36257, 36260 (June 25, 2010).

    In the case of a CBSA that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has subdivided into metropolitan divisions, a community consisting of a portion of the CBSA must conform to the boundaries of such divisions. Under either “presumptive community” option, an FCU must be able to serve its entire proposed community, as demonstrated by its business and marketing plans that must accompany an application to approve a new community charter, an expansion or a conversion.14

    14 Appendix B, Ch. 2, § V.A.4.

    In a final rule published elsewhere in this volume of the Federal Register, the Board comprehensively overhauled the Chartering Manual. With respect to community charters, the final rule, among other things, affirmed the 2.5 million population cap that applies to a “presumptive community” consisting of a CBSA or portion thereof,15 and recognized an OMB-designated Combined Statistical Area or a portion thereof as a “presumptive community” subject to the same population limit.16

    15 The final rule also modified the “statistical area” definition to specify that in the case of a community consisting of a portion of either a CBSA or a Metropolitan Division within, the portion by itself must have a population of 2.5 million or fewer, regardless whether the CBSA or Metropolitan Division as a whole exceeds the limit. Appendix B, Ch. 2, section V.A.2.

    16 Appendix B, Ch. 2, § V.A.2. OMB Bulletin No. 15-01 to Heads of Executive Departments and Establishments (July 15, 2015) at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2015/15-01.pdf.

    The final rule also permitted the addition of an adjacent area to an existing “presumptive community” based on a narrative presenting indicia that residents on both sides of the perimeter share common interests and interact with each other, subject to the same population limit. The Board narrowly reinstated the narrative model for this singular purpose. To achieve that purpose, the final rule directed the Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Access (“OCFPA”) to issue guidance identifying indicia corresponding to the criteria that an FCU's narrative should address to support the addition of an adjacent area,17 and which the Board will consider in deciding an FCU's application to do so.

    17 80 FR 76748, 76772 (Dec. 10, 2015) (referring to the presence of an economic hub, quasi-governmental agencies, Government designated programs, shared public services and facilities, and colleges and universities).

    B. Why is NCUA proposing this rule?

    NCUA is proposing this rule to consider three recommendations from commenters that exceeded the scope of the Board's 2015 proposal to comprehensively overhaul the Chartering Manual.18 First, despite the ease and convenience of the “presumptive community” model as a safe harbor to establish a WDLC, it may be too limiting if it confines FCUs to “presumptive community” options that may be unsuited to their purposes and ability, leaving them with no recourse but to accept an area other than the one they ideally seek to serve. General use of the narrative model in seeking approval to charter, to expand, or to convert to, a community charter would address such a dilemma.

    18 80 FR 76748.

    Second, the Board seeks to explore the possibility of increasing up to 10 million the population limit that applies to a local community other than an SPJ, to permit approval of a community within that maximum to the extent of an FCU's ability and commitment to adequately serve that community without compromising either the safety and soundness of the FCU's operations or the cohesion of the community.19

    19See note 13 supra.

    Finally, when an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a Combined Statistical Area as its WDLC, that portion is not required to conform to the boundaries of the CBSA components that form the Combined Statistical Area. In contrast, when an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a CBSA as its community—notwithstanding that a CBSA is far more compact than a Combined Statistical Area—the existing rule nonetheless requires such portion of a CBSA to conform to the boundaries of the metropolitan divisions within, if any. Permitting a credit union to designate a portion of a CBSA as its community without regard to division boundaries would address this disparity in treatment of a community consisting of a portion of a CBSA versus that of a Combined Statistical Area.

    Consistent with the Board's responsibility under CUMAA to facilitate access to credit union services, the objective of the three proposals in this rule is to give FCUs greater flexibility in providing services to consumers who are eligible for FCU membership, particularly those of modest means.

    II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. General Applicability of Narrative Model To Establish a Well-Defined Local Community

    The proposed rule would permit general use of the narrative model—which the final rule makes available solely to add an adjacent area to an existing or a new community 20 —to seek NCUA approval to initially form, to expand, or to convert to, a community charter. In lieu of reliance on a “presumptive community,” the proposed rule would permit an FCU to submit a narrative, supported by appropriate documentation, to demonstrate that the community it proposes to serve qualifies as a WDLC based on common interests or interaction among the area's residents.

    20 Appendix B, Ch. 2, § V.A.2.

    The Act gives the Board broad discretion to define a WDLC for purposes of “making any determination” regarding a community credit union,21 and to establish criteria to apply to any such determination.22 Under that authority, the Board proposes, in a new appendix to the Chartering Manual, a set of “Narrative Criteria to Identify a Well-Defined Local Community” that an FCU should address in the narrative it submits to support its application to charter, expand, or convert to, a community credit union.

    21 12 U.S.C. 1759(g)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

    22Id. § 1759(g)(1)(B).

    NCUA's experience with community charter applications under the pre-2010 narrative model indicates that these particular thirteen criteria generally were the most useful and compelling, when properly addressed and documented, to demonstrate common interests or interaction among residents of a proposed community. An area need not meet all of the narrative criteria to qualify as a local community; rather, the totality of circumstances within the criteria a credit union elects to address must indicate a sufficient presence of common interests or interaction among the area's residents. The new appendix explains each criterion in order to guide applicants in the prudent use of their resources, with minimal burden, to assess whether an area qualifies as a local community and, if so, to develop an effective and well-documented narrative to justify Board approval of its application.23

    23 Appendix 6 to Appendix B.

    Accordingly, the Board will consider the following criteria, and the supporting documentation for each, in evaluating the presence of interaction and/or common interest among residents sufficient to establish that an area is a WDLC:

    1. Presence of a Central Economic Hub

    The proposed community includes an economic hub. An economic hub is evident when one political jurisdiction (city or county) within a proposed local community has a relatively large percentage of the community's population or is the primary location for employment. The application needs to identify the major employers and their locations within the proposed community.

    2. Community-Wide Quasi-Governmental Agency Services

    The existence of organizations such as economic development commissions, regional planning boards, and labor or transportation districts can be important factors to consider. The more closely their service area matches the entire area, the greater the showing of interaction and/or common interests.

    3. Governmental Designations With Community

    Designation of the proposed community by a government agency as a region or distinct district—such a regional transportation district, a water district, or a tourism district—is a factor that can be considered in determining whether the area is a local community. The more closely the designation matches the area's geographic boundaries, the greater the value of that evidence in demonstrating interaction and/or common interests.

    4. Shared Public Services and Facilities

    The existence of shared services and facilities, such as police, fire protection, park districts, public transportation, airports, or public utilities, can contribute to a finding that an area is a community. The more closely the service area matches the geographic boundaries of the community, and the higher the percentage of residents throughout the community using those services or facilities, the more valuable the data.

    5. Hospitals and Major Medical Facility Services

    Data on medical facilities should include admittance or discharge statistics providing the ratio of use by residents of each political jurisdiction. The greater the percentage of use by residents throughout the proposed community, the higher the value of this data in showing interaction. The application can also support the importance of an area hospital with documentation that correlates the facility's target area with the proposed local community and/or discusses the relative distribution of hospitals over a larger area.

    6. College and University Enrollment

    College enrollment data can be a useful factor in establishing a local community. The higher the percentages of student enrollment at a given campus by residents throughout each part of the community, the greater the value in showing interaction. Additionally, the greater the participation by the college in community initiatives (e.g., partnering with local governments), and the greater the service area of these initiatives, the stronger the value of this factor.

    7. Multi-Jurisdictional Mutual Aid Agreements

    The existence of written agreements among law enforcement and fire protection agencies in the area to provide services across multiple jurisdictions can be an important factor.

    8. Organizations' and Clubs' Membership and Services

    The more closely the service area of an organization or club matches the proposed community's boundaries, and the greater the percentage of membership and services throughout the proposed community, the more relevant the data.

    9. Newspaper Subscriptions

    A newspaper that has a substantial subscription base in an area can be an indication of common interests. The higher the household penetration figures throughout the area, the greater the value in showing common interests. Subscription data may include print copies as well as on-line access.

    10. Attendance at Entertainment and Sporting Events

    Data to show the percentage of residents from each political jurisdiction who attend the events. The higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction. For sporting events, as well as some entertainment events, data on season ticket holders and memberships may be available. As with overall attendance figures, the higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction.

    11. Local Television and Radio Audiences

    A television or radio station broadcasting in an area can be an indication of common interests. Objective data on viewer and listener audiences in the proposed community can support the existence of a community.

    12. Community-Wide Shopping Patterns

    The narrative must identify the location of the major shopping centers and malls and include the percentage of shoppers coming from each part of the community. The larger the percentage of shoppers from throughout the community, the stronger the case for interaction. While of lesser value than the shopping data, identification of the shopping center's target area can be persuasive. The target area should closely match the geographic boundaries of the proposed community.

    13. Geographic Isolation

    Some communities face varying degrees of geographic isolation. As such, travel outside the community can be limited by mountain ranges, forests, national parks, deserts, bodies of waters, etc. This factor, and the relative degree of isolation, may help bolster a finding of interaction or common interests.

    B. Increase in Statistical Area Population Limit to 10 Million

    The proposed rule would increase to 10 million the 2.5 million population limit that presently applies to a community consisting of a CBSA or Combined Statistical Area (each a “statistical area”) or other area an FCU designates, subject to an FCU's ability and commitment to adequately serve the area. Despite having just affirmed a 2.5 million population limit, the Board anticipates that many areas that would qualify as a WDLC will experience population growth over time. The Board therefore believes that its policy should anticipate and accommodate inevitable growth, to the extent permissible under the Act, in order to maximize the potential membership base available to community credit unions.

    Three grounds justify a population limit of 10 million. First, it would conform to the population of the most populous SPJ the Board has approved (Los Angeles County) and, notwithstanding that an SPJ is not subject to a population cap, the FCU that serves that community has not experienced adverse safety or soundness consequences attributable to its population size.24

    24 The FCU that serves the Los Angeles County community has approximately 32,000 members, representing a community penetration rate of 3 percent.

    Second, the Board believes the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area must be sufficiently accommodating to minimize the disparity between such communities and those comprised of an SPJ, which is unbound by any population limit. Third, a 10 million population limit would narrow the inherent imbalance between the population cap that applies to FCUs and the uncapped state credit unions in at least the nine states with a population between 2.5 and 10 million. The laws of these states allow their credit unions to serve a state-wide FOM.

    To fully consider an increase in the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area, the Board seeks the benefit of public comments addressing the following issues affecting a statistical area—

    • Whether to apply any population limit at all if the area is completely or primarily urban according to Census data.

    • Whether to designate a particular metric on which to rely in setting and adjusting a population limit.

    • Whether to apply any population limit at all to a CBSA or Statistical Area given that neither one is defined, by the Census or OMB respectively, according to maximum population.

    • Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest SPJ NCUA has approved (i.e., Los Angeles County, as explained above).

    • Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to either the average or median population among either all CBSAs with a population in excess of 2.5 million, or all Combined Statistical Areas with population in excess of 2.5 million.

    • Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the greater of either 2.5 million or a specific percentage of the population of the CBSA or Combined Statistical Area, and if so, what the percentage should be.

    • Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest Metropolitan Statistical Area that is totally or partially encompassed by the proposed community.

    • Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest SPJ that is totally or partially encompassed by the proposed community.

    • Whether to apply a population limit that, to ensure service to persons of modest means, excludes individuals living in a household that either is low- or moderate-income; that earns less than 200 percent of the national poverty level; or in which the principal wage-earner earns no more than the federal minimum wage (based on a 40-hour work week for 50 weeks per year); or is based on a combination of these metrics.

    • Whether to delegate to NCUA staff the authority to set a population limit not exceeding a specified ceiling, and what that ceiling population should be (e.g., 2.5 million, 5 million, 10 million), with the Board retaining authority to approve a limit in excess of the delegated ceiling.

    • Whether to apply the same population limit regardless whether an FCU's initial application to charter, or to convert to, a community credit union includes an area adjacent to its statistical area, versus a subsequent application to expand an FCU's existing community to add such an adjacent area.

    • Whether NCUA should establish a process to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on an FCU's application for approval of a statistical area with a population in excess 2.5 million.

    • Whether, in view of technological advances since CUMAA, such as the internet, the Board should consider whether, and how, online social communities qualify as WDLCs.

    • Whether there are other definitions of “community” that would be a relevant gauge for community credit unions (e.g., the area's student population eligible to attend its local community college, the population eligible to benefit from its quasi-government agency services and facilities).

    • Whether to reinstate the narrative model for use by FCUs seeking approval serve a statistical area within certain population parameters (e.g., between 2.5 and 10 million).

    • Whether to discard the “presumptive community” model and reinstate the narrative model for general applicability, or to give FCUs the option to elect either model to support the area each proposes to serve as its community.

    • Whether to add certain criteria to, or to delete or modify certain ones from, the new appendix of “Narrative Criteria to Identify a Well-Defined Local Community,” and how to evaluate the narrative criteria to determine whether an area qualifies as a WDLC.

    C. Portion of CBSA as a Well-Defined Local Community Regardless of Internal Boundaries

    When an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a single CBSA as its WDLC, the existing rule requires such portion to conform to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Divisions, if any, within the CBSA. In contrast, when an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a Combined Statistical Area as its WDLC—notwithstanding that it is far more expansive than a CBSA—that portion is not required to conform to the boundaries of the adjoining CBSAs that form a Combined Statistical Area, nor to the boundaries of any Metropolitan Divisions within those CBSAs. To correct this inconsistency in the treatment of a portion of a CBSA versus that of a Combined Statistical Area, the proposed rule would permit a credit union to designate a portion of a CBSA as its community without regard to division boundaries.

    III. Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.25 For purposes of this analysis, NCUA considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets.26 Although this rule is anticipated to economically benefit FCUs that choose to charter, expand or convert to a community charter, NCUA certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on small credit unions.

    25 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    26 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to collections of information through which an agency creates a paperwork burden on regulated entities or the public, or modifies an existing burden.27 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the current information collection requirements for the Chartering and Field of Membership Manual and assigned them control number 3133-0015.

    27 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

    Regarding a community common bond, the proposed rule gives community charter applicants the option, in lieu of a presumptive community, to submit a narrative to establish common interests and interaction among residents of the area it proposes to serve, thus qualifying the area as a well-defined local community. For that purpose, the rule includes guidance in identifying compelling indicia of interaction or common interests that would be relevant in drafting a narrative summarizing the indicia that community residents meet the requirements of a well-defined local community. In addition, the proposed rule increases to as much as 10 million the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area, and when such an area is subdivided into Metropolitan Divisions, the rule permits a credit union to designate a portion of the area as its community without regard to division boundaries.

    NCUA has determined that the procedure for an FCU to assemble and document a narrative summarizing the evidence to support its community charter application would create a new information collection requirement. As required, NCUA is applying to OMB for approval to amend the current information collection to account for the new procedure.

    Prior to 2010, when NCUA moved to an objective model of presumptive communities, FCUs had the following three choices for a community charter: Previously approved areas; single political jurisdictions; and multiple political jurisdictions. For applications involving multiple statistical areas, NCUA required FCUs to submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by documentation, that presents indicia of common interests or interaction among residents of the proposed community.

    In the five-year period preceding the move to an objective model of presumptive communities, NCUA processed an average of twenty-five FOM applications involving multiple statistical areas. Based on this historical trend, NCUA estimates that, on average, it would take an FCU's staff approximately 160 hours to collect the evidence of interaction or common interests and to develop a narrative to support its application to expand or to convert. Accordingly, NCUA estimates the aggregate information collection burden on existing and would-be FCUs that elect to use the narrative option to form, expand, or convert to a community charter would be 160 hours times 25 FCUs for a total of 4,000 hours. NCUA is proposing to amend the current information collection control number 3133-0015 to account for these additional burden hours.

    Organizations and individuals wishing to submit comments on this information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Shagufta Ahmed, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    NCUA will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:

    • Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • Evaluating the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimizing the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. Primarily because this rule applies to FCUs exclusively, it will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

    Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.28

    28 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701

    Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701, Appendix B as follows:

    PART 701—ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 3601-3610. Section 701.35 is also authorized by 42 U.S.C. 4311-4312.

    2. Appendix B to part 701 is amended as follows: a. Section V.A.2. of Chapter 2 is revised. b. Appendix 6 to Appendix B is added.

    The revision and addition read as follows:

    Appendix B to Part 701—Chartering and Field of Membership Manual V.A.2—Definition of Well-Defined Local Community and Rural District

    In addition to the documentation requirements in Chapter 1 to charter a credit union, a community credit union applicant must provide additional documentation addressing the proposed area to be served and community service policies.

    An applicant has the burden of demonstrating to NCUA that the proposed community area meets the statutory requirements of being: (1) Well-defined, and (2) a local community or rural district.

    “Well-defined” means the proposed area has specific geographic boundaries. Geographic boundaries may include a city, township, county (single, multiple, or portions of a county) or a political equivalent, school districts, or a clearly identifiable neighborhood. Although state boundaries are well-defined areas, states themselves do not meet the requirement that the proposed area be a local community.

    The well-defined local community requirement is met if:

    • Single Political Jurisdiction—The area to be served is a recognized Single Political Jurisdiction, i.e., a city, county, or their political equivalent, or any single portion thereof.

    • Statistical Area—A statistical area is all or an individual portion of one of the following:

    • A Core-Based Statistical Area designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, including a Metropolitan Statistical Area, with a population of 10 million or fewer; or

    • A Combined Statistical Area designated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, with a population of 10 million or fewer.

    • To meet the well-defined local community requirement, an individual portion of a statistical area need not conform to internal boundaries within the area, such as metropolitan division boundaries within a Core-Based Statistical Area, and the boundaries of adjoining Core-Based Statistical Areas that form a Combined Statistical Area.

    • Compelling Evidence of Interaction or Common Interests—In lieu of a statistical area as defined above, this option is available when a credit union seeks to initially charter a community credit union; to expand an existing community; or to convert to a community charter, subject in any case to the same population limit established for a statistical area. Under this option, the credit union must demonstrate a sufficient level of interaction or common interests among area residents to qualify the area as a local community. For that purpose, an applicant must submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by appropriate documentation, establishing that the area's residents meet the requirements of a local community.

    To assist a credit union in developing its narrative, Appendix 6 of this Manual identifies criteria a narrative should address, and which NCUA will consider in deciding a credit union's application to: Initially charter a community credit union; to expand an existing community, including by an adjacent area addition; or to convert to a community charter. In any case, the credit union must demonstrate, through its business and marketing plans, its ability and commitment to serve the entire community for which it seeks NCUA approval.

    Appendix 6 Narrative Criteria To Identify a Well-Defined Local Communty

    This Appendix applies when the community a federal credit union (“FCU”) proposes to serve is not a “presumptive community”, under either option in chapter 2, section V.A.2. of Appendix B to Part 701, and thus would not qualify as a well-defined local community (“WDLC”). In that event, this Appendix prescribes the criteria an FCU should address in the narrative it develops and submits to the Board to demonstrate that residents of the community it proposes to serve share common interests and/or interact with each other. The narrative should address the criteria below as the FCU deems appropriate, as well as any other criteria it believes are persuasive, to establish to the Board's satisfaction the presence, among residents of the proposed community, of indicia of common interests and/or interaction sufficient to qualify the area as a WDLC.

    1. Central Economic Hub

    The proposed community includes an economic hub. An economic hub is evident when one political jurisdiction (city or county) within a proposed local community has a relatively large percentage of the community's population or is the primary location for employment. The application needs to identify the major employers and their locations within the proposed community.

    Most Persuasive At least 25 percent of the workers living in the proposed community commute to work in the central economic hub. Persuasive Over 15 percent of the workers living in the proposed community commute to work in the central economic hub. Not Persuasive Less than 15 percent of the workers living in the proposed community commute to work in the central economic hub. 2. Quasi-Governmental Agencies

    The existence of organizations such as economic development commissions, regional planning boards, and labor or transportation districts can be important factors to consider. The more closely their service area matches the entire area, the greater the showing of interaction and/or common interests.

    Most Persuasive The quasi-governmental agency covers the proposed community exclusively and in its entirety, derives its leadership from the area, represents collaboration that transcends traditional county boundaries, and has meaningful objectives that advance the residents' common interests in economic development and/or improving quality of life. Persuasive The quasi-governmental agency substantially matches the proposed community and carries out objectives that affect the relevant common interests for the entire area's residents. Not Persuasive The quasi-governmental agency does not match the proposed community and carries out only incidentally relevant objectives or carries out meaningful objectives in localized sections of the proposed community. 3. Governmental Designations

    Designation of the proposed community by a government agency as a region or distinct district—such a regional transportation district, a water district, or a tourism district—is a factor that can be considered in determining whether the area is a local community. The more closely the designation matches the area's geographic boundaries, the greater the value of that evidence in demonstrating interaction and/or common interests.

    Most Persuasive A division of a federal or state agency specifically designates the proposed service area as its area of coverage or as a target area for specific programs. Persuasive A division of a federal or state agency designates a regional area that includes the coverage area, but offers special programs tailored to the common interests shared by the residents of the proposed service area. Not Persuasive A division of a federal or state agency designates an area as a coverage area that encompasses several local communities. 4. Shared Public Services/Facilities

    The existence of shared services and facilities, such as police, fire protection, park districts, public transportation, airports, or public utilities, can contribute to a finding that an area is a community. The more closely the service area matches the geographic boundaries of the community, and the higher the percentage of residents throughout the community using those services or facilities, the more valuable the data.

    Most Persuasive Statistical evidence documents how residents from the entire proposed service area mutually benefit from a public facility.
  • Formal agreements exist that transcend traditional county lines and provide for a common need shared by all of the residents, such as common police or fire protection.
  • Persuasive Public facilities exist that cross county lines and cover the majority of the area's population, but do not cover the area in its entirety. Not Persuasive The applicant cites public facilities that serve areas that do not correlate with the proposed service area.
    5. Hospitals and Major Medical Facilities

    Data on medical facilities should include admittance or discharge statistics providing the ratio of use by residents of each political jurisdiction. The greater the percentage of use by residents throughout the proposed community, the higher the value of this data in showing interaction. The application can also support the importance of an area hospital with documentation that correlates the facility's target area with the proposed local community and/or discusses the relative distribution of hospitals over a larger area.

    Most Persuasive The applicant provides statistics demonstrating residents from throughout the proposed community use hospitals in the major population or employment center. Persuasive Statistical data are not available, but the application demonstrates through other documentation a medical facility is the only viable option for a significant portion of the proposed community's residents. Not Persuasive The area has multiple health care facilities at geographically dispersed locations with duplicative services. 6. Colleges and Universities

    College enrollment data can be a useful factor in establishing a local community. The higher the percentages of student enrollment at a given campus by residents throughout each part of the community, the greater the value in showing interaction. Additionally, the greater the participation by the college in community initiatives (e.g., partnering with local governments), and the greater the service area of these initiatives, the stronger the value of this factor.

    Most Persuasive The application provides statistical data showing the institutions of higher learning cited attract significant numbers of students from throughout the proposed community. Persuasive The statistical data regarding where students live is either inconclusive or unavailable. However, qualitative information exists to demonstrate the institutions' relevance to the entire proposed community, such as unique educational initiatives to support economic objectives benefiting all residents and/or partnerships with local businesses or high schools. Not Persuasive The statistical data tends to support the institutions recruit students from a broad based area transcending the proposed community's boundaries. 7. Mutual Aid Agreements

    The existence of written agreements among law enforcement and fire protection agencies in the area to provide services across multiple jurisdictions can be an important factor.

    Most Persuasive The mutual aid agreements cover the proposed community exclusively and in its entirety, represents collaboration that transcends political boundaries such as city or county limits. Persuasive The mutual aid agreements substantially matches the proposed community. Not Persuasive The mutual aid agreements do not match the proposed community. 8. Organizations and Clubs

    The more closely the service area of an organization or club matches the proposed community's boundaries, and the greater the percentage of membership and services throughout the proposed community, the more relevant the data.

    Most Persuasive Statistical data supports that organizations with meaningful objectives serve the entire proposed community. Persuasive Other qualitative documentation exists to support that organizations with meaningful objectives serve the entire proposed community. Not Persuasive The applicant lists organizations that either do not cover the proposed community in its entirety or have objectives that are too limited to have a meaningful impact on the residents' common interests. 9. Community Newspaper

    A newspaper that is widely read in an area can be an indication of common interests. The higher the household penetration circulation figures throughout the area, the greater the value in showing common interests. Circulation data may include print copies as well as on-line access.

    Most Persuasive Statistical evidence indicates a significant portion of residents from throughout the proposed community read the local general interest newspaper. The paper has local stories focusing on the proposed community and has a marketing target area consistent with the proposed community boundaries. Persuasive Local newspapers and periodicals specifically cater to the proposed community. Not Persuasive The area lacks a general newspaper that covers the proposed community. There are no specialized publications catering to the entire proposed community. 10. Entertainment and Sporting Events

    Data to show the percentage of residents from each political jurisdiction who attend the events. The higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction. For sporting events, as well as some entertainment events, data on season ticket holders and memberships may be available. As with overall attendance figures, the higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction.

    Most Persuasive Statistical data exist to support that the venue attracts residents from throughout the proposed community. Persuasive Statistical evidence is not available, but other qualitative information documents the importance the venue has for the proposed community. Not Persuasive The applicant lists local venues without discussing where users originate from or otherwise documenting the relevance for the residents of the entire area. 11. Local Television and Radio Stations

    A television or radio station broadcasting in an area can be an indication of common interests. Data on viewership or listenership in the proposed community can support the existence of a community.

    Most Persuasive Statistical evidence indicates a significant portion of residents from throughout the proposed community view or listen to the local television and radio stations. The media has local stories focusing on the proposed community and has a marketing target area consistent with the proposed community boundaries. Persuasive The television and radio stations provide news and sports coverage specifically catering to the proposed community. Not Persuasive The area lacks television or radio stations serving the proposed community. 12. Shopping

    The narrative must identify the location of the major shopping centers and malls and include the percentage of shoppers coming from each part of the community. The larger the percentage of shoppers from throughout the community, the stronger the case for interaction. While of lesser value than the shopping data, identification of the shopping center's target area can be persuasive. The target area should closely match the geographic boundaries of the proposed community.

    Most Persuasive The application provides statistics from a reliable third party source that demonstrates the major shopping facility cited in the application is the major shopping facility for the residents of the entire area. Persuasive The applicant provides documentation supporting how the area's shopping facilities cluster within the area's hub and residents do not have other realistic alternatives to meet their shopping needs. Not Persuasive The applicant lists large shopping facilities without providing statistics or other documentation that demonstrates relevance to the proposed community. 13. Geography

    Some communities face varying degrees of geographic isolation. As such, travel outside the community can be limited by mountain ranges, forests, national parks, deserts, bodies of waters, etc. This factor, and the relative degree of isolation, may help bolster a finding of interaction or common interests.

    Most Persuasive Area is geographically isolated and/or distinct from immediate surrounding area. Persuasive Area has geographic commonalities that influence other aspects of the residents' lives (i.e., tourism, allocation of government resources). Not Persuasive The area's geographic features do not appear to influence other social or economic characteristics of the area.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26921 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 Proposed Modification of the San Francisco, CA, Class B Airspace Area; Public Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces three fact-finding informal airspace meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others concerning a proposal to amend the Class B airspace area at San Francisco, CA. The purpose of these meetings is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on any proposed change to the airspace. All comments received during these meetings will be considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on Monday, January 30, 2017, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Tuesday January 31, 2017 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; and Wednesday February 1 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Doors open 30 minutes prior to the beginning of each meeting. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the following locations:

    January 30, 2017: Burlingame Public Library, Lane Room, 480 Primrose Rd., Burlingame, CA 94010 (Seating capacity: 80).

    January 31, 2017: Martin Luther King Library, Room 225, 150 E. San Fernando St., San Jose, CA 95112 (Seating capacity: 150).

    February 1, 2017: Port of Oakland Building, First-Floor Exhibit Room, 530 Water St., Oakland, CA 94607 (seating capacity: 70).

    Comments: Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to: Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057, or by fax to (425) 203-4505.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Coté, FAA Support Specialist, Northern California TRACON, 11365 Douglas Road, Mather, CA 95655, (916) 366-4001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Meeting Procedures

    (a) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Northern California TRACON. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned modification to the Class B airspace at San Francisco, CA. Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed to accommodate closing times. Only comments concerning the plan to modify the San Francisco Class B airspace will be accepted.

    (b) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available basis (seating capacity listed with addresses). There will be no admission fee to attend and participate.

    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter.

    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants wishing to submit handout material should present an original and two copies (three copies total) to the presiding officer. There should be additional copies of each handout available for other attendees.

    (e) These meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a summary of comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.

    Agenda for the Meetings —Sign-in —Presentation of Meeting Procedures —Informal Presentation of the Planned Class B Airspace Area Modifications —Solicitation of Public Comments —Drop box for written comments 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27089 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Parts 33 and 35 [Docket Nos. RM09-16-000 and PL09-3-000] Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements Under the Federal Power Act AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and termination of rulemaking proceeding.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking, which proposed to amend its regulations pursuant to the Federal Power Act to grant blanket authorizations to acquire 10 percent or more, but less than 20 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a public utility or holding company and amend the definitions of “affiliate” in the Commission's regulations. The Commission is also terminating a proceeding on the Electric Power Supply Association's petition requesting guidance.

    DATES:

    The notice of proposed rulemaking published on January 28, 2010, at 75 FR 4498, is withdrawn as of November 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regine Baus (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8757.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. On January 21, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding.1 For the reasons set forth below, we are exercising our discretion to withdraw the NOPR and terminate this rulemaking proceeding.

    1Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and the Requirements of Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,650 (2010) (NOPR).

    I. Background

    2. On September 2, 2008, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed a petition requesting guidance regarding concepts of control and affiliation as they relate to Commission-jurisdictional transactions under sections 203 and 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).2 EPSA specifically requested that, where an investor directly or indirectly acquires 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent of a public utility's outstanding voting securities and is eligible to file a statement of beneficial ownership with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on SEC Schedule 13G,3 such investment would not be deemed to result in a disposition of the public utility's jurisdictional facilities under FPA section 203(a)(1) or to result in affiliation with the public utility for purposes of the Commission's market-based rate requirements under FPA section 205.

    2 Electric Power Supply Association, Petition for Guidance Regarding “Control” and “Affiliation”, Docket No. EL08-87-000 (filed Sept. 2, 2008) (Petition). The petition was originally docketed in Docket. No. EL08-87-000 but was subsequently redocketed in Docket No. PL09-3-000. Elec. Power Supply Ass'n, Notice Redocketing Proceeding, Docket Nos. EL08-87-000 and PL09-3-000 (Nov. 5, 2008).

    3 Schedule 13G is filed with the SEC pursuant to section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. (1934 Act), and the SEC's rules thereunder, by any person when such person has acquired beneficial ownership of more than five percent but less than 20 percent of the outstanding voting equity securities of a company that are registered under section 12 of and the 1934 Act and such person certifies that it has not acquired, and does not hold, such securities for the purpose of or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the issuer. Amendments to Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements, File No. S7-16-96, 1998 SEC LEXIS 63, at * 17 n. 20 (Jan. 12, 1998).

    3. Commission staff held a workshop to address the issues raised by EPSA in its request. Comments were submitted in response to the workshop. In the course of considering the comments submitted and the discussions at the workshop, the Commission determined that the issues may call for more formal treatment and issued the NOPR in light of the comments and discussions.

    4. In the NOPR, in connection with EPSA's proposal to rely on the filing of SEC Schedule 13G to demonstrate conclusively that an investor will not control the public utility in which it has invested, the Commission stated that while it has relied on these filings, in conjunction with other conditions and reporting requirements in the past for various purposes, it believed the Commission could better fulfill its statutory responsibilities if it did not rely exclusively on the Schedule 13G. The Commission stated that the primary regulatory purpose behind the beneficial ownership disclosure requirements under section 13(d) of the 1934 Act is to provide companies and their shareholders with information about large accumulations of a company's stock and that the requirements of section 13(d) do not bar an investor from acquiring control of a company, which is of utmost importance to this Commission.4

    4See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,650 at P 35.

    5. With these concerns in mind, the Commission provided an alternative proposal in the NOPR. The Commission first proposed to amend part 33 of its regulations to grant a blanket authorization under section 203(a)(2) of the FPA, as well as a parallel blanket authorization under section 203(a)(1), for acquisitions of 10 percent or more, but less than 20 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a public utility or holding company, where the acquiring company files a statement certifying that such securities were not acquired and not held for the purpose or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the public utility and such acquiring company complies with certain conditions designed to limit its ability to exercise control (Affirmation). Under the proposed amendment to part 33, a public utility whose voting securities are acquired, directly or indirectly, in any such transaction would be exempt from the requirements of an “affiliate” in part 35. The Commission also proposed to amend subpart H and subpart I of part 35 of the Commission's regulations to define an “affiliate” of a specified company as any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such specified company.

    6. The Commission received several comments in response to the proposal in the NOPR. A number of commenters raised concerns about the scope of the proposal, including the content of the proposed Affirmation and the commitments that the Commission proposed an acquiring company would need to agree to. Commenters also raised concerns regarding implementation of the proposal.

    II. Discussion

    7. Upon further consideration and after review of the comments received in response to the NOPR, we will withdraw the NOPR and terminate this proceeding. We also terminate the proceeding on EPSA's Petition requesting guidance in Docket No. PL09-3-000.

    8. As noted above, in the course of considering the discussions at the workshop to address the issues raised by EPSA in its Petition and the comments received following the workshop, the Commission determined that the issues may call for more formal treatment and issued the NOPR. We appreciate the feedback that the Commission received in response to the NOPR. As previously indicated, the comments submitted raised concerns regarding the scope and implementation of the proposal. Having considered these comments, we are persuaded to not seek to adopt the Affirmation and blanket authorization that the Commission originally proposed.

    9. As a result, we withdraw the NOPR and terminate this rulemaking proceeding. We also terminate the proceeding on EPSA's Petition requesting guidance in Docket No. PL09-3-000.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: October 28, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26540 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 20 CFR Part 220 RIN 3220-AB68 Providing Evidence of Disability AGENCY:

    Railroad Retirement Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to amend our regulations regarding the submission of evidence in disability claims to require you to inform us or submit all evidence known to you that “relates to” your disability claims with exceptions for privileged communications and duplicates. This requirement would include the duty to submit all evidence obtained from any source in its entirety, subject to one of these exceptions. These modifications to our regulations would better describe your duty to submit all evidence that relates to your disability claim and will enable us to have a more complete case record which will allow us to make more accurate determinations of your disability status.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by [3220-AB68], by any of the following three methods—Internet, fax, or mail. Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to RIN number 3220-AB68.

    Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available as comments are posted without change, with any personal information provided. We strongly urge you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers or medical information.

    1. Internet: Email comments to the Secretary to the Board at [email protected]

    2. Fax: Fax comments to (312) 751-7102.

    3. Mail: Address your comments to the Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.

    Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2092, (312) 751-4945, TTD (312) 751-4701.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Railroad Retirement Act (Act) gives the Railroad Retirement three member Board (Board) the authority to issue regulations governing the production of evidence used to adjudicate both occupational disability and total and permanent disability claims under the Act.1

    1See 45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(2) and (3).

    There has been recent interest by members of Congress in ensuring that Railroad Retirement disability benefits are reserved for only those who are truly disabled under either the standards of the occupational disability or total and permanent disability programs.2 Additionally, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has recently published new regulations requiring the comprehensive submission of all evidence known to the claimant that `relates to' the claimant's disability claims with exceptions for privileged communications and duplicates. Previously, Social Security disability claimants were required to submit evidence that was `material' to the disability determination. The effect of the SSA's new regulations is to require that claimants submit evidence that is both favorable and unfavorable to their claims.3

    2 See, e.g., Is the Railroad Retirement Board Doing Enough to Protect Against Fraud? Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform: Subcommittee on Government Operations, 114th Cong. (2015), https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/5/1/daily-digest.

    3 Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims, 80 FR 14828, March 20, 2015.

    The analogy between total and permanent disability under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social Security Act (SS Act) is well-established. See, e.g. Webb v. Railroad Retirement Board, 358 F. 2d 451 (6th Cir. 1966); Peppers v. Railroad Retirement Board, 728 F. 2d 404 (7th Cir. 1984); Goodwin v. Railroad Retirement Board, 546 F. 2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1977).

    Additionally, the Railroad Retirement Board's (RRB) occupational disability program incorporates the records requirements of the total and permanent disability program.4 The SSA's regulations specify a broader scope for claimants when providing records in support of his or her disability claim than the RRB's current regulations. Revising the RRB's regulations would allow the RRB to similarly obtain more complete case records and adjudicate disability claims more precisely.

    4 See 20 CFR 222.12.

    Proposed Changes Providing Evidence of Disability

    We propose to revise § 220.45(a) to require you to inform the Board about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to your claimed disability.5 The RRB's current regulations require that the “[t]he claimant for a disability annuity is responsible for providing evidence of the claimed disability and the effect of the disability on the ability to do work.” 20 CFR 220.45(a). Additionally, RRB's regulations require that “[t]he claimant must provide medical evidence showing that he or she has an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time the claimant claims to be disabled.” 20 CFR 220.45(b).

    5 Under the Act, a claimant will be considered to be occupationally disabled if he or she has a current connection to the railroad industry and a permanent physical and mental condition such as to be disabling for work in his or her regular occupation. 45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)(iv). A claimant will be considered to be totally and permanently disabled if his or her permanent physical or mental condition is such that he or she is unable to engage in any regular employment. 45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)(v).

    The RRB's regulations further state that the Board may ask the claimant to provide evidence about his or her- (1) Age; (2) Education and training; (3) Work experience; (4) Daily activities both before and after the date the claimant says that he or she became disabled; (5) Efforts to work; and (6) Any other evidence showing how the claimant's impairment(s) affects his or her ability to work.” 20 CFR 220.45(b)(1) through (6).

    The proposed rule would amend § 220.45(a) by adding “you must inform the Board about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to the claimed disability. This duty is ongoing and requires you to disclose any additional related evidence about which you become aware. This duty applies at each level of the administrative review process, including the appeals level, if the evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the hearings officer's decision.”

    The proposed rule would also amend § 220.45(b) by expanding the explanation of the kinds of evidence to be submitted and excluding certain information protected by attorney-client privilege or by the attorney work product doctrine.

    Clarity of This Proposed Rule

    Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your comments on how to make it easier to understand.

    For example:

    • Are the requirements for the rule clearly stated?

    • Have we organized the material to meet your needs?

    • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

    • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

    • Would a different format make the rule easier to understand?

    When will we start to use this rule?

    We will not use this proposed rule until we evaluate public comments and publish a final rule in the Federal Register. All final rules we issue include an effective date. We will continue to use our current rules until that date. If we publish a final rule, we will include a summary of relevant comments we received, if any, and responses to them. We will also include an explanation of how we will apply the new rule.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This NPRM imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance.

    List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 220

    Disability benefits, Railroad retirement.

    The Railroad Retirement Board proposes to amend title 20, chapter II, subchapter F, part 220 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 220 DETERMINING DISABILITY 1. The authority citation for part 220 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    45 U.S.C. 231a(1); 45 U.S.C. 231f.

    2. Revise § 220.45 to read as follows:
    § 220.45 Providing evidence of disability.

    (a) General. You are responsible for providing all evidence of the claimed disability and the effect of the disability on your ability to work. You must inform the Board about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to the claimed disability. This duty is ongoing and requires you to disclose any additional related evidence about which you become aware. This duty applies at each level of the administrative review process, including the appeals level, if the evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the hearings officer's decision. The Board will assist you, when necessary, in obtaining the required evidence. At its discretion, the Board will arrange for an examination by a consultant at the expense of the Board as explained in §§ 220.50 and 220.51.

    (b) Kind of evidence. (1) You must provide medical evidence proving that you have an impairment(s) and how severe it is during the time you claim to be disabled. The Board will consider only impairment(s) you claim to have or about which the Board receives evidence. Before deciding your disability status, the Board will develop a complete medical history (i.e., evidence from the records of the your medical sources) covering at least the preceding 12 months, unless you say that your disability began less than 12 months before you filed an application. The Board will make every reasonable effort to help you in getting medical reports from your own medical sources when you give the Board permission to request them. Every reasonable effort means that the Board will make an initial request and, after 20 days, one follow-up request to your medical source to obtain the medical evidence necessary to make a determination before the Board evaluates medical evidence obtained from another source on a consultative basis. The medical source will have 10 days from the follow-up request to reply (unless experience indicates that a longer period is advisable in a particular case). In order to expedite processing, the Board may order a consultative exam from a non-treating source while awaiting receipt of medical source evidence. If the Board asks you to do so, you must contact the medical sources to help us get the medical reports.

    (2) Exceptions. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, evidence does not include:

    (i) Oral or written communications between you and your representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or

    (ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's “analysis of your claim,” means information that is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits (See paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section).

    (iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section apply to communications between you and your non-attorney representative only if the communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney.

    (iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client that are related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories, mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits. For example, if you tell your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations, your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form, regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of the report.

    (c) Your responsibility. You must inform us about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to whether or not you are blind or disabled. When you submit evidence received from another source, you must submit that evidence in its entirety, unless you previously submitted the same evidence to us or we instruct you otherwise. The Board may also ask you to provide evidence about:

    (1) Your age;

    (2) Your education and training;

    (3) Your work experience;

    (4) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;

    (5) Your efforts to work; and

    (6) Any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work. (In §§ 220.125 through 220.134, we discuss in more detail the evidence the Board needs when it considers vocational factors.)

    Dated: November 3, 2016.

    By Authority of the Board.

    Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27060 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0799] RIN 1625-AA87 Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Technical correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to correct a misstatement and typographical error in a previous Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). A sentence in the summary of that document erroneously stated that the Coast Guard was considering removing a security zone around Liberty State Park and Ellis Island, while the document itself merely discussed the possibility of modifying the zone, not removing it.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material regarding the ANPRM must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number [USCG-2016-0799] using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the ANPRM for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this technical correction, call or email Ari Scott, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (202) 372-3860, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 3, 2016, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM which discussed the possibility of modifying the security zone around Liberty State Park and Ellis Island (81 FR 76545). On page 76545, in the second column, correct the second sentence of the Summary to read: “The proposed modification of the security zone would increase navigational safety in New York Harbor by allowing vessels to transit under the Ellis Island Bridge, rather than being required to transit the Anchorage Channel.”

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Katia Kroutil, Office Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27037 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 440 [CMS-2404-NC] RIN 0938-ZB33 Medicaid Program; Request for Information (RFI): Federal Government Interventions To Ensure the Provision of Timely and Quality Home and Community Based Services AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    This request for information seeks information and data on additional reforms and policy options that we can consider to accelerate the provision of home and community-based services (HCBS) to Medicaid beneficiaries taking into account issues affecting beneficiary choice and control, program integrity, ratesetting, quality infrastructure, and the homecare workforce.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, refer to file code CMS-2404-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2404-NC, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244-8013.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2404-NC, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Harris, (410) 786-3397.

    Jodie Anthony, (410) 786-5903.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Introduction

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and states have worked for decades to support increased availability and provision of quality home and community-based services (HCBS) for Medicaid beneficiaries. HCBS provide individuals who need assistance such as personal care, respite care, and many other services the opportunity to receive those services in their own homes or in the community versus institutional settings. Over time, the provision of HCBS has increased significantly, to the extent that Medicaid spending on HCBS now exceeds spending on institutional services. Efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS') Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce the community integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999),1 the creation of additional HCBS statutory options for states, and grant programs such as the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration, have been central factors driving this progress. In addition, we have promulgated regulations to adopt requirements for HCBS settings that incorporate community integration principles,2 established a new quality oversight framework for HCBS waivers, and promoted quality measurement and other innovations related to HCBS through new initiatives such as the Testing Experience and Functional Tools (TEFT) grant and the Balancing Incentive Program.

    1https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_about.htm.

    2 The State Plan and Home and Community-Based Services, 5-Year Period for Waivers, etc. final rule (79 FR 2947) can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/16/2014-00487/medicaid-program-state-plan-home-and-community-based-services-5-year-period-for-waivers-provider.

    Through this RFI, we seek input from the public on ways that CMS can, through its statutory authority, accelerate this progress. We also seek input into how best to ensure high quality HCBS that promote the health and well-being of beneficiaries, enhance policies that ensure the integrity of such services and protect beneficiaries from harm, and address workforce challenges particular to this set of services, such as wages, training and retention. This is a request for information only. Respondents are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions outlined in section II. of this RFI. Please note that a response to every question is not required. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal, application, proposal abstract, or quotation. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this RFI announcement for additional information pertaining to this request. Please note that we will not respond to questions about the policy issues raised in this RFI. We may or may not choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would only serve to further clarify written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review RFI responses. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

    To assist the public, the RFI provides background on the history and current status of HCBS, the dynamics that affect the provision of HCBS, and actions we have taken to implement HCBS in the context of expanded Medicaid authority and increased public demand. In addition, it solicits input on the following general topic areas, described in more detail later in this RFI, to inform the agency's future decision-making on actions to be taken within its statutory authority:

    • What are the additional reforms that CMS can take to accelerate the progress of access to HCBS and achieve an appropriate balance of HCBS and institutional services in the Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) system to meet the needs and preferences of beneficiaries?

    • What actions can CMS take, independently or in partnership with states and stakeholders, to ensure quality of HCBS including beneficiary health and safety?

    • What program integrity safeguards should states have in place to ensure beneficiary safety and reduce fraud, waste and abuse in HCBS?

    • What are specific steps CMS could take to strengthen the HCBS home care workforce, including establishing requirements, standards or procedures to ensure rates paid to home care providers are sufficient to attract enough providers to meet service needs of beneficiaries and that wages supported by those rates are sufficient to attract enough qualified home care workers.

    II. Background A. Historical Advances

    From the beginning of the Medicaid program in 1965, states were required to provide medically necessary, nursing facility care for most eligible individuals 21 or older.3 Coverage for what is now considered HCBS was generally not included. Personal care services became an option for states to cover under their state Medicaid plans in 1975. In 1981, the Social Security Act (the Act) was amended to provide authority under section 1915(c) of the Act for the Secretary to waive certain provisions of the Medicaid statute to allow states to provide HCBS to eligible individuals who would otherwise require institutional services. Medicaid HCBS authority was expanded in 2005 and 2010, with the addition of an optional state plan HCBS benefit under section 1915(i) of the Act and the optional home and community-based attendant services and supports under section 1915(k) of the Act.

    3 Wenzlow, Audra, Steve Eiken and Kate Sredl. 2016. Improving the Balance: The Evolution of Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS), FY 1981-2014. Retrieved from https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/evolution-ltss-expenditures.pdf.

    Using these authorities, states, in partnership with the federal government, have developed a broad range of HCBS to provide alternatives to institutionalization for eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. Consistent with the preferences of many beneficiaries of where they would like to receive their care, the evolution of HCBS provision has been driven by federal statutory and policy changes, court decisions, and state initiatives as described later in this RFI.

    HCBS are a critical component of the Medicaid program, and are part of a larger framework of progress toward community integration of older adults and persons with disabilities that spans efforts across the federal government. Through a combination of state plan personal care services and home health services, and waivers in Medicaid, over 3.2 million beneficiaries received HCBS in calendar year (CY) 2012 4 including individuals who are elderly and individuals with a developmental disability, physical disability, traumatic brain injury, or behavioral health condition. This is a growth of almost 1 million individuals since 2002. In 2012, a total of 764,487 people received home health state plan services (in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC)); 944,507 received personal care state plan services (in the 32 states offering the benefit at that time); and almost 1.5 million were served through section 1915(c) waivers (in 47 states and DC). Likewise, HCBS expenditures have grown from less than 10 percent of approximately $13 billion in federal and state expenditures in fiscal year (FY) 1986 for all Medicaid LTSS, including nursing home expenditures,5 to more than 25 percent of Medicaid LTSS expenditures by the late 1990s. By FY 2014, 53 percent of the $152 billion spent nationally on Medicaid LTSS was for HCBS.

    4http://kff.org/medicaid/report/medicaid-home-and-community-based-services-programs-2012-data-update/.

    5 Wenzlow, Audra, Steve Eiken and Kate Sredl. 2016. Improving the Balance: The Evolution of Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS), FYs 1981-2014. Retrieved from https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/evolution-ltss-expenditures.pdf.

    As noted previously, coverage of HCBS was included in statutory waiver authority in 1981 under section 1915(c) of the Act to permit states to provide an alternative to care provided in institutions. The Secretary may waive certain Medicaid requirements and permit states to offer HCBS to meet the needs of people who would otherwise require institutional care. States have used HCBS waiver programs to provide numerous services designed to support beneficiaries in their homes and communities consistent with their person-centered plans of care. As a result of receiving waiver services, many beneficiaries have been able to achieve greater independence and community integration and have been able to exercise self-direction, personal choice, and control over services and providers.

    Considerable flexibility exists for states when proposing 1915(c) HCBS waivers. They can seek approval to offer services in only defined geographic areas of the state, “cap” enrollment of beneficiaries at a certain number, and maintain waiting lists. Further, services can be targeted based on the populations the state makes eligible for the waiver, such as individuals with a developmental disability, individuals who are elderly, or individuals with a physical disability or traumatic brain injury. HCBS waiver services specifically authorized under the statute include case management (that is, supports and service coordination), homemaker, home health aide, personal care, adult day health services, habilitation (both day and residential), and respite care. States can also propose “other” types of services that the Secretary may approve, including services that can assist in diverting or transitioning individuals from institutional settings into their homes and community. The statute requires that average estimated per capita expenditures for services provided under the waiver cannot exceed the average amount that would have been spent on waiver enrollees in institutions, absent the waiver.

    HCBS waiver authority has been pivotal in assisting beneficiaries to achieve community living goals. The passage of the ADA of 1990 and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) resulted in increased provision of Medicaid HCBS, as states sought to comply with those authorities. The ADA clarified that the “Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.” In Olmstead, the Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA prohibits the unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities, and public entities are required to provide community-based services to persons with disabilities when—(1) such services are appropriate; (2) the affected persons do not oppose community-based treatment; and (3) community-based services can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the entity and the needs of others who are receiving disability services from the entity. These obligations apply to states and, while the Medicaid program is not the sole avenue for a state to comply with these mandates, Medicaid provides states broad opportunities to obtain federal funding to support the offering of services and supports in home and community-based settings, within programmatic requirements.

    Significant progress in the realm of HCBS also occurred through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, (Pub. L. 109-171) with the creation of two new state plan options under the new section 1915(i) and (j) of the Act, as well as the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration 6 Grant (MFP). Section 1915(i) of the Act provides states the ability to furnish HCBS to individuals who require less than an institutional level of care (LOC) and who would otherwise not be eligible for HCBS under section 1915(c) waivers; section 1915(i) of the Act also allows states to provide state plan HCBS to those who are eligible for section 1915(c) waivers, under the eligibility group defined at section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XXII) of the Act. Section 1915(j) of the Act built upon the successes of the Cash & Counseling Demonstration and Evaluation that began in the late 1990s, allowing states to offer participants the ability to self-direct either state plan personal care services or state selected section 1915(c) waiver services without needing the authority of a section 1115 demonstration project. With the history and strength of the Real Choice Systems Change 7 grants as a foundation, which provided states with resources for administrative, program, financial, and regulatory infrastructure to increase community service provision, MFP assisted states in their efforts to reduce reliance on institutional care while developing community-based long-term care opportunities for individuals transitioning from institutional settings to homes in the community. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, section 1915(k) of the Act (Community First Choice) was added,8 offering increased federal matching funds for the provision of statewide home and community-based attendant services and supports. Services can be provided through an agency or a self-directed model. The Affordable Care Act also extended MFP,9 enhanced the 1915(i) state plan option,10 and established the Balancing Incentive Program,11 which provided financial incentives in the form of enhanced federal reimbursement to States to increase access to non-institutional LTSS.12

    6 Section 6071 of the Social Security Act can be accessed at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/comp2/F1090171.html.

    7https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/real-choice/index.html.

    8http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/2-28-11-Recent-Developments-In-Medicaid.pdf.

    9http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/2-28-11-Recent-Developments-In-Medicaid.pdf.

    10http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/SMD10015.pdf.

    11http://www.cms.gov/smdl/downloads/11-010.pdf.

    12 It is important to note that the Money Follows the Person and the Balancing Incentive Program initiatives are time-limited, and require Congressional action to continue their authorization. Specifically, Federal funding under the Balancing Incentive Program ended September 30, 2015, and MFP expired on September 30, 2016 (unused portions of state grant awards made in 2016 are available to the state until 2020).

    B. Present Status of HCBS

    The shift in funding to HCBS accounting for a majority of LTSS spending represents an important achievement, with a doubling of the percentage of LTSS provided in the community since 2000. However this statistic masks significant differences in spending by population. HCBS spending for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities represented approximately three-quarters of Medicaid LTSS spending in 2014. This far surpasses the HCBS spending percentage for older adults, individuals with physical disabilities, and individuals with serious mental illness/serious emotional disturbances, which is only 41percent of total LTSS spending.13 Thus, there is still work to be done by all levels of government and stakeholders to ensure that all Medicaid beneficiaries who wish to remain in their homes and communities have the services, workforce and supports to enable them to do so.

    13https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/ltss-expenditures-2014.pdf.

    Additional information on LTSS, including program information and expenditure reports, is available at www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/long-term-services-and-supports/long-term-services-and-supports.html. A comprehensive state-by-state analysis of utilization patterns and cost for community versus institutional long-term care is available at http://www.longtermscorecard.org. This latter analysis by several collaborating organizations uses data from CMS as well as many other sources to quantify the unique long-term care service patterns in each state.

    In recognition of the shift to community-based care and based on the experience and understanding of the challenges in overseeing such programs, in the January 16, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 2947), we issued final regulations for the 1915(c) HCBS waiver authority, as well as the 1915(i) HCBS and the 1915(k) Community First Choice state plan authorities, to ensure that services provided under these HCBS regulatory authorities are truly home and community-based. The State Plan Home and Community-Based Services, 5-Year Period for Waivers, etc. final rule (79 FR 2947) (hereinafter referred to as the HCBS final rule) represented the culmination of over 5 years' worth of stakeholder input and addressed the key challenges associated with the provision of HCBS. While statutory authority for coverage of HCBS required services to be provided in a “home and community-based setting”, there was no definition of what that phrase meant. This lack of a definition resulted in HCBS Medicaid funding for services in some settings that bore similarities to institutions (for instance, in terms of regimented schedules or isolation from the larger community or both). The regulations sought to change that by outlining the criteria for residential and non-residential home and community-based settings.

    The principle of community integration, and the requirement that coverage of HCBS be based on person-centered service plans that outline how individuals wish to exercise choices, are at the heart of the home and community-based settings criteria. Given the scope of the changes mandated by the rule, we provided states with a transition period (through March 2019) to bring existing programs into compliance with the HCBS setting requirements. During this transition period, states are working with providers, managed care entities, advocacy organizations, beneficiaries and family members, and other stakeholders to complete assessments of existing HCBS provision and to determine how to implement needed revisions to ensure adherence with regulatory requirements.

    In July 2014, we also established the Medicaid Innovation Accelerator Program (IAP) which seeks to improve the care and health for Medicaid beneficiaries and reduce costs by supporting states' ongoing payment and delivery system reforms through targeted technical support. Promoting Community Integration through Long-term Services and Supports is one of four program areas of focus for IAP. It is supporting a number of states with planning and implementing strategies for incentivizing quality and outcomes in HCBS and with developing Medicaid and housing-related services and partnerships. As part of this work, state Medicaid agencies and Federal and state housing partners are building on the collaborative work of the CMS and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of the Obama Administration's Year of Community Living Initiative (established in June 2009 to mark the 10th anniversary of the Olmstead decision).

    We are also actively engaged in efforts to improve the quality of care provided to individuals receiving HCBS. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of quality requirements embedded in the various HCBS authorities and programs and the quality work being done through IAP, we have developed an experience of care survey, developed under the Testing Experience and Functional Tools (TEFT) grant, which has been awarded the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) trademark. The CAHPS HCBS Survey is now available 14 to states to elicit feedback on beneficiaries' experience with the services they receive in Medicaid HCBS programs. Results will be used to assess and further improve program quality.

    14https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/quality-of-care/performance-measurement/cahps-hcbs-survey/index.html.

    Our quality efforts are guided by the CMS Quality Strategy,15 which seeks to provide better care, achieve healthier people and communities, and ensure smarter spending for care. The CMS Quality Strategy was built on the foundation of the CMS Strategy 16 and the HHS National Quality Strategy (NQS),17 which was established as part of the Affordable Care Act to serve as a catalyst and compass for a nationwide focus on quality improvement efforts and approach to measuring quality, including in HCBS.

    15https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/QualityInitiativesGenInfo/CMS-Quality-Strategy.html.

    16https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/agency-information/cms-strategy/.

    17http://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/.

    We believe that these strategies and efforts underway across CMS to achieve strategy goals will drive change as called for by the Commission on Long-Term Care and highlighted in the recent National Quality Forum (NQF) report released in September 2016, entitled Quality in Home and Community-Based Services to Support Community Living: Addressing Gaps in Performance Measurement. 18 The NQF report was developed by a multi-stakeholder committee to recommend and prioritize opportunities to address gaps in HCBS quality measurement. The report represents 2 years of work by NQF, the Committee, and an HHS Federal team, and contains its final set of recommendations for how to advance quality measurement in HCBS through the development, testing, and endorsement of HCBS quality measures at par with those used across the healthcare system.

    18 PNQF Project Page—http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2016/09/Quality_in_Home_and_Community-Based_Services_to_Support_Community_Living__Addressing_Gaps_in_Performance_Measurement.aspx.

    For more information on quality and performance measures, as well as many relevant past and present public-private efforts pertaining to HCBS quality, please see Appendix A of this RFI.

    Finally, in support of achieving additional progress toward broadening access to HCBS, the President's FYs 2016 19 and 2017 20 budgets have included proposals to strengthen HCBS provision, such as expanding eligibility for the Community First Choice Option and the 1915(i) state plan services options. These and other proposals are summarized in Appendix B of this RFI. A particularly notable proposal, is the “Pilot Long-Term Care State Plan Option”, which would create a comprehensive long-term care state plan option for up to five states. Participating states would be authorized to provide equal access to home and community-based care and nursing facility care and the Secretary would have the discretion to make these pilots permanent at the end of 8 years.

    19http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/budget-in-brief/cms/medicaid/index.html.

    20http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/cms/medicaid/index.html.

    This brief background cannot capture all of the important developments that have shaped the current long-term care landscape. Critical contributions from persons with disabilities, advocates, providers, and states in partnership with these CMS efforts have created opportunities that may not be reflected.

    C. Key Factors That Affect the Provision of HCBS

    Despite the many creative and effective HCBS programs developed by states and the shift in Medicaid payments toward such services, several factors present unique challenges to states seeking to expand access to HCBS. These include the following:

    State budgets play a critical role in shaping the HCBS landscape within a state. States may face fiscal constraints as they make decisions about the optional services to offer, along with any limitations on how services are offered and to whom to provide them. Economic downturns can negatively impact a state's ability to offer a robust array of optional services, including HCBS, precisely when more individuals are enrolling in the program. In order to stay within appropriated state budgets, HCBS authorized under 1915(c) waivers may have enrollment caps and geographic boundaries. This provides budgetary certainty but can lead to significant variations within and across states in terms of the benefits offered, the number of individuals served, and waiting lists for those services. It also means that if a state is not able to add funding to its HCBS waivers, increases in programmatic expenses are frequently accompanied by offsetting reductions in other areas of the waiver or other Medicaid program expenditures.

    Provider availability is key to ensuring that individuals have access to needed Medicaid services. Availability can be impacted by several factors including the ability to attract a sufficient mix of providers in urban and rural areas of a state and how rates of reimbursement effect provider willingness to accept Medicaid beneficiaries. We issued the Access to Medicaid Covered Services final rule on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67575).21 In implementing these regulations, we are engaged in activities to assist states in determining that fee-for-service (FFS) payment rates are sufficient to attract enough providers to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to covered Medicaid services to address their needs. The November 2015 final rule requires states to complete access monitoring review plans (AMRPs) for specified services, including home health services. In addition, it requires states submitting state plan amendments that would reduce payment rates to providers or restructure provider payments if the change could result in diminished access, to provide to us an analysis of the expected impact of the reduction on provider participation. The requirement to provide such an analysis applies to all state plan services, including the 1915(i) HCBS state plan option and the 1915(k) Community First Choice state plan option, but does not apply to 1915(c) HCBS waivers. In conjunction with the November 2015 final rule, we released a request for information to solicit comments on additional approaches the agency and states should consider to ensure better compliance with Medicaid access requirements. This included comments on the potential development of standardized core measures of access, access measures for long-term care and home and community based services, national access to care thresholds, and resolution processes that beneficiaries could use in facing challenges in accessing essential health care services. We note that we received comments confirming that access to HCBS should be measured differently than access to primary and acute care services, and we continue to analyze the comments to determine potential paths forward.

    21https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/11/02/2015-27697/medicaid-program-methods-for-assuring-access-to-covered-medicaid-services.

    The presence of managed care arrangements in a state's Medicaid program can also impact how beneficiaries receive services. Through contracts with managed care organizations, states determine the array of Medicaid services to be provided under a managed care delivery system. Over the past decade, managed care has been used with increasing frequency in the delivery of Medicaid-funded LTSS, including HCBS. Almost 390,000 beneficiaries received LTSS in a managed care delivery system in 2012, and today an even larger number of beneficiaries are receiving LTSS through managed care.

    As managed care organizations administer and coordinate contracted benefits, they are continually balancing the parallel goals of containing costs and facilitating the provision of needed services, which can impact the delivery of service on a daily basis. Under Medicaid regulations, plans can implement utilization criteria that influence service provision, such as prior authorization requirements or requiring the use of a particular drug or therapy before access to a more expensive treatment is authorized. However, the use of managed care should not negatively impact a beneficiary's access to covered services, as managed care plans must offer all services they are under contract to provide. In addition, services available under a managed care delivery system should be no less in amount, duration and scope as the services provided under a FFS payment system. Through managed care authorities, plans can also provide additional services not otherwise available in that state, either as a value-added service that the plan chooses to provide, or by offering a service in lieu of a covered service under the state plan if it is medically appropriate and cost effective (although use of the “in lieu of” authority does not relieve a state or managed care organization (MCO) from providing access to all state plan services).

    Given the unique characteristics of LTSS, protections such as provider continuity and beneficiary education, were incorporated into the May 6, 2016 managed care final rule (81 FR 27498). Specific protections include requiring that a state establish a beneficiary support system that accounts for the unique needs of individuals receiving LTSS, person-centered planning processes to ensure medical and non-medical needs are met and that individuals have the quality of life and level of independence they desire, and standards to evaluate the adequacy of network and availability of services for all MLTSS programs.

    Recent CMS and other federal agency policy changes are shaping program implementation. The HCBS, Access to Medicaid Covered Services, and Medicaid Managed Care rules established new policies for states and managed care organizations that will have significant impact on states and HCBS providers. For example, the settings provisions in the 2014 HCBS final rule require states to develop and submit statewide transition plans detailing how the state will operate its HCBS waivers or state plan benefits and including all elements approved by the Secretary. Guidance as to the elements required in the transition plan,22 indicates that among these elements are in-depth assessments and development of resulting remediation plans to ensure compliance with the regulation's community integration requirements by the end of the transition period.

    22https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/downloads/statewide-transition-plan-toolkit.pdf.

    Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued two rules, one that took effect in October 2015 extending minimum wage and overtime protections to most home care workers, and the other taking effect in December 2016, which updated the salary threshold below which white collar salaried workers, including managers, are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Both of these rules are implementing necessary reforms, and both will require time, effort, and financial resources to ensure compliance.

    From the beginning, the DOL has emphasized the importance of implementation in a manner that protects both workers and consumers. States have a number of options for coming into compliance with these regulations. For example, in response to the Home Care final rule (78 FR 60453), some states are planning to increase funding for home care programs such that workers receive overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a work week. Others are planning to limit overtime work but create exceptions processes so that certain consumers are permitted to receive care from a single home care worker in excess of the general cap on worker hours.

    Actions taken by states to implement these regulations have real implications for beneficiaries and service providers. Some states anticipate challenges in being able to secure funding to accommodate overtime payments incurred in the delivery of HCBS by providers in response to the two DOL regulations, and are taking actions such as implementing caps on the number of hours worked by home care workers to avoid incurring overtime expenses. These caps can necessitate beneficiaries who require a significant number of hours of service needing to find additional workers. Many stakeholders, such as labor organizations and beneficiary advocates have expressed concerns that hard caps and low wages are likely to hamper recruitment and retention efforts to secure a consistent workforce.

    We issued guidance 23 on the availability of Medicaid reimbursement for costs associated with complying with these two DOL rules. As of the drafting of this RFI, only a handful of states have submitted filings to CMS to embed overtime costs in the rate methodology of applicable services. In late 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the HHS OCR issued joint guidance 24 stressing that to remain compliant with Olmstead, “states need to consider reasonable modifications to policies capping overtime and travel time for home care workers, including exceptions to these caps when individuals with disabilities otherwise would be placed at serious risk of institutionalization.” We remain available to provide technical assistance on this issue.

    23https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/CIB-01-08-16.pdf.

    24 Vanita Gupta and Jocelyn Samuels, Joint Dear Colleague Letter on Companionship Rule Implementation, US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, December 2014 http://acl.gov/NewsRoom/NewsInfo/docs/2014-FLSA-Dear-Colleague-ltr.pdf.

    Workforce stability is impacted by many of the considerations discussed previously, and is a key factor in sustaining the growth of HCBS. States are grappling with providing a sufficient homecare workforce to meet the growing demand for LTSS. This is a particular challenge in states working to shift their long-term care service delivery systems toward HCBS and away from institutional care.25 LTSS are by their nature extremely labor intensive and direct service workers—a paid workforce of about 3 million nationwide in 2009—constitute the main input into these services and supports. This workforce has been demonstrating signs of workforce instability, including high turnover and vacancy rates for some time. As demand for HCBS assistance grows, so too will the need for an engaged and dedicated workforce.26 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,27 personal care aides and home health aides are the occupations with the first and third largest projected job growth from 2014 through 2024 (BLS projects demand for an additional 806,500 jobs in these occupations). Further, employers with job openings in these occupations will be competing for workers with employers who have job openings in other occupations that have similar education and training requirements, e.g., cashiers and retail salespersons. BLS projects demand for an additional 1.2 million jobs from 2014 through 2024 in these sectors. To attract engaged and dedicated workers to fill home care jobs will require wages that are competitive with what potential home care workers would receive in these and other alternative occupations.

    25 Edelstein, Steven, and Dorie Seavey, February 2009. “The Need for Monitoring the Long-TermCare Direct Service Workforce and Recommendations for Data Collection”. Retrieved from: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/long-term-services-and-supports/workforce/workforce-initiative.html.

    26 Edelstein, Steven, and Dorie Seavey, February 2009. “The Need for Monitoring the Long-TermCare Direct Service Workforce and Recommendations for Data Collection”. Retrieved from: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/long-term-services-and-supports/workforce/workforce-initiative.html.

    27http://www.bls.gov/ooh/most-new-jobs.htm.

    CMS created the National Direct Service Workforce (DSW) Resource Center in 2005 to respond to the shortage of workers who provide direct care and personal assistance to individuals who need LTSS. These workers include direct support professionals, personal care attendants, personal assistance providers, home care aides, home health aides, and others (described collectively in the remainder of this document as the home care workforce). The DSW Resource Center created a number of important resources designed to assist states in developing home care workforce capacity, as well as to improve recruitment and retention efforts associated with the home care workforce. These resources included an inventory and analysis of the various core competency sets used across and within LTSS sectors.

    While the DSW Resource Center concluded in December 2014, important resources funded through this initiative are available at http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Long-Term-Services-and-Supports/Workforce/Workforce-Initiative.html. Included in these resources is a toolkit that was developed in 2013 to discuss strategies to address workforce challenges, which contains a chapter dedicated to the unique characteristics of self-directed programs that are prevalent in the provision of HCBS. Self-directed programs place decision-making authority in the hands of the beneficiary or their representative, and can vary according to structure and scope. Across the various Medicaid authorities, almost every state offers beneficiaries the option to receive HCBS through some type of self-directed model. Understanding the parameters of self-directed programs operating in a state, such as the ability to hire family members and friends and the ability to set wages for home care workers, is key to understanding implications these models have on the ability to maintain an engaged and dedicated homecare workforce of sufficient size. As discussed later in this RFI, enhancing the stability of this workforce also involves ensuring that reimbursement rates support wages that are sufficient to attract enough qualified workers.

    D. The Role of Medicaid in Helping States Comply With ADA and Olmstead Requirements

    On May 20, 2010, we issued a State Medicaid Director (SMD) letter to provide information on new tools to support community integration, as well as to remind states of existing tools articulated in past “Olmstead” letters that remain strong resources in states' efforts to support community living as a choice for Medicaid HCBS beneficiaries. With the issuance of this 2010 letter, we reaffirmed our commitment to the policies identified in previous Olmstead guidance. We also expressed an interest in working with states to continue building upon earlier innovations and encouraged states to identify new strategies to improve community living opportunities. However, while Medicaid provides a powerful tool to states in fulfilling ADA and Olmstead responsibilities, the program cannot serve as a state's sole compliance strategy. The following are several reasons why this is the case:

    • Separate roles for CMS, DOJ, OCR—CMS collaborates regularly with federal partners including the HHS OCR and DOJ. The three agencies discuss developments occurring in states to ensure awareness and to determine if there are cross-agency implications, but each agency has different areas of oversight responsibility. CMS implements Title XIX of the Act, working daily in partnership with states to operate the Medicaid program under the parameters of Title XIX that dictate CMS governance. DOJ implements and enforces certain provisions of the ADA. Its enforcement activities can include filing litigation against public entities not abiding by responsibilities under the ADA, including the statute's integration mandate, as interpreted by Olmstead. HHS OCR enforces non-discrimination laws that apply to health care or human services providers, including Title II of the ADA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and laws related to health information privacy. Together, the three agencies form a strong partnership in ensuring the provision of quality healthcare, but each has a separate scope of influence.

    Provision of Institutional Services—The statute (Title XIX of the Act) requires the provision of medically necessary services in institutions such as hospitals and nursing facilities for most eligible beneficiaries. At state option, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICFs/IID) may be covered. However, mandatory provision of some institutional services and optional provision of most HCBS does not facilitate states' efforts to provide Medicaid services in a manner more consistent with ADA or Olmstead as the statute results in states having to devote budget resources to institutional options and having less flexibility to reallocate resources to home and community-based alternatives. While many states are working hard to operate their Medicaid programs in ways that further community integration, further progress is needed. For example, states have made less progress in reducing use of Medicaid-funded long-term stays in nursing facilities.

    CMS review of state reimbursement methodology—Some stakeholders have encouraged CMS to ensure that sufficient wages are available for home care workers to avoid shortages. We have also been encouraged by stakeholders to view state ratesetting methodologies through an Olmstead lens, under which HCBS rates would need to be sufficient to avoid unnecessary institutionalization. Their specific suggestions have included approving only methodologies that guarantee home care workers a salary that is above the prevailing minimum wage for their locality, that is higher than wages paid to similarly-qualified workers in nursing facilities, and that takes into account wages paid in occupations that compete for workers with similar levels of education, training, and experience.

    Historically, we have reviewed states' proposed waiver and state plan reimbursement methodologies to determine compliance with regulatory requirements and with the statutory requirement found in section 1902(a)(30)(A) that payments be “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Based on provisions of the 2015 Access to Medicaid Covered Services final regulation, this review now includes a review of the state's determination that any proposed payment reductions for state plan services, including HCBS provided through the state plan, will still result in sufficient beneficiary access to providers. Our review also includes the state's analysis of any concerns expressed over the proposed reduction from affected stakeholders. However, we have not interpreted the statute and regulations to support an analysis of payment methodologies down to the level of wages paid to individual home care workers. For example, while we review how a state proposes to reimburse a provider agency for the provision of personal care services, this review does not extend to analyzing how the provider agency compensates home care workers and whether that rate is sufficient to cover wage costs. It also does not include a review of whether compensation of home care workers is sufficient to attract needed workers, a key component of which would be a review of how home care worker wages compare to the wages paid to workers in occupations that compete for workers with similar levels of education and training.

    III. Provisions of the Request for Information

    To assist us in determining how to advance access to HCBS for beneficiaries in both FFS and managed care and how to enhance the quality and integrity of HCBS provision under existing authorities, we are soliciting public input on the following general topics:

    A. What are the additional reforms that CMS can take to accelerate the progress of access to HCBS and achieve an appropriate balance of HCBS and institutional services in the Medicaid LTSS system to meet the needs and preferences of beneficiaries?

    Although HCBS expenditures account for a majority of total spending for LTSS in Medicaid, we are interested in making additional progress in rebalancing the Medicaid long-term care system. Statutory changes such as the ones proposed in the President's FYs 2016 and 2017 budgets would most likely provide the fastest and most meaningful acceleration of progress (see Appendix B). However, we are soliciting input on actions within our authority to promote access to Medicaid HCBS. These include suggestions for improved benefit design, payment and financing reforms, and stakeholder engagement. In addition, we are open to proposals with respect to all existing Medicaid authorities, both state plan and waiver.

    Section 1115 demonstrations give states broad authority to implement reforms in their Medicaid program, such as by waiving specific provisions of the Social Security Act, or by allowing states to cover services and/or populations not typically covered by Medicaid. In the context of HCBS delivery, an 1115 demonstration could provide interested states with the authority to offer a more streamlined continuum of LTSS, similar to the Pilot Comprehensive Long-Term Care State Plan Option legislative proposal referenced in Appendix B. We seek input on the state interest and feasibility of such an approach, along with the following comments and questions:

    • We are interested in receiving comments on the following potential interpretation of current law. The term “nursing facility” is defined in section 1919(a) of the Act. Under this definition, a nursing facility must be primarily engaged in providing skilled care and rehabilitation to residents with medical necessity for those services. In contrast, nursing facilities provide health-related care and services, that is, those services that are not skilled nursing or rehabilitation services, “to individuals who . . . require care and services . . . which can be made available to them only through institutional facilities”. In other words, the statutory nursing facility service definition could provide a basis for states to offer the mandatory nursing facility benefit only to individuals eligible for nursing facility coverage whose assessed need cannot be met by HCBS. If the individual's needs can be met by HCBS, Medicaid reimbursement would not be available for health-related care and services provided in a nursing facility in those circumstances. Because this concept intersects with other requirements such as institutional eligibility rules and the choice of institution as an option for section 1915(c) waiver participants, the idea may best be implemented under the flexibility of a section 1115(a) of the Act demonstration authority.

    • Are there particular flexibilities around Medicaid requirements for LTSS that states would be interested in using 1115 authority to support? How could 1115 authority be structured to streamline the provision of LTSS across authorities, while adhering to budget neutrality requirements?

    • What types of eligibility flexibility and controls, including level of care and utilization, could be used to encourage access to HCBS?

    • What types of benefit redesign (such as a package of benefits) would improve the provision of LTSS?

    • What resource needs, including differences between urban and rural areas, and variations in providing services to different HCBS populations, would need to be taken into account to ensure access to HCBS?

    B. What actions can CMS take, independently, or in partnership with states and stakeholders, to ensure quality of HCBS and beneficiary health and safety?

    As the number of beneficiaries receiving Medicaid HCBS has increased, so has the need to ensure that federal and state quality efforts are maintained and strengthened to ensure the provision of services in ways that improve health outcomes of beneficiaries. Toward that end, we made extensive revisions to the quality oversight structure of the 1915(c) HCBS waiver program, which culminated in guidance released in 2014.28 At the heart of this framework is the reporting on state-developed performance measures designed to reflect the operations of the waiver across important domains that CMS defined such as beneficiary health and welfare, financial accountability, and service provision and delivery.

    28https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/waivers/downloads/3-cmcs-quality-memo-narrative.pdf.

    As states increasingly turn to managed care to deliver LTSS including nursing home and HCBS to older adults and people with disabilities enrolled in Medicaid, we have sought additional approaches to quality and beneficiary protections, while also allowing state flexibility in program design and administration. As one example, the Medicaid managed care final rule specifically incorporated “managed” long-term services and supports, referred to as MLTSS, elements into several areas of CMS' quality measurement and improvement framework. States must have mechanisms for the identification of enrollees who need LTSS or enrollees with special health care needs, and managed care plans must have mechanisms to assess the quality and appropriateness of care furnished to beneficiaries enrolled in managed care and receiving LTSS, including an assessment of care between care settings and a comparison of services and supports received with those set forth in the enrolled beneficiary's treatment or service plan. Managed care plans must also participate in efforts by the state to prevent, detect, and remediate critical incidents that adversely impact enrollee health and welfare, and the state must identify standard performance measures, including performance measures relating to quality of life, rebalancing, and community integration activities for those beneficiaries receiving LTSS.

    As we solicit ideas for the expansion and promotion of HCBS, it is critical that the infrastructure surrounding service provision be sufficiently robust to ensure that beneficiaries receive needed, quality services, while also ensuring the health and safety of those beneficiaries. Currently, there is an absence of a formal federal oversight framework for the provision of HCBS such as what exists for services provided in institutions such as nursing facilities and hospitals. Instead, CMS and the states partner to ensure the collection of data is sufficient to both articulate the experience of individuals receiving HCBS and to inform the actions to be taken when necessary to improve that experience. Therefore, we are soliciting feedback on the following:

    • What is the appropriate role for CMS versus the states in ensuring quality of care for Medicaid beneficiaries receiving HCBS? How could CMS and states best monitor quality and beneficiary safety? What actions should CMS take when HCBS are not being delivered according to federal requirements? What evidence would be required to determine when CMS takes these actions?

    • Should there be an oversight structure with conditions of participation in HCBS similar to that of institutions and home health agencies, in which state surveyors report survey findings directly to CMS?

    • What can CMS do to support standardized performance measures for HCBS, including in Medicaid waivers and state plans?

    • What other quality measurement activities could CMS undertake to strengthen the provision of HCBS across any Medicaid authority? What data, reporting and system resources would be necessary to support those activities?

    • What other quality measurement activities should CMS require or do to support states and other stakeholders to strengthen the provision of quality HCBS across any Medicaid authorities?

    C. What program integrity safeguards should states have in place to ensure beneficiary safety and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in HCBS?

    Program integrity expectations apply to providers of HCBS as they do to all other Medicaid services and providers. Program integrity results in Medicaid paying the right provider for furnishing the right services to the right beneficiary at the right price. Without strong program integrity safeguards, HCBS funds are at risk of being misspent, beneficiaries in need of HCBS are at risk of receiving substandard quality of care that may result in beneficiary harm, and institutionalization may be used in situations where it would otherwise be unnecessary.

    Personal care services (PCS), are a critical component of HCBS, and there is evidence of program integrity vulnerabilities in their provision. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently issued an Investigative Advisory 29 that identifies PCS fraud issues encountered during the course of OIG investigations that have resulted in misspent funds (such as through timecard falsifications), and examples of beneficiary abuse and services furnished by unqualified providers. We have not required states to adopt a standardized set of minimum qualifications for PCS attendants. Currently, some states require PCS attendants to enroll in Medicaid as providers, including undergoing a criminal background check, and assign each attendant a unique provider number. However, many states do not have such procedures in place, and we have not issued minimum Federal qualifications for PCS attendants. OIG has strongly encouraged CMS to undertake actions establishing minimum federal qualifications and screening standards for PCS attendants, including background checks; and require states to enroll or register all PCS attendants and assign them unique numbers for purposes of tracking claims.

    29https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/portfolio/ia-mpcs2016.pdf.

    Given the nature of these services, focusing on activities of daily living (ADLs) such as eating, bathing, toileting, and transferring, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) such as money management and meal preparation, community-based provider qualifications have tended to be less formal than care more focused on skilled nursing or licensed therapies. Many states have adopted personal care provider qualifications such as minimum age requirements, possession of a valid driver's license, and completion of training required by the state and specific training required by the beneficiary.

    When evaluating how best to ensure the provision of quality person-centered services by a sufficient pool of qualified providers, we are weighing competing stakeholder viewpoints. As an example, standardized worker training requirements may be supported by entities focused on home care worker engagement and program integrity safeguards, but are generally not supported by disability rights organizations and self-advocates, who favor more flexible programs that base training requirements on individual beneficiary circumstances. We believe that ensuring both interests are included as part of the overall delivery of HCBS is important to successful delivery of high quality HCBS to Medicaid beneficiaries.

    We are particularly interested in the operational feasibility for states of these recommendations and the implications for beneficiary choice and control. We also seek input into the feasibility and implications in each of two different service delivery models: Agency-directed PCS (including “agency with choice” models in which the provider agency and the beneficiary are co-employers of the PCS attendant) and self-directed PCS. HCBS have a long history of utilizing consumer-directed/self-directed models of service delivery, a facilitation of beneficiary choice and control that CMS supports. These include models through which a range of services and supports are planned, budgeted, and directly controlled by an individual (with the help of representatives, if desired) based on the individual's needs and preferences that maximize independence and the ability to live in the setting of the individual's choice. Even in more traditional models of HCBS delivery, in which agencies are utilized, there has been movement over time to incorporate beneficiary expectations of participating in training and determining the qualifications of workers that are most relevant to individual needs and preferences.

    The use of minimum qualifications and screening and enrollment requirements may create administrative implications, increase costs and impact beneficiary choice and control. On the other hand, a lack of adequate program integrity safeguards could pose risk to both Medicaid beneficiaries and successful stewardship of Federal and state funds. The successful delivery of PCS to Medicaid beneficiaries must ensure that both individual needs and preferences are met and that the program has adequate safeguards in place. To better ensure the successful delivery of PCS, we are soliciting feedback on the following:

    • What are the benefits and consequences of implementing standard federal requirements for personal care workers in agency-directed and/or self-directed models of care?

    • What would standardized qualifications look like in terms of the following:

    ++ Educational requirements ++ Minimum age requirements ++ Screening requirements

    • Should standardization include the expectation that certain circumstances require more than the standard, or different standards?

    • What role could state-administered home care worker registries play in facilitating access to HCBS? What issues should be addressed in the creation of home care worker registries?

    • What issues should be considered in requiring criminal background checks? In the states that are utilizing fingerprinting and background checks already, what lessons can be learned from implementation and experience with these approaches?

    • What role can home care worker organizations play in providing training to support implementation of federal qualification standards? What regulatory or policy provisions would either support, or inadvertently disadvantage, home care worker organizations?

    • Should states be required to enroll or register all PCS attendants and assign them unique numbers for purposes of tracking claims?

    • What is the feasibility for state Medicaid programs of including home care worker identity on claims submitted for Medicaid reimbursement?

    • What other program integrity safeguards should be put in place, either as an alternative to, or in addition to, the controls recommended by OIG, for agency-directed PCS? For self-directed PCS?

    • Are the program integrity safeguards that are appropriate for agency-directed personal care services also appropriate for self-directed personal care services?

    • How can program integrity safeguards be developed and implemented to support key HCBS programmatic objectives such as choice and self-direction?

    D. What specific steps could CMS take to strengthen the HCBS home care workforce?

    To determine the specific steps that we could take to strengthen the HCBS home care workforce, we are soliciting feedback on the implications of establishing requirements, standards or procedures to ensure rates paid to providers are sufficient to attract enough providers to meet service needs of beneficiaries and that wages supported by those rates are sufficient to attract enough qualified home care workers.

    As indicated previously, and as described in the Informational Bulletin dated August 3, 2016,30 there are several factors that can impact the availability of a sufficient pool of home care workers necessary to provide HCBS relied upon by beneficiaries to remain in the community. Moreover, these access and availability challenges are likely to increase as the population ages and more and more people seek to remain in their homes and communities. Some stakeholders have approached us to intervene and use our approval authority of rate methodologies as a mechanism to strengthen the provider infrastructure and ensure beneficiary access to services. This may include using the rate approval process to address the competitiveness of worker wages, encourage entry of new providers, support enhanced workforce training and professional development, or improved administrative/IT infrastructure of providers. With respect to wages, for example, some stakeholders have suggested that CMS only approve state reimbursement methodologies for provider rates that will result in sufficient wages for employees to attract and retain a high quality workforce and that relate to the broader labor market within the state to ensure that wage rates are competitive with other industries that employ workers with similar levels of education and experience. As noted previously, historically, our review of ratesetting methodologies has not encompassed this level of specificity. How agencies compensate employees or contractors has been outside of the CMS review. We are soliciting comment on whether we should play a larger role in ensuring the sufficiency of rates at both provider agency and individual worker levels, taking into account that the federal role is to ensure an effective program, not to directly regulate business matters (that is, states operate the Medicaid programs). Specifically, we are interested in feedback on the following:

    30https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib080316.pdf.

    • What if any actions could CMS take to better ensure adequate beneficiary access to safe HCBS services provided by qualified individuals, across both urban and rural locations and across disparate populations?

    • What are positive and negative consequences of such actions, including the implications under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws, if state ratesetting approaches result in specified wages at an individual worker level?

    • Should CMS expand its ratesetting approval authority to support provider infrastructure and the HCBS workforce?

    • What effect would an increase in payment rates necessitated by a CMS rate review process that focuses on home care worker wages have on funded slots or services, particularly given budget limitations and cost neutrality requirements inherent in many Medicaid authorities?

    • How could CMS determine whether an increase in home care worker wages results in an increase in the quality of services provided and an increase in the size of the workforce such that it will be more likely to meet future industry needs?

    • What sources of information, including data from the DOL, would be most useful to CMS in making sure that reimbursement rates appropriately take into consideration wages and benefits for home care workers? How would CMS best use these sources?

    • What role could state-administered home care worker registries play in facilitating access to HCBS? What issues should be addressed in the creation of home care worker registries?

    • What other actions could CMS consider to strengthen the home care workforce such as assessing training needs, developing career ladders, etc.?

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    This request for information constitutes a general solicitation of public comments as discussed in the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4). Therefore, this request for information does not impose information collection requirements, that is: Reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    V. Response to Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Appendix A Quality Measurement

    Performance measures are used across the healthcare delivery system and across payers to improve outcomes, experience of care, population health, and health care affordability through improvement, with the goal of improving processes and outcomes. In clinical and behavioral health care, measurement has been associated with improvements in providers' use of evidence-based strategies and health outcomes. However, there is no national quality measure set for HCBS.

    Quality measures are tools that help evaluate or quantify healthcare processes, outcomes, individual perceptions/experiences, and organizational structure and/or systems that are associated with the ability to provide high-quality health care and/or that relate to one or more quality goals for health care. These goals include: Effective, safe, efficient, person-centered, equitable, and timely care. CMS uses quality measures in its quality improvement, public reporting, and pay-for-reporting programs for specific healthcare providers.

    Other Quality Initiatives

    • CMS is working on developing quality measures and maintenance programs serving individuals who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, as well as individuals only enrolled in Medicaid who use HCBS as part of the work in the IAP. The objectives of this project are to identify and prioritize measures and measure concepts, develop and refine measure specifications for priority measures, conduct field testing to evaluate measure importance, feasibility, usability, and scientific validity and reliability, submit validated, reliable measures to the National Quality Forum (NQF) for endorsement, and assist CMS with an implementation strategy. Eight measures in development apply to beneficiaries enrolled in managed long-term services and supports programs, and one measure, for community integration is specific to HCBS.

    • CMS has developed a standardized system for developing and maintaining the quality measures used in its various accountability initiatives and programs. Known as the Measures Management System (MMS), measure developers (or contractors) should follow this core set of business processes and decision criteria when developing, implementing, and maintaining quality measures. Best practices for these processes are documented in the manual, Blueprint for the CMS Measures Management System (the Blueprint).31 CMS uses the standardized processes documented in the Blueprint to ensure that the resulting measures form a coherent, transparent system for evaluating quality of care delivered to its beneficiaries.

    31 Additional information on the Blueprint is available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/MMS/MMS-Blueprint.html.

    • The National Quality Forum's (NQF) Measures Application Partnership (MAP) is a multi-stakeholder public/private partnership that guides HHS on the selection of performance measures for Federal health programs. Its Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Workgroup has identified opportunities for improvement in measurement areas including quality of life, screening and assessment, structural measures, mental health and substance use, and care coordination. The MAP Workgroup noted significant gaps in the availability of measures for HCBS, and in a final report to HHS identified potential measures worthy of attention.32 To cite potential HCBS measures, the MAP Workgroup reviewed “Environmental Scan of Measures for Medicaid Title XIX Home and Community-Based Services” (2010), “Raising Expectations: A State Scorecard on LTSS for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, and Family Caregivers” (2011), and the National Balancing Indicator Project (2010).

    32 National Quality Forum. Measures Application Partnership. Measuring Healthcare Quality for the Dual Eligible Beneficiary Population. June 2012. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/News_And_Resources/Press_Releases/2012/Measure_Applications_Partnership_Submits_Recommendations_for_Dual_Eligible_Beneficiaries_to_HHS.aspx.

    • HCBS are a focus of HHS's Multiple Chronic Conditions Strategic Framework.33

    33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Strategic Framework. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/mcc/mcc_framework.pdf.

    • The National Alzheimer's Plan recommends the development of dementia quality measures across care settings.34

    34 Department of Health and Human Services. National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease: 2013 Update. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/natlplan.pdf.

    • Section 6086(b) of Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, “Quality of Care Measures,” directed HHS's Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop measures of program performance, client functioning, and client satisfaction with HCBS under Medicaid; assess the quality of Medicaid HCBS outcomes and those of the overall system, and disseminate information on best practices.35

    35 Agency for Health Care Quality. Project methodology available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/methods/index.html. Environmental scan at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/index.html and http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/index.html. Measures meeting a numeric threshold are at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/hcbsapv1b.html, http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/hcbsapv2b.html, and http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/hcbsapv3ab.html#tabav3b. Details of individual measures are available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/long-term-care/resources/hcbs/hcbsreport/hcbsapiii.html.

    • CMS sponsored development of a HCBS taxonomy 36 to provide a common language for describing and categorizing HCBS across Medicaid programs.

    36 Peebles V, Bohl A. The HCBS Taxonomy: A New Language for Classifying HCBS. August, 2013. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/mmrr/Briefs/B2014/MMRR2014_004_03_b01.html.

    • CMS's Money Follows the Person demonstration program developed a quality of life survey (QoL) for persons transitioning from institutional to community settings which provided valuable insight into the use of an experience of care survey. Through the CMS Testing Experience and Functional Tools (TEFT) demonstration grant, the HCBS Experience of Care Survey was tested and recently received the CAHPS® trademark, and was recommended for endorsement by NQF's Person and Family Centered Care Committee.

    • CMS's TEFT initiative is working on a HCBS Functional Assessment Standardized Items (FASI), based on the HCBS CARE tool, and development of standards for electronic and personal health records, or “eLTss Plan.” 37

    37 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Downloads/TEFT-FOA-7-13.pdf.

    • The Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act requires reporting of quality measures in Skilled Nursing Facilities, Home Health, and across other settings and requires standardized assessment data, data on quality measures, interoperability, and person-centered care.

    • The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) includes a quality assessment and improvement strategy for Medicare managed care, and the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) offers financial incentives for eligible professionals to provide care that advances the goals of a healthier system.

    • The Affordable Care Act included a requirement for CMS to establish voluntary care sets for adult and child quality measures.

    • HHS's Administration for Community Living's National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) is presently implementing a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center grant to develop, test, and gain NQF approval for HCBS quality measures.

    • Under certain Medicaid statutory authorities states must develop and integrate a continuous quality assurance, monitoring, and improvement strategy for HCBS programs.38 CMS's final rule on HCBS and related guidance, CMS 2249-F, provides further insight regarding appropriate characteristics of HCBS settings.39

    38 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/Home-and-Community-Based-1915-c-Waivers.html.

    39 Government Printing Office. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 11. January 16, 2014. Available at: http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-16/pdf/2014-00487.pdf.

    • The Government Accountability Office has issued a series of reviews of HCBS provided through the Medicaid program since 1982, the year after HCBS were first added to Medicaid as an optional benefit, and many address quality issues.40 The HHS Office of the Inspector General has also made HCBS program integrity a focus of its efforts, with particular attention to personal care services.41

    40 Government Accountability Office. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/search?q=medicaid+home+and+community+based+services.

    41 HHS Office of the Inspector General. National Home and Community Based Services Conference. September, 2013. http://nasuad.org/documentation/HCBS_2013/Presentations/9.11%204.00-5.15%20Washington.pdf.

    • There are synergies in HCBS quality in CMS's State Innovation Models Initiative in the states that have received Model Testing Awards,42 in the Agency's Community-Based Care Transitions program, the Independence at Home model, and the Accountable Health Communities model.43

    42 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/State-Innovations-Model-Testing/index.html.

    43 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/CCTP/.

    Appendix B: Summary of Administration's President Budget Proposals To Advance the Provision of HCBS 1. Pilot Comprehensive Long-Term Care State Plan Option

    This 8-year pilot program would create a comprehensive long-term care state plan option for up to 5 states. Participating states would be authorized to provide equal access to home and community-based care and nursing facility care. The Secretary would have the discretion to make these pilots permanent at the end of the 8 years. This proposal works to end the institutional bias in long-term care and simplify state administration.

    2. Expand Eligibility Under the Community First Choice Option

    This proposal provides states with the option to offer categorical Medicaid eligibility to individuals who would be eligible under the state plan if they were in a nursing facility and who meet the coverage requirements for, and will receive, 1915(k) services (“Community First Choice” services). Under the current statutory framework, states have the option to extend full Medicaid coverage to individuals who are generally not otherwise eligible for Medicaid but who meet the coverage criteria for a 1915(c) waiver or 1915(i) benefit available under the state Medicaid program. A similar option does not exist for the 1915(k) benefit. This proposal provides an eligibility pathway into Medicaid for individuals otherwise eligible for the 1915(k) benefit and provides states with additional tools to manage their long-term care home and community-based service delivery systems.

    3. Expand Eligibility for the 1915(i) Home and Community-Based Services State Plan Option

    This proposal increases states' flexibility in expanding access to home and community-based services under section 1915(i) of the Social Security Act. Currently, an individual who meets the coverage and targeting criteria for a 1915(i) benefit available under his or her state's Medicaid program but whose income is above 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) may only qualify for Medicaid if the individual also meets the coverage and targeting criteria for a 1915(c) waiver approved as part of the state's Medicaid program. This proposal removes this limitation, which we anticipate will reduce the administrative burden on states and increase access to home and community-based services for the elderly and individuals with disabilities.

    4. Allow Full Medicaid Benefits for Individuals in a Home and Community-Based Services State Plan Option

    This proposal provides states with the option to offer a larger package of Medicaid services to medically needy individuals who access home and community-based services through the state plan option under section 1915(i) of the Social Security Act. Currently, individuals who qualify as medically needy based on the unique financial deeming rules many states use in providing 1915(i) coverage may only receive 1915(i) services, instead of the other services available to medically needy individuals under the state's plan. This option will provide states with more opportunities to support the comprehensive health care needs of medically needy individuals who are eligible for 1915(i) services.

    5. Provide Home and Community-Based Waiver Services to Children Eligible for Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities

    This proposal provides states with additional tools to manage children's mental health care service delivery systems by expanding the non-institutional options available to these Medicaid beneficiaries. By adding psychiatric residential treatment facilities to the list of qualified inpatient facilities in 1915(c), this proposal provides access to home and community-based waiver services for children and youth in Medicaid who are currently receiving services in these settings and/or meet this institutional level of care. Without this change to provisions in the Social Security Act, children and youth who meet this institutional level of care do not have the choice to receive home and community-based waiver services and can only receive Medicaid-covered services for the type of care they need in an institutional setting where residents are eligible for Medicaid. This proposal builds upon findings from the 5 year Community Alternatives to Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities Demonstration Grant Program authorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that showed improved overall outcomes in mental health and social support for participants with average cost savings of $36,500 to $40,000 per year per participant.

    [FR Doc. 2016-27040 Filed 11-4-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    81 217 Wednesday, November 9, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcwBAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held December 8, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. (CST). In the event of no quorum or other unavoidable circumstances, alternate dates for the meeting are December 9, December 13, and December 14, 2016.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Janet Huckabee Arkansas River Valley Nature Center, 8300 Wells Lake Road, Fort Smith, Arkansas.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at 100 Reserve Street, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caroline Mitchell, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 501-321-5318 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is:

    1. To review Title II proposals.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by November 30, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Caroline Mitchell, Committee Coordinator, PO Box 1270, Hot Springs, Arkansas, or via facsimile to 501-321-5399.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Bill Pell, Designated Federal Official.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27035 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Program; Public Comment for Proposed Rule Changes AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces public comment for proposed rule changes for the RBIP. Notice of a public webinar on the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012; TITLE VI—RURAL DEVELOPMENT; Subtitle A—Reorganization of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; CHAPTER 2—RURAL BUSINESS AND COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT; Sec. 3602. Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP).

    DATES:

    A webinar will be held Thursday, November 17, 2016. To discuss proposed rule changes. Registration will start at 11:45 a.m.; the program will begin at 12:00 p.m. and conclude by 1:45 p.m. Eastern Time.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The RBIP regulation Specialty Programs Division (see 7 CFR part 4290) is currently in the process of drafting several revisions within the rule. These rule changes will allow a more effective program for investing in rural areas. We are also looking to align the provision of the rule with other Rural Business-Cooperative service programs. We are seeking comments on potential rule changes from the public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Chesnick, Agricultural Economist, USDA, Rural Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone (202) 690-0433.

    To view audio and web conferencing, find hyperlink below. https://cc.readytalk.com/registration/#/?meeting=mcji2q8fsfbk&campaign=gpu22rmqt4rz.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Justin Hatmaker, Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27008 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-74-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 124—Gramercy, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Danos & Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC; Morgan City, Louisiana

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port of South Louisiana, grantee of FTZ 124, requesting subzone status for the facility of Danos & Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC, located in Morgan City, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 3, 2016.

    The proposed subzone (367.5 acres) is located at 2547 Highway 66 South in Morgan City. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Camille R. Evans, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27080 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-45-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 189—Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon Counties, Michigan; Authorization of Production Activity; Southern Lithoplate, Inc. (Aluminum Printing Plates); Grand Rapids, Michigan

    On July 6, 2016, the KOM Foreign Trade Zone Authority, grantee of FTZ 189, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Southern Lithoplate, Inc., within Site 10, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 45123, July 12, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14 and further subject to a restriction requiring that inputs classified under HTSUS Subheadings 3204.17, 3208.20 and 3208.90 be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) or domestic status (19 CFR 146.43).

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26983 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-154-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 163—Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc.; Toa Baja, Puerto Rico

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status for the facility of AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc., located in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 4, 2016.

    The proposed subzone (7.593 acres) is located at PR #2 Km. 19.5 in Toa Baja. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Camille Evans at [email protected] or (202) 482-2350.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Camille R. Evans, Acting Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27072 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-153-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 100—Dayton, Ohio; Application for Subzone Expansion; Thor Industries, Inc.; Jackson Center, Ohio

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by The Greater Dayton Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 100, requesting expanded subzone status for the facilities of Thor Industries, Inc. (Thor), located in Jackson Center, Ohio. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 1, 2016.

    Subzone 100D consists of the following site: Site 1 (89 acres), 419 West Pike Street, Jackson Center. The applicant is now requesting authority to expand Site 1 to include an additional 3.88 acres as well as add a new site: proposed Site 2 (6.53 acres), 607 East Pike Street, Jackson Center. No additional production authority is being requested at this time. The expanded subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 100.

    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26982 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-423-808, A-791-805, A-583-830] Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, 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 orders on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, South Africa, 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 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Cho or Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 On July 15, 2016, the Department received a notice of intent to participate in these reviews from Allegheny Ludlum, LLC d/b/a ATI Flat Rolled Products; North American Stainless; and Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC (collectively, domestic interested parties), within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). These domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as manufacturers of a domestic like product in the United States.

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 81 FR 43185 (July 1, 2016).

    On July 31, 2016, we received complete substantive responses for each review from the 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 any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing requested. 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 is conducting expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by the orders consists of stainless steel plate in coils, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. These imports are currently classified under subheadings 7219 and 7220 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.2

    2 A full description of the scope of the orders is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 directly on the Internet 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 Sunset Reviews

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1),(2) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, South Africa, 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)
  • Belgium 8.54 South Africa 41.63 Taiwan 10.20
    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. History of the Orders V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping 2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely to Prevail VII. Final Results of Sunset Reviews VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-27081 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection for Self-Certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, 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 9, 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 David Ritchie, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Room 20001, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, (or via the Internet at [email protected], and tel. 202-482-1512).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The United States and the European Union (EU) share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens, but take different approaches to protecting personal data. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (Privacy Shield) in consultation with the European Commission, as well as with industry and other stakeholders, to provide organizations in the United States with a reliable mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union while ensuring the protection of the data as required by EU law.

    On July 12, 2016, the European Commission deemed the Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU law, and the DOC began accepting self-certification submissions from organizations on August 1, 2016. More information on the Privacy Shield is available at: https://www.privacyshield.gov/welcome.

    The DOC has issued the Privacy Shield Principles under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). ITA administers and supervises the Privacy Shield, including by maintaining and making publicly available an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC. U.S. organizations submit information to ITA to self-certify their compliance with Privacy Shield.

    U.S. organizations considering self-certifying to the Privacy Shield should review the Privacy Shield Framework. In summary, in order to enter the Privacy Shield, an organization must (a) be subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Transportation, or another statutory body that will effectively ensure compliance with the Principles; (b) publicly declare its commitment to comply with the Principles; (c) publicly disclose its privacy policies in line with the Principles; and (d) fully implement them.

    Self-certification to the DOC is voluntary; however, an organization's failure to comply with the Principles after its self-certification is enforceable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts in or affecting commerce (15 U.S.C. 45(a)) or other laws or regulations prohibiting such acts.

    In order to rely on the Privacy Shield for transfers of personal data from the EU, an organization must self-certify its adherence to the Principles to the DOC, be placed by the ITA on the Privacy Shield List, and remain on the Privacy Shield List. To self-certify for the Privacy Shield, an organization must provide to the DOC a self-certification submission that contains the information specified in the Privacy Shield Principles. The Privacy Shield self-certification form, the proposed information collection, would be the means by which an organization would provide the relevant information to ITA.

    II. Method of Collection

    The Privacy Shield self-certification is submitted electronically by organizations through the DOC's Privacy Shield Web site (https://www.privacyshield.gov/).

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0276.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Primarily businesses or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,600.

    Estimated Time per Response: 40 Minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,376.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,824,200.

    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. 2016-27053 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-049] Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) preliminarily determines that ammonium sulfate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective November 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maliha Khan or Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0892 or (202) 482-3936 respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 25, 2016, PCI Nitrogen, LLC, filed a petition with the Department of Commerce alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of certain ammonium sulfate from the PRC. The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 22, 2016.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit located at Room B8024 of the Department's main building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and electronic version of Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 81 FR 40665 (June 22, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Ammonium Sulfate from the People's Republic of China (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with this notice. See also Appendix I.

    Period of Investigation

    The POI is October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, May 2016. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix II.

    In accordance with the Preamble to the Department's regulations,3 and as stated in the Initiation Notice, the Department set aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding the scope. The Department did not receive any comments in response.

    3See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997) (“Preamble”).

    Discussion of Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. For purposes of this preliminary LTFV determination, the Department continues to treat the PRC as a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act. Because none of the potential respondents in this investigation submitted separate rate applications, they are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, the PRC-wide entity did not provide necessary quantity-and-value (“Q&V”) data the Department requested. Therefore, in making this preliminary determination and in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we are drawing an adverse inference in selecting a rate from among the facts otherwise available (“AFA”) in determining the dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination

    In selecting an AFA rate, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. In an investigation, the Department's practice with respect to the assignment of an AFA rate is to select the higher of (1) the highest dumping margin alleged in the petition or (2) the highest calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.4 Therefore, as AFA, the Department preliminarily assigns the highest available petition margin of 493.46 percent as the rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity.

    4See, e.g., Certain Uncoated Paper From Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 3101 (January 20, 2016).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    We will also instruct CBP, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), to require for all PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration, and all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration, the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity, 493.46 percent.5 The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042, 64137 (October 3, 2011).

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department ordinarily discloses the calculations performed in the investigation to interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), however, in this proceeding there are no calculations to disclose. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), 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.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309. See also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    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, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. 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 time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    U.S. International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: November 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Scope Comments 5. Scope of the Investigation 6. Selection of Respondents 7. Discussion of the Methodology 8. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for Export Subsidies in Companion Countervailing Duty Investigation 9. Public Comment 10. U.S. International Trade Commission Notification 11. Conclusion Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula (NH4)2SO4.

    The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other products, including by, for example, blending (i.e., mixing granules of ammonium sulfate with granules of one or more other products), compounding (i.e., when ammonium sulfate is compacted with one or more other products under high pressure), or granulating (incorporating multiple products into granules through, e.g., a slurry process). For such combined products, only the ammonium sulfate component is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs in countries other than China.

    Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled (i.e., mixed or combined) with ammonium sulfate from sources not subject to this investigation. Only the subject component of such commingled products is covered by the scope of this investigation.

    The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-26984 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (“HFHTs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective October 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.0413.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 19, 1991, the Department published the notice of the antidumping duty order on HFHTs from the PRC.1 On July 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD Orders on HFHTs from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).2 In July 2016, the Department received a notice of intent to participate from, each, AMES True Temper (“AMES”) 3 and Council Tool Company, Inc. (“Council Tool”),4 domestic interested parties, within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).5 AMES and Council Tool, each, claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer in the United States of a domestic like product. On August 1, 2016, the Department received an adequate substantive response from AMES and Council Tool within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).6 The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the AD Orders, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).

    1See Antidumping Duty Orders: Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 6622 (February 19, 1991) (“AD Orders”). There are four orders on HFHTs from the PRC: Axes & adzes, bars & wedges, hammers & sledges, and picks & mattocks.

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 43185 (July 1, 2016). This notice inadvertently referred to this segment as the third review, however, this is the fourth sunset review of these orders.

    3 AMES is the successor company to Woodings-Verona Tools Works, the petitioner in the original investigation.

    4See Council Tool's July 11, 2016 submission; and AMES' July 18, 2016 submission.

    5 Pursuant 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1), because the 15-day deadline fell on Saturday, July 16, 2016, a non-business day, AMES' submission that was filed on the next business day (i.e., Monday, July 18, 2016) was accepted as timely.

    6See AMES' and Council Tool's August 1, 2016 submissions.

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by these orders are hand tools comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Subject hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding, which is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, is dispositive.7

    7See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Fourth Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the AD Orders and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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 Services System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B0824 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed on the Internet 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 Sunset Review

    Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD Orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margins likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to those listed in the chart below:

    HFHT Order Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Axes/Adzes 15.02 Picks/Mattocks 50.81 Bars/Wedges 31.76 Hammers/Sledges 45.42
    Notification to Interested Parties

    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 the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.218, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Orders IV. History of the Orders V. Legal Framework VI. Discussion of the Issues 1. Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping 2. Magnitude of the Margins Likely to Prevail VII. Final Results of Review VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-27079 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with September anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective November 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with September anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than September 30, 2017.

    BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P EN09NO16.019 EN09NO16.020 EN09NO16.021 EN09NO16.022 EN09NO16.023 EN09NO16.024 EN09NO16.025 EN09NO16.026 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-C Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Revised Factual Information Requirements

    On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.10 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 11 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    10See section 782(b) of the Act.

    11See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27004 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that none of the mandatory respondents in this review qualify for a separate rate and are, therefore, considered part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity for their exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective November 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 7, 2016, the Department initiated the eleventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Order).1 2 The Department initiated this administrative review for 218 producers and exporters of subject merchandise.3 Based on the timely requests for withdrawal of review requests, we rescinded the administrative review with respect to 22 companies pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (4).4 5

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) (Order)

    3See Initiation Notice. While there were 218 individual names upon which we initiated an administrative review, the number of actual companies initiated upon is significantly less when accounting for numerous duplicate names and minor name variations of the same companies requested by multiple interested parties, and the groupings of companies that have been collapsed and/or have been previously found affiliated.

    4See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 81 FR 46047 (July 15, 2016). While the petitioner and ASPA withdrew their respective review requests of Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd., VASEP did not withdraw its review request on behalf of this company; thus, we did not rescind the review with respect to Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd. because there remains an active review request for it on the record.

    5See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (2014-2015; 2015-2016) and Compromise of Outstanding Claims, 81 FR 47758 (July 22, 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the Order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, remains dispositive.6

    6 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, titled “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with and adopted by this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    Based on our analysis of CBP information and information provided by a number of companies, we preliminarily determine that 13 companies 7 under review did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that, consistent with its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances, but to complete the review with respect to these 13 companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.8 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7 These 13 companies are: (1) BIM Seafood Joint Stock Company; (2) Bien Dong Seafood Co., Ltd.; (3) Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company; (4) Ben Tre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import Export Joint Stock Company; (5) Fine Foods Company (FFC) (Ca Mau Foods & Fishery Export Joint Stock Company); (6) Gallant Dachan Seafood Co., Ltd.; (7) Green Farms Joint Stock Company; (8) Minh Cuong Seafood Import Export Frozen Processing Joint Stock Company; (9) Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd.; (10) Quang Ninh Export Aquatic Products Processing Factory; (11) Tacvan Frozen Seafood Processing Export Company; (12); Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited; and (13) Vinh Hoan Corp.

    8See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (“Assessment Notice”); see also “Assessment Rates” section below.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). Because the mandatory respondents in this administrative review have not responded to all portions of the NME questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the Vietnam-Wide entity, subject to the Vietnam-Wide entity rate of 25.76 percent.

    For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    The Department finds that the two mandatory respondents and 51 additional companies for which a review was requested have not established eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the Vietnam-Wide entity for these preliminary results.9 The Department's policy regarding conditional review of the Vietnam-Wide entity applies to this administrative review.10 Under this policy, the Vietnam-Wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the Vietnam-Wide entity, the entity is not under review and the entity's rate is not subject to change.

    9See Appendix II for a full list of all 53 companies; see also Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    10See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act provides that, where all rates are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available, the Department may use “any reasonable method” for assigning a rate to non-examined respondents.

    However, for these preliminary results, we have not calculated any individual rates or assigned a rate based on facts available. Therefore, consistent with our recent practice,11 we preliminarily determine to assign to the non-individually examined separate rate respondents the most recently assigned separate rate in this proceeding, which is from the previous administrative review.12 Using this method, we are preliminarily assigning a separate rate margin of 4.78 percent to the 12 non-individually examined companies that demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.

    11See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 64131 (September 19, 2016) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    12 This margin is from the 2014-2015 administrative review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2014-2015, 81 FR 62717 (September 12, 2016) (AR10 Final).

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following dumping margins exist:

    13 Due to the issues we have had in the past with variations of exporter names related to this Order, we remind exporters that the names listed in the rate box are the exact names, including spelling and punctuation which the Department will provide to CBP and which CBP will use to assess POR entries and collect cash deposits.

    Exporter 13 Margin
  • (percent)
  • Au Vung One Seafood Processing Import & Export Joint Stock Company 4.78 Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company 4.78 Cafatex Corporation, aka
  • Taydo Seafood Enterprise
  • 4.78
    Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 4.78 Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation 4.78 Kim Anh Company Limited 4.78 Ngo Bros Seaproducts Import-Export One Member Company Limited, aka
  • Ngo Bros
  • 4.78
    Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company 4.78 Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. 4.78 Taika Seafood Corporation 4.78 UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation 4.78 Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd., aka
  • Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd.
  • 4.78
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Normally, The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, here the Department preliminarily applied a separate rate 14 and the Vietnam-Wide rate 15 which were established in prior segments of the proceeding. Thus, there are no calculations on this record to disclose.

    14See AR10 Final.

    15See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005, 71008 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comments 6 and 10C (“we have applied a rate of 25.76 percent, a rate calculated in the initiation stage of the investigation from information provided in the petition (as adjusted by the Department)”).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results, and rebuttal comments within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.16 Rebuttal briefs must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs.17

    16See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d).

    17See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).

    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.18 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of issues raised in the written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.19 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. For the companies receiving a separate rate, we intend to assign an assessment rate of 4.78 percent, consistent with the methodology described above. For the final results, if we continue to treat the mandatory respondents and the additional 51 companies identified in Appendix II as part of the Vietnam-Wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 25.76 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by those companies. Finally, if we continue to make a no-shipment finding for the 13 companies that reported that they had no shipments of the subject merchandise during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise from these 13 companies will be liquidated at the Vietnam-Wide rate.20 The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.21

    19See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

    20See Assessment Notice.

    21See section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Should the final results of this administrative review remain unchanged from these preliminary results, the following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results for shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by sections 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the companies listed above, which have a separate rate, 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); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnam and non-Vietnam 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; (3) for all Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the existing rate for the Vietnam-Wide entity of 25.76 percent; and (4) for all non-Vietnam exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter that supplied that non-Vietnam 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.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology a. Respondent Selection b. Preliminary Determination of No Shipments c. Non-Market Economy Country d. Separate Rates e. The Vietnam-Wide Entity f. Separate Rate for Eligible, Non-Examined Respondents V. Recommendation Appendix II Companies Subject To Review Determined To Be Part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity 1. Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. Ngoc Tri Seafood Company (Amanda's affiliate) 2. Amanda Seafood Co., Ltd. 3. An Giang Coffee JSC 4. Anvifish Joint Stock Co. 5. Asia Food Stuffs Import Export Co., Ltd. 6. Binh Thuan Import—Export Joint Stock Company (THAIMEX) 7. Binh An Seafood Joint Stock Company 8. B.O.P. Limited Co. 9. C.P. Vietnam Corporation, aka C.P. Vietnam Corporation (“C.P. Vietnam”), aka C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited, aka C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation 10. Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (“CATACO”), aka Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (“CATACO”), aka Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Imex Company, aka Can Tho Agricultural Products 11. Can Tho Import Export Seafood Joint Stock Company (CASEAMEX) 12. Cautre Export Goods Processing Joint Stock Company 13. Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (“COFIDEC”) 14. Danang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (“Seaprodex Danang”) (and its affiliates), aka Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (and its affiliate, Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company) (collectively, “Seaprodex Danang”)), aka Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (“Seaprodex Danang”), aka Seaprodex Danang, aka Tho Quang Co, aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company, aka Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 (Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company) 15. Duy Dai Corporation 16. D & N Foods Processing (Danang Company Ltd.) 17. Gallant Ocean (Quang Ngai) Co., Ltd. 18. Gn Foods 19. Hai Thanh Food Company Ltd. 20. Hai Vuong Co., Ltd. 21. Han An Trading Service Co., Ltd. 22. Hoang Hai Company Ltd. 23. Hua Heong Food Industries Vietnam Co. Ltd. 24. Huynh Huong Seafood Processing (Huynh Houng Trading and Import Export Joint Stock Company) 25. Kien Long Seafoods Co. Ltd. 26. Khanh Loi Seafood Factory 27. Long Toan Frozen Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company 28. Luan Vo Fishery Co., Ltd. 29. Minh Chau Imp. Exp. Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. 30. Mp Consol Co., Ltd. 31. New Wind Seafood Co., Ltd. 32. Ngoc Chau Co., Ltd. and/or Ngoc Chau Seafood Processing Company 33. Ngoc Sinh, aka Ngoc Sinh Fisheries, aka Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprises, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafood Processing Company, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafood Trading & Processing Enterprise 34. Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. (“Nhat Duc”), aka Nhat Duc Co., Ltd., aka Nhat Duc Co. Ltd. 35. Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation, aka Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp. 36. Quoc Ai Seafood Processing Import Export Co., Ltd. 37. S.R.V. Freight Services Co., Ltd. 38. Saigon Food Joint Stock Company 39. Sustainable Seafood 40. Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 41. Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Tan Phong Phu Seafood Company Ltd. (“TPP Co., Ltd.”), aka Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co. Ltd. (“TPP Co., Ltd.”) 42. Thanh Doan Seaproducts Import & Export Processing Joint-Stock Company (THADIMEXCO) 43. Thanh Hung Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Co., Ltd. 44. Thanh Tri Seafood Processing Co. Ltd. 45. Thinh Hung Co., Ltd. 46. Trang Khan Seafood Co., Ltd. 47. Tien Tien Garment Joint Stock Company 48. Tithi Co., Ltd. 49. Viet Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company 50. Vietnam Northern Viking Technologies Co. Ltd. 51. Vinatex Danang 52. Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“VIMEX”), aka Vinh Loi Import Export Company (“Vimexco”) 53. Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Sue San Xuat Kau Cantho
    [FR Doc. 2016-27071 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Notice of Availability for Licensing—NIST's Patented Microfluidic Apparatus and Method To Control Liposome Formation AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, owns two patents related to controlled liposome formation using microfluidic channels: U.S. Patent 9,198,645, titled “Controlled Vesicle Self-Assembly in Continuous Two Phase Flow Microfluidic Channels” (NIST Docket 04-003); and U.S. Patent 8,715,591, title “Microfluidic Apparatus to Control Liposome Formation” (NIST Docket 09-017). Further details about these patents are provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, below.

    ADDRESSES:

    For further information about these patented inventions or other licensing and partnership opportunities, please contact Honeyeh Zube, CRADA and License Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by telephone at (301) 975-2209.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIST's Patent 9,198,645, titled “Controlled Vesicle Self-Assembly in Continuous Two Phase Flow Microfluidic Channels” (NIST Docket 04-003) claims novel methods for the formation of liposomes that encapsulate reagents in a continuous two-phase flow microfluidic network with precision control of size, for example, from 100 nm to 300 nm, by manipulation of liquid flow rates are described. By creating a solvent-aqueous interfacial region in a microfluidic format that is homogenous and controllable on the length scale of a liposome, fine control of liposome size and polydispersity can be achieved.

    NIST's Patent 8,715,591, title “Microfluidic Apparatus to Control Liposome Formation,” (NIST Docket 09-017) is available for license and claims the apparatus and method of using a microfluidic device that controls the amount of delivery compound incorporated in a liposome on a nanometer size scale using laminar flow and miscible fluids, thereby increasing loading efficiency. The patent was filed on Apr. 19, 2010 and was issued on May 6, 2014. The invention was first published in Jahn, et al., Microfluidic Directed Formation of Liposomes of Controlled Size, American Chemical Society Langmuir, 23 (11) pp 6289-6293. 2007.

    The liposomes formed by the self-assembly process are characterized using asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation combined with quasi-elastic light scattering and multiangle laser-light scattering. The vesicle size and size distribution are tunable over a mean diameter from 50 to 150 nm by adjusting the ratio of the alcohol-to-aqueous volumetric flow rate. Liposome formation depends more strongly on the focused alcohol stream width and its diffusive mixing with the aqueous stream than on the sheer forces at the solvent-buffer interface. The inventions have application in drug delivery, gene therapy, and potential application for on-demand liposome-mediated delivery of point-of-care therapeutics. The inventions can obviate the need for post-processing in drug manufacturing.

    NIST is authorized to license its rights in these inventions to organizations on a non-exclusive or exclusive basis for specified fields of use. The rights to these patents are available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing by the authority granted to the NIST under 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. NIST researchers are interested in potential collaborations with licensees to bring this invention to practical application and to promote innovation, enhance economic security and improve quality of life.

    Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26995 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Implementation of Vessel Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0580.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 3,047.

    Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 254.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for an extension of a current information collection. On October 10, 2008, NMFS published a final rule promulgated under the Endangered Species Act implementing speed restrictions to reduce the incidence and severity of ship collisions with North Atlantic right whales (73 FR 60173). That final rule contained a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction act (PRA). Specifically, 50 CFR 224.105(c) requires a logbook entry to document that a deviation from the 10-knot speed limit was necessary for safe maneuverability under certain conditions.

    In certain sea and weather conditions, a large ship may lose maneuverability at slow speeds. Therefore, under such conditions a ship, at the captain's discretion, may opt not to abide by the speed restrictions. If she/he chooses this option, she/he is required to make an entry into the ship's log, providing such information as: the reasons for the deviation, the speed at which the vessel is operated, the area, and the time and duration of such deviation.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27012 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0062] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker Enterprise Suite (SPOT-ES); OMB Control Number 0704-0460.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Number of Respondents: 1,670.

    Responses per Respondent: 56.

    Annual Responses: 93,520.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 46,760.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to comply with section 861 of Public Law 110-181 and DoD Instruction 3020.41, “Operational Contract Support” and other appropriate policy, Memoranda of Understanding, and regulations. The Department of Defense, the Department of State (DoS), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) require that Government contract companies enter their employee's data into the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) System before contractors are deployed outside of the United States. SPOT is also used during Homeland Defense and Defense Support of Civil Authority Operations in the United States. Any persons who choose not to have data collected will not be entitled to employment opportunities which require this data to be collected.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27009 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environment Impact Statement and Conduct a Public Scoping Meeting for the Proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project Within the Thousand Palms Area of Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Corps File No. SPL-2014-00238-RJV) AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to initiate a 45-day scoping process for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project.

    DATES:

    Submit comments concerning this notice on or before December 19, 2016. A public scoping meeting will be held on December 6, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. (PST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The scoping meeting location is: Thousand Palms Community Center, 31-189 Roberts Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276.

    Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office, ATIN: SPL-2014-00238-RJV, 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address, the project title and the Corps file number in the subject line.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Lynch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office, ATTN: SPL-2014-00238-RJV, 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-4850, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to any permit action. The Corps may ultimately make a determination to permit or deny the proposed project or a modified version of the proposed project. The primary Federal concerns are the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1344.

    1. Project Description. CVWD is proposing to construct a flood control project that is linear in nature, consists of four reaches, and is generally located on the northern and eastern margins of the community of Thousand Palms. Components of the project include levees, channels, culverts, and a sediment basin. The levees and channels would be comprised of compacted native soil with a layer of soil cement to protect the structures from erosion. Reach 1 is comprised of a 2.4 mile long levee with varying height from 5 to 14 feet, a minimum 12-foot access (patrol) road on the top of the levee, as well as an unpaved embankment access road on the downstream (west side) of the levee for operations and maintenance (O&M) purposes. Reach 2 is comprised of a 0.33 mile long levee with a height of approximately 5 feet, a minimum 12-foot access (patrol) road on the top of the levee, as well as an unpaved embankment access road on the downstream (west side) of the levee for O&M purposes and would be positioned in the mid-alluvial fan area just northeast of an existing electrical substation, to protect the substation and adjacent development. Reach 3 is comprised of a 1.23 mile long levee, an access road, and a 1.01 mile channel. The levee height would vary from 5 to 14 feet and would initiate approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the downstream end of Reach 2, roughly 1,000 feet south of Ramon Road. The channel would divert flows from Levee 3 towards the existing stormwater conveyance system at the Classic Club Golf Course. Reach 4 is comprised of an approximately two-mile long channel that would divert stormwater flows from the southeast end of the Classic Club Golf Course and continue south then east, adjacent to the re-aligned Avenue 38, and would terminate at Washington Street with construction of a conveyance system to direct stormwater flows into existing stormwater conveyance facilities in the Del Webb/Sun City development.

    2. Issues. Potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project may include: Aesthetics/visual impacts, air quality emissions, biological resource impacts, noise, traffic and transportation, and cumulative impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

    3. Alternatives. The Draft EIS will include a co-equal analysis of several alternatives. Project alternatives will be further developed during this scoping process. Additional alternatives that may be developed during scoping will also be considered in the Draft EIS.

    4. Scoping. The Corps and CVWD will jointly conduct a public scoping meeting to receive public comment regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft EIS. Participation by Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged.

    5. The Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review and comment 6 to 12 months after the scoping meeting, and a public meeting may be held after its publication.

    Dated: October 25, 2016. David Castanon, Chief, Regulatory Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27063 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Undeveloped Stream Reaches of the United States; Request for Information AGENCY:

    Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), within the Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this request for information (RFI) to invite input from the public regarding challenges and opportunities associated with hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches. Through this RFI, the WPTO is also seeking input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support research and development of advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects of new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States.

    DATES:

    Responses must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on Friday, December 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to [email protected] as Microsoft Word (.docx) attachments to an email, and no more than 6 pages in length, 12 point font, 1 inch margins. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding 25 MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Please include in the subject line “Comments for RFI”. Only electronic responses will be accepted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions may be directed to: Rajesh Dham, Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: (202) 287-6675, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Purpose III. Request for Information Categories and Questions IV. Guidance for Submitting Documents I. Background

    Through its HydroNEXT initiative, WPTO's Hydropower Program (the Program) invests in the development of innovative technologies that lower cost, improve performance, and promote environmental stewardship of hydropower development across three resource classes:

    • Existing non-powered dams (NPD) • Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) • New stream-reach development (NSD)

    Under a Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DE-FOA-0001455 titled, “Innovative Technologies to Advance Non-Powered Dam and Pumped Storage Hydropower Development,” the Program made federal funding available to research and develop innovative solutions for NPD and PSH development. In FY 2017, the Program seeks to overcome challenges associated with furthering the development of hydropower in new stream-reaches.

    Development of hydropower in new stream-reaches refers to new projects in stream segments and waterways that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities. New stream-reach development projects are subject to more scrutiny than projects for other hydropower resources (i.e. NPDs, refurbishments) because such development can have more extensive environmental and social effects, particularly if construction of a dam or diversion is required. Construction of barriers in a natural waterway can affect fish migration, channel geomorphology, sediment transport, habitat connectivity, water quality, and flow regimes. The unique nature of new stream-reach development can also add cost, time, and uncertainty to the development process. These factors have hindered the development of this resource in recent decades.

    To realize sustainable and responsible hydropower development and to protect the integrity of existing streams, the Program is seeking information regarding transformative and/or innovative hydropower technologies that reduce or eliminate environmental concerns and are financially viable.

    II. Purpose

    The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to development of hydropower in new stream-reaches. EERE is specifically interested in information on the costs/benefits and environmental effects associated with such development, and possible solutions to address the related challenges. EERE is also seeking input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support research and development of advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects of new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States. This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA); EERE is not accepting applications.

    III. Request for Information Categories and Questions A. Category 1: New Stream-Reach Development (NSD) Challenges and Opportunities

    To accelerate the deployment of sustainable and responsible hydropower in new stream-reaches while protecting their social and environmental value, EERE is seeking input on the main challenges and potential opportunities for developing this resource.

    Specifically, we welcome feedback on the following questions:

    (1) How can advances in technology more readily address environmental challenges associated with hydropower development in undeveloped streams?

    (2) What are the technical challenges associated with new stream-reach development? How can DOE help address these challenges?

    (3) How can modularization of power train and civil works components affect project costs? How can standardized equipment build familiarity and assist with regulatory review of proposed new stream-reach development projects?

    (4) With recent advancements in additive manufacturing, it has become increasingly easy to embed sensors and other smart technology into equipment. How can this advancement be used to build smarter machines and change the way stakeholders address environmental concerns?

    (5) What other challenges is the hydropower community facing with regards to new stream-reach development? How can DOE help to address those challenges?

    B. Category 2: Transformative Hydropower Innovations

    The DOE's 2016 Hydropower Vision analysis 1 found that deployment of 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of new stream-reach development is possible by 2050 based on a scenario in which technology advancements lower capital and operating costs, innovative market mechanisms increase revenue and lower financing costs, and environmental considerations are taken into account. Further, alternative scenarios explored in the Hydropower Vision analysis also showed new stream-reach development could increase by an additional 15.5 GW by 2050 if a substantial level of transformative technological innovation were developed to successfully address the cost and environmental considerations associated with new stream-reach development.

    1 The 2016 Hydropower Vision analysis involved more than 50 modeled scenarios, each examining the effects of key variables or combination of variables that influence the deployment of hydropower facilities in electricity market competition with other generation sources. http://energy.gov/eere/water/articles/hydropower-vision-new-chapter-america-s-1st-renewable-electricity-source.

    We are seeking input on the following questions related to this issue:

    (1) What type of transformative innovations (either in power train components or plant system designs) could hold the key to reducing or avoiding environmental effects typically associated with development of new stream-reaches?

    (2) How can Federal investments in research and development help increase benefits and reduce costs for new stream-reach development? What areas of investment would be most impactful?

    (3) Are other industries using technologies, equipment, or techniques that could be applied to hydropower to increase benefits and/or reduce new stream-reach development project costs, timelines, and environmental effects? Please provide examples.

    C. Category 3: Potential Funding Opportunity

    EERE seeks input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support the development of environmentally-sustainable hydropower development in new stream-reaches. EERE welcomes feedback on the approach outlined below.

    The objective of this potential research is to develop advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects for new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States. Potential projects should be capable of reducing the environmental and social effects of civil works and other disturbances resulting from the development of hydropower in undeveloped stream-reaches. Of particular interest are projects that do not require the use of a dam to create the head differential necessary to generate hydropower.

    Following a two-phase process, potential researchers should be able to demonstrate—through research, analysis, and engineering design—that the proposed systems can meet the following metrics:

    1. Environmental and Social Impact 2

    2 Environmental and Social Impact refers to how construction and operation of a project affects geomorphology, water quality, and the function of streams in supporting social objectives (e.g., recreation) and species reproduction.

    2. Technical Feasibility 3. Cost Competitiveness Phase 1 (12 Months)

    Research the available hydropower potential and develop innovative and transformative design strategies that include ways to increase head for cost-competitive and environmentally sustainable hydropower development. Such designs should include the following features:

    • Transformative diversionary structures without the use of a solid dam: examples include side intakes or side-channel intakes and headrace canals, and trench weirs with suitable water conveyance systems

    • Alternative water conveyance systems using innovative technologies (such as advanced tunneling methods, intakes, alternative pipe materials and manufacturing, and tailrace systems) to increase power density and reduce component and system costs

    • Use of low impact, modular, and scalable hydropower technologies as applicable to achieve cost reductions

    Researchers should consider multipurpose use of the hydropower facility that may help to reduce the cost allocation to hydropower development.

    Further, awardees will perform desktop studies using available data to identify probable locations on undeveloped stream-reaches for potential application of their innovative/transformational design strategies. These studies will help to identify the most favorable sites and inform reconnaissance and feasibility studies in Phase 2.

    Phase 2 (12-18 Months)

    With respect to the most favorable sites identified in Phase I, researchers should perform: (A) Reconnaissance studies, and (B) Feasibility studies.

    A. Reconnaissance Studies

    Reconnaissance studies are performed with the aim of determining if further feasibility studies are warranted. These studies should:

    1. Scope the extent of study necessary for hydropower site development and preliminary economic analysis 2. Develop a preliminary layout (plan and cross-section) 3. Assess the head and flow (site hydrology) 4. Determine the type of turbine-generator for the head and flow for the purpose of obtaining typical equipment costs 5. Estimate preliminary power potential 6. Evaluate the transmission requirements at a high level for power take-off 7. Assess potential environmental and social impacts and related mitigation 8. Develop a high level cost estimate 9. Estimate potential revenue streams 10. Determine economic feasibility including possible financing costs 11. Include a report to document reconnaissance findings B. Feasibility Studies

    Feasibility studies are performed with the aim of determining if an investment commitment should be made without actual ground disturbance and the requirement of permit(s). These studies will include the following activities:

    1. A firm-up of the project layout to include alternate sites based on actual preliminary site investigations 2. Confirmation of the project parameters such as: a. Head b. flow duration and unit flow c. number and type of units d. installed capacity e. water conductor system and ancillary equipment and other physical work f. transmission routing and associated equipment needs 3. Identification of site development needs 4. Evaluation of power purchase alternatives 5. Potential environmental and social impact studies and related mitigation 6. Detailed preliminary cost studies 7. Evaluation of possible multi-use of the facility 8. Determination of economic feasibility including possible financing costs 9. Preparation of a report to document feasibility findings

    Researchers should perform reconnaissance studies for at least six selected locations for project development, with the aim of performing feasibility studies on the three most promising sites. We anticipate that DOE would make a Go/No-Go decision after Phase 1 based on the environmental performance, costs, and applicability of the proposed technology or design strategy.

    EERE welcomes input on the approach outlined. Specifically, we welcome feedback on the following questions:

    (1) Is the focus outlined above the optimal approach for supporting sustainable development of hydropower in undeveloped streams? If not, what improvements would you suggest?

    (2) Please share comments on other items not considered here that you believe EERE should address as it develops a strategy to advance new stream-reach development.

    IV. Guidance for Submitting Documents

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit responses by not later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on December 16, 2016. Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to [email protected] as Microsoft Word (.docx) attachments to an email, and no more than 6 pages in length, 12 point font, 1 inch margins. Only electronic responses will be accepted.

    Respondents are requested to provide the following information at the start of their response to this RFI:

    • Company/institution name;

    • Company/institution contact;

    • Contact's address, phone number, and email address.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 3, 2016. Jim Ahlgrimm Acting Director, Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27054 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2246-046] Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Types of Application: Amend license to re-develop recreation area.

    b. Project No.: 2246-046.

    c. Date Filed: September 6, 2016.

    d. Applicants: Yuba County Water Agency.

    e. Name of Projects: Yuba River Development Project.

    f. Location: New Bullards Bar Reservoir, Yuba County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.200.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Curt Aikens, Yuba County Water Agency, 1220 F St., Marysville, CA 95901-4226, (530) 741-6278.

    i. FERC Contact: David Rudisail, (202) 502-6376, [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2246-046) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: Yuba County Water Agency proposes to re-develop the Cottage Creek Picnic Area which was destroyed by fire in August 2010. The new Cottage Creek Group Campground would remain within the construction footprint of the previous development and would be constructed in two phases. Only phase one is subject to approval at this time. Phase one would be completed within 1.5 years of approval and would be authorized under the existing license. Phase one would include: (1) Five double campsites with each consisting of a paved vehicle spur with two single vehicle spaces and two recreational vehicle camping spaces and a living space with one group-sized fire ring, two bear resistant food lockers, two picnic tables and two tent pads; (2) a host campsite with a paved vehicle spur and a septic hook-up with a holding tank; (3) a potable water system consisting of water hydrants within the campground and an underground distribution system that would connect to the existing recreation water system; (4) a two-unit vault restroom building; (5) a paved circulation road with vehicle barriers; (6) a multi-panel information sign; (7) a paved overflow parking area for nine single vehicles; and (8) trash facilities, including a dumpster and individual receptacles.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene or protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the license proposed re-development. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27069 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-138-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft General Conformity Analysis for the Atlantic Sunrise Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, Commission staff has prepared this draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) for the Atlantic Sunrise Project (Project) to assess the potential air quality impacts associated with the construction of natural gas transmission facilities proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Transco).

    The FERC staff concludes that the Project would achieve conformity in Pennsylvania through the transfer of Emission Reduction Credits. FERC staff will issue a final GCD to address any changes necessary and respond to comments.

    The Project would involve the construction and operation of about 199.4 miles of pipeline facilities and appurtenant aboveground facilities, including:

    • 185.9 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (58.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter and 127.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);

    • 11.0 miles of new pipeline looping in Clinton and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (2.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter and 8.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);

    • 2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in Prince William County, Virginia;

    • two new compressor stations in Columbia and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 610 and 605);

    • additional compression and related modifications to two existing compressor stations in Columbia and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 517 and 520) and one in Howard County, Maryland (Compressor Station 190);

    • other modifications would be taking place at Compressor Stations 145, 150, 155, 160, 170, 185, and 190 across Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia;

    • two new meter stations and three new regulator stations would be constructed and operated in Pennsylvania. There would also be modifications at an existing meter station, and the construction and operation of additional ancillary facilities would occur in Pennsylvania; and

    • in North Carolina and South Carolina, supplemental odorization, odor detection, and/or odor masking/deodorization equipment would be installed at 56 meter stations, regulator stations, and ancillary facilities.

    In addition, the full draft GCD is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.1 In addition, a limited number of copies of the draft GCD are available for public inspection at the local libraries in the Project area and at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    1https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft GCD may do so. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to issuance of the final GCD, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC, on or before December 5, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the docket number (CP15-138-000) with your submission. 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) Another way to file your comments electronically is 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: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    For further information, contact Eric Tomasi by telephone at 202-502-8097 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27067 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status Patua Acquisition Company, LLC EG16-131-000 Desert Wind Farm, LLC EG16-132-000 Innovative Solar 31, LLC EG16-133-000 ID Solar 1, LLC EG16-134-000 Oregon Clean Energy, LLC EG16-135-000 Boulder Solar II, LLC EG16-136-000 Brady Interconnection, LLC EG16-137-000 Pumpjack Solar I, LLC EG16-138-000 Wildwood Solar I, LLC EG16-139-000 Astra Wind LLC EG16-140-000 Luning Energy Holdings LLC EG16-141-000 Luning Energy LLC EG16-142-000 Grand View PV Solar Two LLC EG16-143-000

    Take notice that during the month of October 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary
    [FR Doc. 2016-26990 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM16-17-000] Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes; Notice of the Second Technical Workshop on the Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes (NOPR), the Commission proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to collect certain data for analytics and surveillance purposes from market-based rate (MBR) sellers and entities trading virtual products or holding financial transmission rights and to change certain aspects of the substance and format of information submitted for MBR purposes.1 In the NOPR, the Commission stated that staff will hold technical workshops on the data dictionary and the submittal process.2 A technical workshop was held on the draft data dictionary attached to the NOPR on August 11, 2016.3

    1Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2016).

    2Id. P 15.

    3 “Staff Notes on: Technical Workshop on the Draft Data Dictionary Attached to the Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” available at, http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20160909154402-staff-notes.pdf.

    This notice announces a second technical workshop that will focus on the submittal process. The purpose of this technical workshop is to allow for a dialogue between staff and the public regarding the technical aspects of the submission process. Staff will present case studies drawn from the characteristics of existing entities expected to submit data under the rule. The case studies will include a discussion of (1) the steps the user would follow to submit data to the relational database; (2) the process of data review and validation once the data is received by the Commission; and (3) the notifications a user would receive as the data makes its way through the Commission data validation and receipt process. Staff will also provide a high-level update on proposed technical refinements to the data dictionary based on prior workshop and additional outreach. The agenda for the workshop is attached.

    All interested parties are invited to attend. The workshop will be held in Washington, DC on December 7, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at FERC headquarters in the Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. For those unable to attend in person, access to the workshop sessions will be available by webcast.

    Due to the detailed, substantive nature of the subject matter, parties interested in actively participating in the discussion are encouraged to attend in person. All interested parties (whether attending in person or via webcast) are asked to register online at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/12-07-16-form.asp. There is no registration fee.

    Those who would like to participate in the discussion by telephone during the workshop should send a request for a telephone line to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. Friday, December 2, 2016, with the subject line: RM16-17 NOPR Workshop Teleconference Request.

    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For additional information, please contact David Pierce of FERC's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6454 or send an email to [email protected]

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26994 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-88-000] Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project (ACRP or Project), proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) in the above-referenced docket. Tennessee requests authorization and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, modify, and operate natural gas pipeline facilities in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The purpose of the Project is to disconnect and abandon pipeline segments from interstate natural gas service and construct and operate new natural gas infrastructure as a replacement to maintain service to existing customers. Following abandonment, TGP intends to sell the pipeline to Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline LLC, an affiliate of TGP, for transportation of natural gas liquids.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the ACRP in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction, modification, and operation of the following facilities associated with the Project:

    • Abandonment in place of about 964 miles of pipeline between Columbiana County, Ohio, and Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana;

    • disconnects of the abandoned pipeline and directly associated equipment at 14 existing compressor stations; abandonment in place of 82 existing mainline valves; and 125 sites where taps or crossover/connector lines would be disconnected, abandoned, relocated, or removed;

    • construction of 12 short segments of new pipeline to reconnect customer taps to TGP's other existing pipelines totaling 5.3 miles of new pipeline (between 2 and 16 inches in diameter) in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi;

    • construction of four new compressor stations in Jackson, Morgan, Tuscarawas, and Mahoning Counties, Ohio;

    • modification of existing Compressor Station 110 in Rowan County, Kentucky and additional modification of Compressor Station 875 (approved as part of the Broad Run Expansion Project, CP15-77) in Madison County, Kentucky;

    • construction of 7.7 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Carter and Lewis Counties, Kentucky; and

    • construction of about 1.0 mile of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacement in Washington County, Mississippi, and 1.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in six sections in Madison County, Kentucky.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers; and libraries in the project area. Paper copy versions of the EA were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments on or before December 2, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-88-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (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 also file your comments electronically 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.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing;” or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding that no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    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 (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., CP15-88). 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.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26989 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-23-000.

    Applicants: Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, NextEra Energy, Inc., EFH Merger Co., LLC, WSS Acquisition Company, T & D Equity Acquisition, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval of the Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5258.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-24-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Wind Project I, LLC, Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment for Cimarron Bend Wind Project I, LLC and Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-25-000.

    Applicants: Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, NextEra Energy, Inc., EFH Merger Co., LLC,,WSS Acquisition Company, T & D Equity Acquisition, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment for Lindahl Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2304-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report for Unfiled GIAs to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2602-001.

    Applicants: 4C Acquisition, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization of 4C Acquisition to be effective 11/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-168-001.

    Applicants: Applied Energy LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 12/24/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    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 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26988 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. NJ17-3-000] City of Vernon, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on October 28, 2016, City of Vernon, California submitted its tariff filing: Filing 2017 Transmission Revenue Requirement and Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment, to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 18, 2016.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26991 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-487-000; PF15-32-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Cedar Station Upgrade Project

    On July 29, 2016, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-487-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The project is known as the Cedar Station Upgrade Project (Project), and would involve the construction of a new 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop 1 to fulfill Northern's contractual obligation to provide an increased gas pressure of 650 pounds per square inch gauge to Northern States Power Company.

    1 A pipeline “loop” is a segment of pipe installed parallel to an existing pipeline.

    On August 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA December 9, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline March 9, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Northern proposes to construct the following facilities:

    • About 7.86 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop;

    • a pig 2 launcher and takeoff valve at milepost 0.0; and

    2 A pig is an internal pipeline tool used to clean a pipeline and/or to inspect for damage or corrosion.

    • a pig receiver and tie-in valve, and modifications to regulators and piping within the existing Cedar Meter Station boundaries.

    Background

    On February 23, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Cedar Station Upgrade Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket No. PF15-32-000 and was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from Dakota and Goodhue Counties, Thomas Lake Country Homes Homeowners Association, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and over 350 concerned landowners/stakeholders. The primary issues raised by the commentors are: Impacts on residential areas from construction; alternatives that avoid residential areas; and impacts on Lebanon Hills Regional Park and alternatives that would avoid this park.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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.

    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 (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-487), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27066 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2343-086] PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Major License.

    b. Project No.: 2343-086.

    c. Date filed: December 30, 2015.

    d. Applicant: PE Hydro Generation, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Millville Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Shenandoah River, near the town of Harpers Ferry in Jefferson County, West Virginia. No federal lands are occupied by project works or located within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: John Collins, Executive Vice President, Cube Hydro Partners, LLC, 2 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1330, Bethesda, MD 20814; Telephone—(240) 482-2703.

    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer, (202) 502-6093, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 Days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions 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-2343-086.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.

    l. The Millville project consists of: (1) A 14.0-foot-high concrete and stone dam consisting of three sections: a 36-foot-long non-overflow abutment on the east bank; an 813-foot long, non-gated spillway section; and a 122-foot-long intake structure, equipped with four vertical lift gates and one canal gate, and extending to the west riverbank; (2) a 100 acre reservoir with gross storage capacity of 900 acre-feet at elevation 324.0 mean sea level; (3) a 1,600-foot-long, 30-foot-wide, 12-foot-high masonry and concrete sided headrace canal; (4) a 125-foot-long, 40-foot-wide brick powerhouse containing 3 turbine-generating units with a combined capacity of 2.84 megawatts; (5) a 550-foot-long tailrace, excavated in bedrock and returning flow to the river channel; and (6) a 1,006-foot-long, 2.4 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to a transformer, with a 794-foot-long, 34.5 kV transmission line to the interconnection with the local grid.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    o. Procedural Schedule:

    The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

    Milestone Target date Filing of recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions January, 2016. Commission issues EA May, 2017. Comments on EA or EIS June, 2017. Modified terms and conditions August, 2017.

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26992 Filed 11-8-16; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-23-000.

    Applicants: Pima Energy Storage System, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Pima Energy Storage System, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-24-000.

    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar A, LLC.

    Description: Portal Ridge Solar A, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-009.

    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1536-012; ER10-2192-028; ER15-1537-005; ER15-1539-005; ER10-2178-028; ER11-2010-025 ER12-1829-015; ER12-1223-020.

    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Constellation Energy Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Constellation Energy Services, Inc., Constellation Energy Services of New York Inc., Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Exelon Wind 4, LLC, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of change in status of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-201-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Indiana, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Rate for Madison Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2323-001.

    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: OATT—Revise Attachment K, TCC Rate Update Amendment to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2675-000.

    Applicants: AltaGas Pomona Energy Storage Inc.

    Description: Supplement to September 27, 2016 AltaGas Pomona Energy Storage Inc. tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5297.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2684-002.

    Applicants: Nippon Dynawave Packaging Co.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: MBRA Application to be effective 9/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2703-000.

    Applicants: Deerfield Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to September 29, 2016 Deerfield Wind Energy, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5284.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-296-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3221 Grain Belt Express Clean Line/ITC Great Plains Interconnection Agreement to be effective 10/17/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5027.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-297-000.

    Applicants: Ampex Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate Authorization to be effective 11/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-298-000.

    Applicants: Iron Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Rate Tariff of Iron Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5283.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-299-000.

    Applicants: Luning Energy LLC.

    Description: Request for Authorization to Undertake Affiliate Sales of Luning Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-300-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-301-000.

    Applicants: NextEra Energy, Inc.

    Description: Petition for Waiver of Affiliate Pricing Rules of NextEra Energy, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-302-000.

    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar A, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Concurrence to be effective 11/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-303-000.

    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar A, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Co-Tenancy Agreement Concurrence to be effective 11/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-304-000.

    Applicants: Big Turtle Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement Filing to be effective 11/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20161103-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/16.

    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 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27065 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-132-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing Operational Purchases and Sales Report for 2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5035.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-133-000.

    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: James Valley Ethanol Neg Rate Agmt to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-134-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BUG Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5047.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-135-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements—11/1/2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5051.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-136-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Superseding NC Agmt Filing (Atmos 21789) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-137-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: NSAP Project-related Negotiated Rate Agmts to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-138-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate Agmt Filing (Tenaska 35784) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-139-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Matters to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-140-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate Agmt Filing (Midwest Natural 35495) to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5062.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-141-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—ConEd Release to Trident to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-142-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: OTRA—Winter 2016 to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5081.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-143-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Fuel Tracker Filing (Initial Filing) to be effective 4/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-144-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-11-01 Encana, CP to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5091.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-145-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Neg Rates many Ks Capacity Enhancement Compliance CP15-137 to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-146-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 2017 May Period Two Rate to be effective 5/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-147-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Plymouth 792512 & So Jersey 792522 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-148-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—IDT Ramapo Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-149-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Plymouth Rock Ramapo Releases eff 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-150-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—ConEd Nov 2016 Release to Entrust 8943503 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-151-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 3 Amended Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-152-000.

    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing 11-1-2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5201.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-153-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate—BUG Release to Trident eff 11-2-16 to be effective 11/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-154-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing—November 2016 LER 1008744 Removal to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-155-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing—November 2016 Trans Louisiana 1010877 to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/14/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-156-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Capacity Enhancement Compliance to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5210.

    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 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26993 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-297-000] Ampex Energy, 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 Ampex Energy, 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 23, 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 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27068 Filed 11-8-16; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-19-000.

    Applicants: Wolf Hollow II Power, LLC.

    Description: Wolf Hollow II Power, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-20-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Bend II Power, LLC.

    Description: Colorado Bend II Power, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-21-000.

    Applicants: Portal Ridge Solar C, LLC.

    Description: Portal Ridge Solar C, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-22-000.

    Applicants: Luminant Generation Company LLC.

    Description: Luminant Generation Company LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2641-028; ER10-2663-028; ER10-2881-028; ER10-2882-029; ER10-2883-028; ER10-2884-028; ER10-2885-028.

    Applicants: Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, Southern Company—Florida LLC, Alabama Power Company, Southern Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material of Change in Status of Oleander Power Project, Limited Partnership, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5332.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2794-021; ER14-2672-006; ER12-1825-019.

    Applicants: EDF Trading North America, LLC, EDF Energy Services, LLC, EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of EDF Trading North America, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3417-012; ER10-2895-016; ER10-2917-016; ER10-2918-017; ER10-2920-016; ER10-2921-016; ER10-2922-016; ER10-2966-016; ER10-3167-008; ER10-3178-009; ER11-2292-016; ER11-2293-016; ER11-2294-015; ER11-2383-011; ER11-3941-014; ER11-3942-015; ER12-2447-014; ER13-1346-008; ER13-1613-009; ER13-203-008; ER13-2143-009; ER14-1964-007; ER16-287-002.

    Applicants: Alta Wind VIII, LLC, Bear Swamp Power Company LLC, BIF II Safe Harbor Holdings, LLC, BIF III Holtwood LLC, Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC, Black Bear Hydro Partners, LLC, Black Bear SO, LLC, Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy Marketing LP, Brookfield Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield Renewable Energy Marketing US LLC, Brookfield Smoky Mountain Hydropower LLC, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., Granite Reliable Power, LLC, Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Mesa Wind Power Corporation, Rumford Falls Hydro LLC, Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, Windstar Energy, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Brookfield Companies.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5316.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2075-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: NorthWestern Corporation (South Dakota) Formula Rate Compliance Filing to be effective 10/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2129-003.

    Applicants: Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5325.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2684-001.

    Applicants: Nippon Dynawave Packaging Co.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: MBRA Application to be effective 9/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5207.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-252-001.

    Applicants: 2016 ESA Project Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of MBR Authority Application and Inital Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-275-000.

    Applicants: AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Approval of Amended RMR Service Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5163.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-276-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LL, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits revisions to Service Agreement No. 4575 with Allegheny Hydro to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5164.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-277-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Service Agreement No. 3226—NITSA between PJM and VEPCO to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-278-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Penelec Amendment to Restated Composite Power Pooling Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-279-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017 SDGE TRBAA TACBAA update to Transmission Owner Tariff Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-280-000.

    Applicants: Jersey Central Power & Light.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: JCP&L Amendment to Restated Composite Power Pooling Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-281-000.

    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LL.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT Amendment to Restated Composite Power Pooling Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5192.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-282-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to OATT reflect SMECO as a Transmission Owner to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-283-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the CTOA Attachment A to reflect SMECO as a Transmission Owner to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-284-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-11-01_Competitive Retail Solution Filing to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-285-000.

    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MetEd Modifications to Purchase and Sale Agreement with Niagara Mohawk to be effective 11/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-286-000.

    Applicants: Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MetEd Amendment to Restated Composite Power Pooling Agreement to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-287-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing and Cancellations of Various Eldorado Agreements to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20161101-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-288-000.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of multiple market base rate service agreements of Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5311.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-289-000.

    Applicants: East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Application for cost-based revenue requirements schedule for reactive power production capability of East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-290-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Informational Filing of Contract of ISO New England Inc.

    Filed Date: 10/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20161031-5333.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-291-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Executed Transmission Service Agreements Between PNM and Aragonne Wind, LLC to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5061.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-292-000.

    Applicants: Greenleaf Power Management LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of MBR Tariff to be effective 11/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-293-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA SA No. 3159—Queue W2-073 to be effective 2/21/2014.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-294-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Electric Company, Jersey Central Power & Light, Metropolitan Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Penelec, JCPL and Met-Ed submit Revised WASP Agreements SA Nos. 4221, 4222, 4223 to be effective 10/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-295-000.

    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 205 Filing of CRA No. 2319 between NYSEG and National Grid to be effective 10/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20161102-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/23/16.

    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 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26987 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL 9955-07-Region 5] Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science and Information Subcommittee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public teleconference of the Science and Information Subcommittee (SIS) to the Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Central Time, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment. Due to administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days' public notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public teleconference will be held by teleconference only. The teleconference number is: 1-877-226-9607; participant code: 605 016 6037.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at [email protected] General information on the GLRI, the Board, and SIS can be found at http://glri.us/public.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The SIS was established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. The SIS is composed of members from governmental, private sector, non-profit and academic organizations, appointed by the EPA Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the Interagency Task Force (IATF), who were selected based on their established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of ecological protection and restoration issues. The SIS will assist the Board in providing ongoing advice on Great Lakes adaptive management and may provide other recommendations, as requested by the IATF.

    Availability of Meeting Materials: The agenda and other materials in support of the meeting will be available at http://glri.us/advisory/index.html.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to federal agencies. Members of the public can submit relevant comments for consideration by the SIS. Input from the public to the SIS will have the most impact if it provides specific information for the SIS to consider. Members of the public wishing to provide comments should contact the DFO directly.

    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public meeting will be limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the number of people wanting to comment. Interested parties should contact the DFO in writing (preferably via email) at the contact information noted above by November 16, 2016 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.

    Written Statements: Written statements must be received by November 14, 2016 so that the information may be made available to the SIS for consideration. Written statements should be supplied to the DFO in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature and one electronic copy via email. Commenters are requested to provide two versions of each document submitted: One each with and without signatures because only documents without signatures may be published on the GLRI Web page.

    Accessibility: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at the phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least seven days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to the Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27078 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2016-0632; FRL—9955-05-ORD] Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Willingness To Pay Survey To Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England Waters AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Willingness to Pay Survey to Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England Waters” (EPA ICR No. 2558.01, OMB Control No. 2080-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2016-0632, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marisa Mazzotta, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882; telephone number: 401-782-3026; fax number: 401-782-3139; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    Abstract: Researchers at the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) are piloting an effort to better understand how reduced water quality due to nutrient enrichment affects the economic prosperity, social capacity, and ecological integrity of coastal New England communities. This project proposes a survey to collect data for a case study of changes in recreation demand and values due to changes in nutrients in northeastern coastal waters. This includes the development of methods and tools for estimating recreational values that can be applied in other locations, either by EPA researchers, EPA's regional offices or state partners. Our initial geographic focus for these efforts will be Cape Cod, Massachusetts (“the Cape”; Barnstable County), and New England residents within 100 miles of the Cape. We focus on Cape Cod and its surrounding coastal areas both in order to limit the scope of the work to remain feasible within our research budget and to coordinate this socio-economic analysis with extensive ecological research being conducted on the Cape by ORD researchers, researchers at EPA's Region 1 office, and other external research groups. Cape Cod is also in the midst of an extensive regional planning effort related to its coastal waters, and this research can provide helpful socio-economic information to decision makers about the use of those waters. Because the 100-mile radius from Cape Cod includes a large area of southern New England and the largest population centers in New England, the results will be more broadly applicable to residents of southern New England.

    One of the key water quality concerns on Cape Cod, and throughout New England, is nonpoint sources of nitrogen, which lead to ecological impairments in estuaries, with resultant socio-economic impacts. The decisions needed to meet water quality standards are highly complex and involve significant cross-disciplinary challenges in identifying, implementing, and monitoring social and ecological management needs. We will focus on understanding recreational uses as valued economic goods in coastal New England (including beachgoing, swimming, fishing, shellfishing, and boating).

    As a part of these efforts, EPA's ORD/AED is seeking approval to conduct a revealed preference survey to collect data on: People's saltwater recreational activities; how recreational values are related to water quality; how perceptions of water quality relate to objective measures; the connections between perceptions of water quality, recreational choices and values, and sense of place; and demographic information. If approved, the survey will be administered using a mixed-mode approach that includes a mailed invitation to a web survey with an optional paper survey for people who are unable or unwilling to answer the web survey. The survey will be sent to a total of 8,400 residents living in counties where more than 25% of the county's geographic boundaries falls within 100 miles of the Cape as measured from Bourne, Massachusetts, which is the first town on Cape Cod heading east. This area includes coastal counties of New Hampshire, the eastern half of Massachusetts, all of Rhode Island, and the eastern part of Connecticut. In addition, we will oversample two populations: residents of Cape Cod and people who shellfish recreationally. We will send 750 surveys to each of these groups.

    ORD will use the survey responses to estimate willingness to pay for changes related to reductions in nutrient and pathogen loadings to coastal New England waters. The analysis relies on state of the art theoretical and statistical tools for non-market welfare analysis. A non-response bias analysis will also be conducted to inform the interpretation and validation of survey responses.

    All responses to the survey will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. To ensure that the final survey sample includes a representative and diverse population of individuals, the survey questionnaire will elicit basic demographic information, such as age, race and ethnicity, number of children under 18, type of employment, and income. However, the survey questionnaire will not ask respondents for personal identifying information, such as names or phone numbers. Instead, each survey response will receive a unique identification number. Prior to taking the survey, respondents will be informed that their responses will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The name and address of the respondent will not appear in the resulting database, preserving the respondents' identities. The survey data will be made public only after it has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that all other potentially identifying information has been removed. After data entry is complete, the surveys themselves will be destroyed and only respondent codes will remain.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Eligible respondents for the survey are individuals 18 years of age or older who reside in counties where at least 25% of county's geographic area falls within a 100-mile radius of Cape Cod. This includes coastal counties of New Hampshire, the eastern half of Massachusetts, all of Rhode Island, and the eastern part of Connecticut. The sample will be stratified by geography, with Barnstable County, Massachusetts sampled at a rate 3.06 times higher than the rest of the population in the study area. Additionally, the sample will be a dual-frame sample, where the main frame is the general population address-based frame of the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File, and a supplementary frame is the frame of shellfish license holder records. Households will be selected randomly from the DSF, which covers over 97% of residences in the U.S. EPA will request participation from a random stratified sample of 10,270 households in two phases. The first phase, a pretest, will be sent to 370 addresses. The second phase, encompassing full survey administration, will be administered to an additional 9,900 addresses. In each phase, we anticipate a response rate of 27 percent, resulting in 90 and 2,365 completed surveys, respectively, after accounting for expected undeliverable surveys.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: voluntary.

    Estimated number of respondents: 2,455 (total).

    Frequency of response: The survey is a one-time data collection activity.

    Total estimated burden: 614 hours (total). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: Assuming 15 minutes are needed to complete the survey, the total respondent cost comes to $21,386 for the pre-test and main survey combined, using an average wage rate for New England of $34.83 from the United States Department of Labor. This would be a one-time expenditure of their time.

    Changes in Estimates: This is the first notice; there is no change in estimates at this time.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Wayne Munns, Division Director, Atlantic Ecology Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27075 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CC Docket No. 92-237; DA 16-1240] Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and agenda.

    DATES:

    Thursday, December 1, 2016, 10:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-C162, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 or [email protected] The fax number is: (202) 418-1413. The TTY number is: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 16-1240 released November 1, 2016. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Thursday, December 1, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need, including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please allow at least five days advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Proposed Agenda: Thursday, December 1, 2016, 10:00 a.m. * 1. Announcements and Recent News 2. Approval of Transcript — September 15, 2016 3. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) 4. Report of the National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator (PA) 5. Report of the Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG) 6. Report of the Toll Free Number Administration (TFNA) 7. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Billing and Collection (NANP B&C) Agent 8. Report of the Billing and Collection Working Group (B&C WG) 9. Report of the North American Portability Management LLC (NAPM LLC) 10. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Transition Oversight Manager (TOM) 11. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration Working Group (LNPA WG) 12. Report of the Future of Numbering Working Group (FoN WG) 13. Status of the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities 14. Report of the Internet Protocol Issue Management Group (IP IMG) 15. Summary of Action Items 16. Public Comments and Participation (maximum 5 minutes per speaker) 17. Other Business Adjourn no later than 2:00 p.m.

    * The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the DFO.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marilyn Jones, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27073 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Architecture (Task Force) will hold its ninth meeting.

    DATES:

    December 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timothy May, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-1463, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting will be held on December 2, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the FCC, Room TW-305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Task Force is a Federal Advisory Committee that studies and reports findings and recommendations on PSAP structure, architecture, operations, and funding to promote greater efficiency of PSAP operations, security, and cost containment during the deployment of Next Generation 911 systems. On December 2, 2014, pursuant to the FACA, the Commission established the Task Force charter for a period of two years, through December 2, 2016. At this meeting, the Task Force will hear presentations and consider votes to adopt the reports and recommendations of the Task Force's three working groups: Working Group 1—Cybersecurity: Optimal Approach for PSAPs, Working Group 2—Optimal 911 Service Architecture, and Working 3—Optimal Resource Allocation.

    Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at https://www.fcc.gov/general/live.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs at (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation requested. In addition, please include a way the FCC may contact you if it needs more information. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27055 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of the Termination of the Receivership of 10321, Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, Minnesota

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10321, Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, Minnesota (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Community National Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27084 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10438, Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, South Carolina

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10438, Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, South Carolina (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Plantation Federal Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27086 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of the Termination of the Recieverhsip of 10373, Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, Colorado

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10373, Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, Colorado (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Colorado Capital Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27085 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10049, Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, North Carolina

    Notice Is Hereby Given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, North Carolina (“the Receiver”), intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Cape Fear Bank on April 10, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27087 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 25, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Derek S. Nolan, Parker, South Dakota; individually and acting in concert with Donald D. Nolan, Parker, South Dakota, to acquire voting shares of First State Associates, Inc., Hawarden, Iowa, and thereby control First State Bank, Hawarden, Iowa; Farmers State Bank, Marion, South Dakota; and Miner County Bank, Howard, South Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27061 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 7, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. The McGehee Bank Employee Stock Ownership Plan, McGehee, Arkansas; to acquire additional voting shares, for a total of 35 percent of the voting shares, of Southeast Financial Bankstock Corp., McGehee, Arkansas, and thereby increase its owenership of McGehee Bank, McGehee, Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 4, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27048 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 5, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. The Desjardins Group, Levis, Quebec, Canada; to merge its subsidiary Caisse centrale Desjardins du Québec, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, into Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, Levis, Quebec, Canada and retain control of Desjardins FSB Holdings, Inc. and Desjardins Bank, N.A., both of Hallandale, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26972 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 23, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. First State Associates, Inc., Hawarden, Iowa; to continue engaging in the sale of insurance in a town of less than 5,000 in population, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 3, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26974 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090-0278]; [Docket 2016-0001; Sequence 5] Submission for OMB Review; USA.gov National Contact Center Customer Evaluation Survey AGENCY:

    USA.gov Contact Center, General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the National Contact Center customer evaluation surveys. A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 48797 on July 26, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before: January 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Kaufmann, Federal Information Specialist, Office of Citizen Services and Communications, at telephone 202-357-9661 or via email to [email protected]

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-0278, National Contract Center Evaluation Survey”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-0278, National Contract Center Evaluation Survey” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 3090-0278, National Contract Center Evaluation Survey.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-0278, National Contract Center Evaluation Survey, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    This information collection will be used to assess the public's satisfaction with the USA.gov National Contact Center service(formerly the Federal Citizen Information Center's (FCIC) National Contact Center), to assist in increasing the efficiency in responding to the public's need for Federal information, and to assess the effectiveness of marketing efforts.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    The following are estimates of the annual hourly burdens for our surveys based on historical participation in our surveys.

    (1) Telephone Survey:

    Respondents: 6000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 6000.

    Hours per Response: 0.12.

    Total Burden Hours: 720.

    (2) Web Chat Survey:

    Respondents: 2400.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2400.

    Hours per Response: 0.12.

    Total Burden Hours: 288.

    (3) Email Survey:

    Respondents: 3600.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 3600.

    Hours per Response: 0.12.

    Total Burden Hours: 432.

    Grand Total Burden Hours: 1440. C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    OBTAINING COPIES OF PROPOSALS:

    Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0278, National Contact Center Customer Evaluation Survey, in all correspondence.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. David A. Shive, Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27064 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-CX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1662-N] Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2018 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a Town Hall meeting in accordance with section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to discuss fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for add-on payments for new medical services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Interested parties are invited to this meeting to present their comments, recommendations, and data regarding whether the FY 2018 new medical services and technologies applications meet the substantial clinical improvement criterion.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: The Town Hall Meeting announced in this notice will be held on Tuesday, February 14, 2017. The Town Hall Meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (e.s.t.) and check-in will begin at 8:30 a.m. e.s.t.

    Deadline for Registration for Participants (not Presenting) at the Town Hall Meeting: The deadline to register to attend the Town Hall Meeting is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Wednesday, February 8, 2017.

    Deadline for Requesting Special Accommodations: The deadline to submit requests for special accommodations is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Tuesday, January 17, 2017.

    Deadline for Registration of Presenters at the Town Hall Meeting: The deadline to register to present at the Town Hall Meeting is 5:00 p.m., e.s.t. on Monday, January 30, 2017.

    Deadline for Submission of Agenda Item(s) or Written Comments for the Town Hall Meeting: Written comments and agenda items for discussion at the Town Hall Meeting, including agenda items by presenters, must be received by 5:00 p.m. e.s.t. on Monday, January 30, 2017.

    Deadline for Submission of Written Comments after the Town Hall Meeting for consideration in the FY 2018 IPPS proposed rule: Individuals may submit written comments after the Town Hall Meeting, as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice, on whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. These comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. e.s.t. on Friday, February 24, 2017, for consideration in the FY 2018 IPPS proposed rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: The Town Hall Meeting will be held in the main Auditorium in the central building of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services located at 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    In addition, we are providing two alternatives to attending the meeting in person—(1) there will be an open toll-free phone line to call into the Town Hall Meeting; or (2) participants may view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live stream technology or webinar. Information on these options is discussed in section II.B. of this notice.

    Registration and Special Accommodations: Individuals wishing to participate in the meeting must register by following the on-line registration instructions located in section III. of this notice or by contacting staff listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Individuals who need special accommodations should contact staff listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    Submission of Agenda Item(s) or Written Comments for the Town Hall Meeting: Each presenter must submit an agenda item(s) regarding whether a FY 2018 application meets the substantial clinical improvement criterion. Agenda items, written comments, questions or other statements must not exceed three single-spaced typed pages and may be sent via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Joshua, (410) 786-6050, [email protected], or Michael Treitel, (410) 786-4552, [email protected]

    Alternatively, you may forward your requests via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background on the Add-On Payments for New Medical Services and Technologies Under the IPPS

    Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary to establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payments to acute care hospitals for new medical services and technologies under Medicare. Effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2001, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish (after notice and opportunity for public comment) a mechanism to recognize the costs of new services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In addition, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered “new” if it meets criteria established by the Secretary (after notice and opportunity for public comment). (See the fiscal year (FY) 2002 IPPS proposed rule (66 FR 22693, May 4, 2001) and final rule (66 FR 46912, September 7, 2001) for a more detailed discussion.)

    In the September 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 46914), we noted that we evaluated a request for special payment for a new medical service or technology against the following criteria in order to determine if the new technology meets the substantial clinical improvement requirement:

    • The device offers a treatment option for a patient population unresponsive to, or ineligible for, currently available treatments.

    • The device offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition in a patient population where that medical condition is currently undetectable or offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition earlier in a patient population than allowed by currently available methods. There must also be evidence that use of the device to make a diagnosis affects the management of the patient.

    • Use of the device significantly improves clinical outcomes for a patient population as compared to currently available treatments. Some examples of outcomes that are frequently evaluated in studies of medical devices are the following:

    ++ Reduced mortality rate with use of the device.

    ++ Reduced rate of device-related complications.

    ++ Decreased rate of subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions (for example, due to reduced rate of recurrence of the disease process).

    ++ Decreased number of future hospitalizations or physician visits.

    ++ More rapid beneficial resolution of the disease process treatment because of the use of the device.

    ++ Decreased pain, bleeding or other quantifiable symptoms.

    ++ Reduced recovery time.

    In addition, we indicated that the requester is required to submit evidence that the technology meets one or more of these criteria.

    Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Act specifies that the process for evaluating new medical services and technology applications shall include the following:

    • Provide for public input regarding whether a new service or technology represents an advance in medical technology that substantially improves the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries before publication of a proposed rule.

    • Make public and periodically update a list of all the services and technologies for which an application is pending.

    • Accept comments, recommendations, and data from the public regarding whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement.

    • Provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS as to whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement before publication of a proposed rule.

    The opinions and presentations provided during this meeting will assist us as we evaluate the new medical services and technology applications for FY 2018. In addition, they will help us to evaluate our policy on the IPPS new technology add-on payment process before the publication of the FY 2018 IPPS proposed rule.

    II. Town Hall Meeting and Conference Calling/Live Streaming Information A. Format of the Town Hall Meeting

    As noted in section I. of this notice, we are required to provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS concerning whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. This meeting will allow for a discussion of the substantial clinical improvement criteria for each of the FY 2018 new medical services and technology add-on payment applications. Information regarding the applications can be found on our Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html.

    The majority of the meeting will be reserved for presentations of comments, recommendations, and data from registered presenters. The time for each presenter's comments will be approximately 10 to 15 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Individuals who would like to present must register and submit their agenda item(s) via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    In addition, written comments will also be accepted and presented at the meeting if they are received via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. Written comments may also be submitted after the meeting for our consideration. If the comments are to be considered before the publication of the proposed rule, the comments must be received via email to [email protected] by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    B. Conference Call, Live Streaming, and Webinar Information

    For participants who cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting in person, an open toll-free phone line, (844) 396-8222, has been made available. The Meeting Place meeting ID is 902 252 617.

    Also, there will be an option to view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live streaming technology or webinar. Information on the option to participate via live streaming technology or webinar will be provided through an upcoming listserv notice and posted on the New Technology Web site at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html. Continue to check the Web site for updates.

    C. Disclaimer

    We cannot guarantee reliability for live streaming technology or a webinar.

    III. Registration Instructions

    The Division of Acute Care in CMS is coordinating the meeting registration for the Town Hall Meeting on substantial clinical improvement. While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall Meeting in person must register to attend.

    Registration may be completed on-line at the following web address: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/newtech.html. Select the link at the bottom of the page “Register to Attend the New Technology Town Hall Meeting”. After completing the registration, on-line registrants should print the confirmation page(s) and bring it with them to the meeting.

    If you are unable to register online, you may register by sending an email to [email protected] Please include your name, address, telephone number, email address and fax number. If seating capacity has been reached, you will be notified that the meeting has reached capacity.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    Because the meeting will be located on Federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice. Please allow sufficient time to go through the security checkpoints. It is suggested that you arrive at 7500 Security Boulevard no later than 8:30 a.m. e.s.t. if you are attending the Town Hall Meeting in person so that you will be able to arrive promptly for the meeting.

    Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

    • CMS policy requires that every foreign national (defined by the Department of Homeland Security is “an individual who is a citizen of any country other than the United States”) is assigned a host (in accordance with the Department Foreign Visitor Management Policy, Appendix C, Guidelines for Hosts and Escorts). The host/hosting official is required to inform the Division of Physical Security and Strategic Information (DPPSI) at least 12 business days in advance of any visit by a foreign national. Foreign nationals will be required to produce a valid passport at the time of entry.

    Attendees that are foreign nationals need to identify themselves as such, and make a request for a special accommodation. Foreign national visitors are defined as non-U.S. citizens; and non-lawful permanent residents, non-resident aliens or non-green card holders. Foreign nationals must provide the following information for security clearance to staff listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date for requesting special accommodations specified in the DATES section of this notice:

    ++ Visitor's full name (as it appears on passport).

    ++ Gender.

    ++ Country of origin and citizenship.

    ++ Date of birth.

    ++ Place of birth.

    ++ Passport number.

    ++ Passport issue date.

    ++ Passport expiration date.

    ++ Visa type.

    ++ Date(s) of visit(s).

    ++ Company name.

    ++ Position/Title.

    • Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

    • Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

    Note:

    Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting in person. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.

    All visitors must be escorted in all areas other than the lower level lobby and cafeteria area and first floor auditorium and conference areas in the Central Building. Seating capacity is limited to the first 250 registrants.

    Dated: October 27, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27007 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-2397-PN] RIN-0938-ZB29 Medicaid Program; Announcement of Medicaid Drug Rebate Program National Rebate Agreement AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed notice with comment period announces changes that would be made to the Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) for use by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP). We are updating the NDRA to incorporate legislative and regulatory changes that have occurred since the agreement was published in the February 21, 1991 Federal Register (56 FR 7049). We are also updating the NDRA to make editorial and structural revisions, such as references to the updated Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved data collection forms and electronic data reporting.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on February 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, refer to file code CMS-2397-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2397-PN, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-2397-PN, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry Simananda, (410) 786-8144.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Background

    Under the Medicaid Program, states may provide coverage of outpatient drugs furnished to eligible individuals as an optional benefit under section 1905(a)(12) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 1903(a) of the Act provides for federal financial participation (FFP) in state expenditures for these drugs. In general, for payment to be made available under section 1903 of the Act for most drugs, manufacturers must enter into, and have in effect, a Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as set forth in section 1927(a) of the Act.

    Authorized under section 1927 of the Act, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) is a program that includes CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and participating drug manufacturers that helps to partially offset the federal and state costs of most outpatient prescriptions drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients. Currently there are more than 600 drug manufacturers who participate in the MDRP. The NDRA provides that manufacturers are responsible for notifying states of a new drug's coverage. Additionally, manufacturers are required to report all covered outpatient drugs under their labeler code to the MDRP and may not be selective in reporting their NDCs to the program. Manufacturers are then responsible for paying a rebate on those drugs for which payment was made under the state plan. These rebates are paid by manufacturers on a quarterly basis to states and are shared between the states and the federal government to partially offset the overall cost of prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program.

    II. Provisions of the Proposed Notice

    We are updating the NDRA to reflect the changes in the Covered Outpatient Drug final rule with comment period that was published in the February 1, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 5170), as well as operational and other legislative changes that have occurred over the last 20 plus years since the NDRA was first issued in 1991. A sample of the finalized NDRA would be posted on the CMS Web site after we have considered the public comments and published the final notice. Once finalized, the updated NDRA would need to be signed by all participating manufacturers, as well as new manufacturers joining the program. Manufacturers with an active NDRA at the time the updated NDRA is to be executed would not be subject to verification of their proposed covered outpatient drug list. However, prospective manufacturers that request a new NDRA, or reinstatement of a previously active NDRA once the updated NDRA is available, would be subject to the current process of data submission and verification prior to the execution of an NDRA. We intend to provide additional instructions and guidance pertaining to how to execute new and renewal signatures of the finalized NDRA.

    In the Addendum to this notice with comment period, we provide a draft of the updated NDRA that we would use in the MDRP. If adopted, a drug manufacturer that seeks Medicaid coverage for its drugs would need to enter into the NDRA with the Secretary agreeing to provide the applicable rebate on those drugs for which payment was made under the state plan. We intend to use the updated NDRA as a standard agreement that will not be subject to further revisions based on negotiations with individual manufacturers.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    As stated in section 4711(f) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, and Executive Order 12291 shall not apply to information and regulations required for purposes of carrying out this Act and implementing the amendments made by this Act. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    IV. Response to Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

    Addendum—Draft Agreement: National Drug Rebate Agreement Between the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Hereinafter referred to as “the Secretary”) and the Manufacturer

    The Secretary, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and all states which have a Medicaid State Plan approved under 42 U.S.C. 1396a, and the manufacturer, on its own behalf, for purposes of section 1927 of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. 1396r-8, hereby agree to the following:

    I. Definitions

    The terms defined in this section will, for the purposes of this agreement, have the meanings specified in section 1927 of the Act and implementing Federal regulations, as interpreted and applied herein:

    (a) “Average Manufacturer Price (AMP)” will have the meaning set forth in section 1927(k)(1) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.504.

    (b) “Base Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U)” is the CPI-U for September, 1990. For drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after October 1, 1990, “Base CPI-U” means the CPI-U for the month before the month in which the drug was first marketed.

    (c) “Base Date AMP” will have the meaning set forth in sections 1927(c)(2)(A)(ii)(II) and 1927(c)(2)(B) of the Act.

    (d) “Best Price” will have the meaning set forth in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.505.

    (e) “Bundled Sale” will have the meaning set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (f) “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)” means the agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services having the delegated authority to operate the Medicaid Program.

    (g) “Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U)” will have the meaning set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (h) “Covered Outpatient Drug” will have the meaning set forth in sections 1927(k)(2), (k)(3) and (k)(4) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (i) “Innovator Multiple Source Drug” will have the meaning as set forth in section 1927(k)(7)(A)(ii) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (j) “Manufacturer” will have the meaning as set forth in section 1927(k)(5) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (k) Marketed” means that a covered outpatient drug is available for sale by a manufacturer in the states.

    (l) “Monthly AMP” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.510.

    (m) “Multiple Source Drug” will have the meaning as set forth in section 1927(k)(7)(A)(i) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (n) “National Drug Code (NDC)” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (o) “Non-innovator Multiple Source Drug” will have the meaning as set forth in section 1927(k)(7)(A)(iii) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (p) “Quarterly AMP” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.504.

    (q) “Rebate period” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (r) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or any successor thereto, or any officer or employee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or successor agency to whom the authority to implement this agreement has been delegated. In this agreement, references to CMS indicate such successor authority.

    (s) “Single Source Drug” will have the meaning set forth in section 1927(k)(7)(A)(iv) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    (t) “State Drug Utilization Data” means the total number of both fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care organization (MCO) units of each dosage form and strength of the manufacturer's covered outpatient drugs reimbursed during a rebate period under a Medicaid State Plan, other than units dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries that were purchased by covered entities through the drug discount program under section 340B of the Public Health Service Act; state utilization data is supplied on the CMS-R-144 form (that is, the state rebate invoice).

    (u) “States” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (v) “State Medicaid Agency” means the agency designated by a state under sections 1902(a)(5) to administer or supervise the administration of the Medicaid program.

    (w) “Unit” means drug unit in the lowest dispensable amount. The manufacturer will specify the unit information associated with each covered outpatient drug per the instructions provided in CMS-367c.

    (x) “Unit Rebate Amount (URA)” means the computed amount to which the state drug utilization data is applied by states in invoicing the manufacturer for the rebate payment due.

    (y) “United States” will have the meaning as set forth in 42 CFR 447.502.

    (z) “Wholesaler” will have the meaning as set forth in section 1927(k)(11) of the Act as implemented by 42 CFR 447.502.

    II. Manufacturer's Responsibilities

    In order for the Secretary to authorize that a state receive payment for the manufacturer's drugs under Title XIX of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396 et seq., the manufacturer agrees to the requirements as implemented by 42 CFR 447.510 and the following:

    (a) The manufacturer shall identify an individual point of contact at a United States address to facilitate the necessary communications with states with respect to rebate invoice issues.

    (b) Beginning with the quarter in which the National Drug Rebate Agreement (rebate agreement) is signed, calculate, and report all required pricing data on every covered outpatient drug by NDC in accordance with section 1927 of the Act and as implemented by 42 CFR 447.510. Furthermore, except as provided under section V(b) of this agreement, manufacturers are required to make a rebate payment in accordance with each calculated URA to each State Medicaid Agency for the manufacturer's covered outpatient drug(s) by NDC paid for by the state during a rebate period.

    (c) In accordance with the specifications pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved CMS-367c form, report all covered outpatient drugs and corresponding drug product, pricing, and related data to the Secretary, upon entering into this agreement. This information is to be updated as necessary to include new NDCs and updates to existing NDCs. CMS uses drug information listed with FDA, such as Marketing Category and Drug Type, to be able to verify in some cases that an NDC meets the definition of a covered outpatient drug, therefore, manufacturers should ensure that their NDCs are electronically listed with FDA. Reports to CMS should include all applicable NDCs identifying the drug product which may be dispensed to a beneficiary, including package NDCs (outer package NDCs and inner package NDCs).

    (d) Beginning with the effective date quarter and in accordance with the specifications pursuant to OMB-approved CMS-367a form, report quarterly pricing data to the Secretary for all covered outpatient drugs in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510. This includes reporting for any package size which may be dispensed to the beneficiary. The manufacturer agrees to provide such information within 30 days of the last day of each rebate period beginning with the effective date quarter. Adjustments to all quarterly pricing data shall be reported on at least a quarterly basis.

    (e) In accordance with the OMB-approved CMS-367b form, report information including monthly AMPs and monthly AMP units for all covered outpatient drugs in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510. The manufacturer agrees to provide such information within 30 days of the end of the month of the effective date, and within 30 days of each month thereafter.

    (f) Except as provided under V(b), to make rebate payments within 30 days after receiving the state rebate invoice. The manufacturer is responsible for timely payment of the rebate within 30 days so long as the state invoice contains, at a minimum, the number of units paid by NDC in accordance with 1927(b)(1) of the Act. To the extent that changes in product, pricing, or related data cause increases to previously submitted total rebate amounts, the manufacturer will be responsible for timely payment of those increases in the same 30 day time frame as the current rebate invoice.

    (g) To comply with the conditions of 42 U.S.C. section 1396r-8, changes thereto, implementing regulations, agency guidance and this Agreement.

    (h) In accordance with 1927(a)(1) of the Act, rebate agreements between the Secretary and the manufacturer entered into before March 1, 1991 are retroactive to January 1, 1991. Rebate agreements entered into on or after March 1, 1991 shall have a mandatory effective date equal to the first day of the rebate period that begins more than 60 days after the date the agreement is entered into. Rebate agreements entered into on or after November 29, 1999 will also have an effective date equal to the date the rebate agreement is entered into that will permit optional state coverage of the manufacturer's NDCs as of that date.

    (i) To obtain and maintain access to the system used by the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, use that system to report required data to CMS, and ensure that their contact information is kept updated as required in the OMB-approved CMS-367d form.

    (j) To continue to make a rebate payment on all of its covered outpatient drugs for as long as an agreement with the Secretary is in force and state utilization data reports that payment was made for that drug, regardless of whether the manufacturer continues to market that drug. If there are no sales by the manufacturer during a rebate period, the AMP and best price reported in the prior rebate period should be used in calculating rebates.

    (k) To keep records (written or electronic) of the data and any other material from which the calculations of AMP and best price were derived in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510, and make such records available to the Secretary upon request. In the absence of specific guidance in section 1927 of the Act, federal regulations and the terms of this agreement, the manufacturer may make reasonable assumptions in its calculations of AMP and best price, consistent with the purpose of section 1927 of the Act, federal regulations and the terms of this agreement. A record (written or electronic) explaining these assumptions must also be maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in 42 CFR 447.534, and such records must be made available to the Secretary upon request.

    (l) To notify CMS of any filing of bankruptcy, and to transmit such filing to CMS within seven days of the date of filing.

    III. Secretary's Responsibilities

    (a) The Secretary will employ best efforts to ensure the State Medicaid Agency shall report to the manufacturer, within 60 days of the last day of each rebate period, the rebate invoice (CMS-R-144) or the minimum utilization information as described in section II(f) of this agreement, that is, information about Medicaid utilization of covered outpatient drugs that were paid for during the rebate period. Additionally, the Secretary will expect any changes to prior quarterly state drug utilization data to be reported at the same time.

    (b) The Secretary may survey those wholesalers and manufacturers that directly distribute their covered outpatient drugs to verify manufacturer prices and may impose civil monetary penalties as set forth in section 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and section IV of this agreement.

    (c) The Secretary may audit manufacturer information reported under section 1927(b)(3)(A) of the Act.

    IV. Penalty Provisions

    (a) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty under section III(b), as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and applicable regulations, on a wholesaler, manufacturer, or direct seller of a covered outpatient drug, if a wholesaler, manufacturer, or direct seller of a covered outpatient drug refuses a request by the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, for information about covered outpatient drug charges or prices or knowingly provides false information, including in any of its quarterly reports to the Secretary. The provisions of section 1128A of the Act (other than subsection (a) (with respect to amounts of penalties or additional assessments) and (b)) shall apply as set forth in section 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and applicable regulations.

    (b) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty, for each item of false information as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act and applicable regulations.

    (c) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty for failure to provide timely information on AMP, best price or base date AMP. The amount of the penalty shall be determined as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act and applicable regulations.

    (d) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the remedies available to the United States or the states for a violation of this Agreement or any other provision of law.

    V. Dispute Resolution

    (a) In the event a manufacturer discovers a potential discrepancy with state drug utilization data on the rebate invoice, which the manufacturer and state in good faith are unable to resolve prior to the payment due date, the manufacturer will submit a Reconciliation of State Invoice (ROSI) form, the CMS-304, to the state. If such a discrepancy is discovered for a prior rebate period's invoice, the manufacturer will submit a Prior Quarter Adjustment Statement (PQAS) form, CMS-304a, to the state.

    (b) If the manufacturer disputes in good faith any part of the state drug utilization data on the rebate invoice, the manufacturer shall pay the state for the rebate units not in dispute within the required due date in II(f). Upon resolution of the dispute, the manufacturer will either pay the balance due, if any, plus interest as set forth in section 1903(d)(5) of the Act, or be issued a credit by the state by the due date of the next quarterly payment in II(f).

    (c) The state and the manufacturer will use their best efforts to resolve a dispute arising under (a) or (b) above within 60 days of the state's receipt of the manufacturer's ROSI/PQAS. In the event that the state and manufacturer are not able to resolve the dispute within 60 days, CMS shall require the state to make available to the manufacturer the same state hearing mechanism available to providers for Medicaid payment disputes.

    (d) Nothing in this section shall preclude the right of the manufacturer to audit the state drug utilization data reported (or required to be reported) by the state. The Secretary encourages the manufacturer and the state to develop mutually beneficial audit procedures.

    (e) The state hearing mechanism is not binding on the Secretary for purposes of the Secretary's authority to implement the civil money penalty provisions of the statute or this agreement.

    VI. Confidentiality Provisions

    (a) Pursuant to section 1927(b)(3)(D) of the Act and this agreement, information disclosed by the manufacturer in connection with this agreement is confidential and, notwithstanding other laws, will not be disclosed by the Secretary or State Medicaid Agency in a form which reveals the manufacturer, or prices charged by the manufacturer, except as authorized under section 1927(b)(3)(D).

    (b) The manufacturer will hold state drug utilization data confidential. If the manufacturer audits this information or receives further information on such data, that information shall also be held confidential. Except where otherwise specified in the Act or agreement, the manufacturer will observe confidentiality statutes, regulations, and other properly promulgated policy concerning such data.

    (c) Notwithstanding the nonrenewal or termination of this agreement for any reason, these confidentiality provisions will remain in full force and effect.

    VII. Nonrenewal and Termination

    (a) Unless otherwise terminated by either party pursuant to the terms of this agreement, the agreement shall be effective beginning on the date specified in section II(h) of this agreement and shall be automatically renewed for additional successive terms of one year unless the manufacturer gives written notice of intent not to renew the agreement at least 90 days before the end of the current period.

    (b) In accordance with section VII(a) of this agreement, the manufacturer may terminate the agreement for any reason, and such termination shall become effective the later of the first day of the first rebate period beginning 60 days after the manufacturer gives written notice requesting termination, or CMS initiates termination via written notice to the manufacturer.

    The Secretary may terminate the agreement for failure of a manufacturer to make rebate payments to the state(s), failure to report required data, for other violations of this agreement, or other good cause upon 60 days prior written notice to the manufacturer of the existence of such violation or other good cause. The Secretary shall provide, upon request, a manufacturer with a hearing concerning such a termination, but such hearing shall not delay the effective date of the termination.

    (c) Manufacturers on the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (Exclusion List) will be subject to immediate termination from the Medicaid drug rebate program unless and until the manufacturer is reinstated by the OIG. Appeals of exclusion and any reinstatement will be handled in accordance with section 1128 of the Act and applicable regulations. Manufacturers that are on the OIG Exclusion List and are reinstated by the OIG under certain circumstances may be evaluated for reinstatement to the Medicaid drug rebate program by CMS. Reinstatement to the Medicaid drug rebate program would be for the next rebate period that begins more than 60 days from the date of the OIG's reinstatement of the manufacturer after exclusion.

    (d) If this rebate agreement is terminated, the manufacturer is prohibited from entering into another rebate agreement as set forth in section 1927(b)(4)(C) of the Act for at least one rebate period from the effective date of the termination, and the manufacturer addresses to the satisfaction of CMS any outstanding violations from any previous rebate agreement(s), including, but not limited to, payment of any outstanding rebates and good faith efforts to appeal or resolve matters pending with the OIG, unless the Secretary finds good cause for earlier reinstatement.

    (e) Any nonrenewal or termination will not affect rebates due before the effective date of termination.

    VIII. General Provisions

    (a) This agreement is subject to any changes in the Medicaid statute or regulations that affect the rebate program.

    (b) Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this agreement will be permitted in writing or electronically.

    Notice to the Secretary will be sent to: Centers for Medicaid and CHIP Services, Disabled & Elderly Health Programs Group, Division of Pharmacy, Mail Stop S2-14-26, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244.

    The CMS address may be updated upon notice to the manufacturer.

    Notice to the manufacturer will be sent to the email and/or physical mailing address as provided under section X of this agreement and updated upon manufacturer notification to CMS at the email and/or address in this agreement.

    (c) In the event of a transfer in ownership of the manufacturer, this agreement and any outstanding rebate liability are automatically assigned to the new owner subject to the conditions as set forth in section 1927 of the Act.

    (d) Nothing in this agreement will be construed to require or authorize the commission of any act contrary to law. If any provision of this agreement is found to be invalid by a court of law, this agreement will be construed in all respects as if any invalid or unenforceable provision were eliminated, and without any effect on any other provision.

    (e) Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any legal rights of the manufacturer or the Secretary under the Constitution, the Act, other federal laws, or state laws.

    (f) The rebate agreement shall be construed in accordance with Federal law and ambiguities shall be interpreted in the manner which best effectuates the statutory scheme.

    (g) The terms “State Medicaid Agency” and “Manufacturer” incorporate any contractors which fulfill responsibilities pursuant to the agreement unless specifically provided for in the rebate agreement or specifically agreed to by an appropriate CMS official.

    (h) Except for the conditions specified in II(g) and VIII(a), this agreement will not be altered except by an amendment in writing signed by both parties. No person is authorized to alter or vary the terms unless the alteration appears by way of a written amendment, signed by duly appointed representatives of the Secretary and the manufacturer.

    (i) In the event that a due date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the report or other item will be due on the first business day following that weekend or Federal holiday.

    IX. CMS-367

    CMS-367 attached hereto is part of this agreement.

    X. Signatures FOR THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES By:

       (signature)

    Date: Title: Director Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ACCEPTED FOR THE MANUFACTURER I certify that I have made no alterations, amendments or other changes to this rebate agreement. By:

       (signature)

    (please print name) Title: Name of Manfacturer: Manufacturer Address Manufacturer Labeler Code(s): Date: BILLING CODE 4120-01-P EN09NO16.000 EN09NO16.001 EN09NO16.002 EN09NO16.003 EN09NO16.004 EN09NO16.005 EN09NO16.006 EN09NO16.007 EN09NO16.008 EN09NO16.009 EN09NO16.010

    EN09NO16.011 EN09NO16.012 EN09NO16.013 BILLING CODE 4120-01-C

    CMS-367d (Exp. 03/31/2019), OMB No. 0938-0578 According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0938-0578. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time to review instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Attn: PRA Reports Clearance Officer, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: October 18, 2016. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26834 Filed 11-7-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship Programs (RIViR).

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing a data collection as part of the “Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship programs” (RIViR) study. This notice addresses testing of intimate partner violence (IPV) and teen dating violence (TDV) screener/protocols, to be conducted with approximately 1,200 participants from approximately six Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) grantees funded by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

    There is little consensus on how HMRE programs should address IPV or TDV in their programs. To date, no IPV or TDV screening tools have been empirically tested among HMRE program participants. The objective of the proposed data collection is to test and validate IPV and TDV screening instruments among HMRE program participants. Findings from this data collection will be used to develop practical, responsive guidance on IPV and TDV screening and surrounding protocols for HMRE programs.

    Data collection will entail testing eight screening instruments: Six closed-ended screening instruments (three for IPV, three for TDV), and two open-ended instruments (one for IPV, one for TDV). Trained HMRE grantee staff at approximately 6 grant programs will implement the four IPV screening tools among approximately 600 adult participants and the four TDV screening tools among approximately 600 youth participants. It is anticipated that each participant will engage in four rounds of data collection, one round for each IPV or TDV instrument, at least two weeks apart. Data collection is expected to occur through Spring 2019.

    Respondents: HMRE grantee program participants: 600 youth (approximately ages 14-18) will participate in the TDV screener testing and 600 adults (ages 18 and older) will participate in the IPV screener testing.

    Annual Burden Estimates Activity Total
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • IPV Screener 1 600 300 1 .167 50 IPV Screener 2 600 300 1 .167 50 IPV Screener 3 600 300 1 .25 75 TDV Screener 1 600 300 1 .167 50 TDV Screener 2 600 300 1 .167 50 TDV Screener 3 600 300 1 .25 75 Locator section for adults 600 300 1 .1 30 Contact information form for parents of youth younger than 18 600 300 1 .1 30 Post screener questions for adults 600 300 1 .1 30 Post screener questions for youth 600 300 1 .1 30 Participant recruitment 600 300 1 .1 30 Administration of data collection protocol and record-keeping 600 300 1 .167 50

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 520.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Attn: OPRE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected].

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Mary Jones, ACF/OPRE Certifying Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27034 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-73-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.

    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), Full Committee Meeting.

    Dates and Times:

    Tuesday, November 29, 2016: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 30, 2016: 8:30 a.m.-3:15 p.m.

    Place: National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.

    Status: Open.

    Purpose: At the November 29-30, 2016 meeting, the Committee will focus on strategic planning resulting in a comprehensive 2017 Committee work plan at the time of adjournment. Individual work plans for each of the Subcommittees and the Work Group on HHS Data Access and Use also will be drafted. On the first day, the Committee will focus on legislatively mandated reports and activities such as the 12th Report to Congress, the next Affordable Care Act (ACA) Review Committee hearing, and requirements set forth in ACA section 10109. Additional areas where the Committee potentially could focus its attention in 2017 and beyond also will be discussed and considered for inclusion in its work plan. On the second day, the Committee will hear input from HHS officials on the Committee's proposed work plan and potential areas in which Committee expertise and input would be useful for the Department. Completion of reports and recommendations undertaken earlier in 2016 will also be discussed on the second day.

    Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program information may be obtained from Rebecca Hines, MHS, Executive Secretary, NCVHS, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4715. Summaries of meetings and a roster of Committee members are available on the home page of the NCVHS Web site: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/, where further information including an agenda and information for remote audio access to the meetings will also be posted.

    Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.

    Dated: November 3, 2016. James Scanlon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27083 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Performance Review Board Members; Appointments

    Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board Members be published in the Federal Register. The following persons may be named to serve on the Performance Review Boards or Panels, which oversee the evaluation of performance appraisals of Senior Executive Service members of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    EN09NO16.014 Dated: November 3, 2016. Charles McEnerney, Director, Executive and Scientific Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27082 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-17-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.

    Date: December 13-14, 2016.

    Closed: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Johns Hopkins Bayview Campus, Baltimore, MD 21223.

    Contact Person: Joshua Kysiak, Program Specialist, Biomedical Research Center, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224, 443-740-2465, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 3, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26970 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of P01 Application.

    Date: December 8, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Rm 3AN12, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lisa Dunbar, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2849, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 3, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26971 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Structural Birth Defects.

    Date: December 9, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS 6710B Bethesda Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6878, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 3, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26969 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will meet via web conference on December 7, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.

    The Board will meet in closed session on December 7, 2016, from 10:00am to 5:00pm, to review and discuss draft Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Hair) proposals. Therefore, this meeting is closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    Meeting information and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Advisory Committees Web site, http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/drug-testing-advisory-board-dtab, or by contacting Brian Makela.

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Drug Testing Advisory Board.

    Dates/Time/Type: December 7, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., EST: Closed.

    Place: Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Contact: Brian Makela, Division of Workplace Programs, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N02B, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Telephone: 240-276-2600.

    Fax: 240-276-2610.

    Email: [email protected]

    Brian Makela, Chemist, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27032 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2016-N193]; [FXES11140400000-178-FF04E00000] Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    DATES:

    We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in ADDRESSES by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Reviewing Documents: Documents and other information submitted with the applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office, Ecological Services, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345 (Attn: Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator).

    Submitting Comments: If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods:

    U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see above).

    Email: [email protected]. Please include your name and return address in your email message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we have received your email message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 205-726-2667 (telephone) or 205-726-2479 (fax).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. With some exceptions, the Act prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Permit Applications Permit Application Number: TE 136808-3 Applicant: Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Juno Beach, FL

    The applicant requests a permit to tag (flipper tag, PIT-tag, and attach satellite transmitters) to rehabilitated sea turtles prior to release in Florida. The sea turtle species are the green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles.

    Permit Application Number: TE 06337C-0 Applicant: Zachary J. Loughman, West Liberty, WV

    The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, identify, release) the Guyandotte River crayfish (Cambarus veteranus) and Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) for presence/absence surveys in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia.

    Permit Application Number: TE 06338C-0 Applicant: David A. Foltz, Weirton, WV

    The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, identify, release) the Guyandotte River crayfish (Cambarus veteranus) and Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia and 22 species of endangered and threatened freshwater mussels in Ohio and West Virginia for presence/absence surveys.

    Permit Application Number: TE 139474-8 Applicant: FTN Associates, Ltd., Little Rock, AR

    The applicant requests renewal of their permit to continue to live-trap and release the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) for presence/absence surveys in Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

    Permit Application Number: TE 22311A-3 Applicant: Anna George, Tennessee Aquarium, Chattanooga, TN

    The applicant requests amendment of her current permit to add authorization to take (capture, handle, take fin clips, and release) the Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae) in Kentucky and Tennessee for a population genetics study.

    Permit Application Number: TE 171516-5 Applicant: Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Paint Lick, KY

    The applicant requests amendment of their current permit to add the State of Virginia as a geographic location in which presence/absence surveys for 36 species of endangered mussels may be conducted and add authorization to take (capture, handle, release) the Kentucky arrow darter (Etheostoma spilotum) in Kentucky for presence/absence surveys.

    Permit Application Number: TE 11044C-0 Applicant: Tyler C. Newman, Richmond, KY

    The applicant requests a permit to take (mist-net, handle, band, radio-tag) the gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in 37 States for presence/absence surveys.

    Authority:

    We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act.

    Dated: November 2, 2016. Christine Willis, Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Southeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27039 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-FAC-2016-N183; FF09F42300-FVWF97920900000-XXX] Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council). A Federal advisory committee, the Council was created in part to foster partnerships to enhance public awareness of the importance of aquatic resources and the social and economic benefits of recreational fishing and boating in the United States. This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may make oral statements to the Council or may file written statements for consideration.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place Tuesday, November 29, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) and Wednesday, November 30, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. For deadlines and directions on registering to attend the meeting, submitting written material, and/or giving an oral presentation, please see “Public Input” under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior, North Penthouse Conference Room, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Bohnsack, Council Coordinator, Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Mailstop FAC, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 358-2435; fax (703) 358-2487; or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council will hold a meeting.

    Background

    The Council was formed in January 1993 to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on aquatic conservation endeavors that benefit recreational fishery resources and recreational boating and that encourage partnerships among industry, the public, and government. The Council represents the interests of the public and private sectors of the recreational fishing, boating, and conservation communities and is organized to enhance partnerships among industry, constituency groups, and government. The 18-member Council, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, includes the Service Director and the president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, who both serve in ex officio capacities. Other Council members are directors from State agencies responsible for managing recreational fish and wildlife resources and individuals who represent the interests of saltwater and freshwater recreational fishing, recreational boating, the recreational fishing and boating industries, recreational fisheries resource conservation, Native American tribes, aquatic resource outreach and education, and tourism. Background information on the Council is available at http://www.fws.gov/sfbpc.

    Meeting Agenda

    The Council will hold a meeting to consider issues affecting recreational fishing and boating programs on federal lands. An abbreviated list of planned agenda items include:

    • An update on the effects of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act on Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund grant programs and other updates from the Services' Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program;

    • An update and discussion regarding the Council's proposed pilot project to improve the efficiency of federal agencies' permitting processes associated with boating infrastructure projects (e.g., boat dock replacement and maintenance, boat ramp construction and maintenance);

    • An update on the joint effort by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop performance metrics for Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) with its implementation of the National Outreach and Communication Program;

    • An update from the RBFF;

    • A discussion and development of the Council's recommendations of priorities for Department of the Interior agencies fishing and boating programs for the future;

    • An update on the status of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program;

    • Other miscellaneous Council business and programmatic updates.

    The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/sfbpc.

    Public Input If you wish to Then you must contact the Council Coordinator
  • (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
  • no later than
  • Attend the meeting Wednesday, November 23, 2016. Submit written information or questions before the meeting for the council to consider during the meeting Wednesday, November 23, 2016. Give an oral presentation during the meeting Wednesday, November 23, 2016.
    Attendance

    The Council meeting will be held at the North Penthouse, Department of the Interior, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Signs will be posted to direct attendees to the specific conference room.

    Submitting Written Information or Questions

    Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed above in “Public Input,” so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

    Giving an Oral Presentation

    Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation during the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), to be placed on the public speaker list for this meeting. To ensure an opportunity to speak during the public comment period of the meeting, members of the public must register with the Council Coordinator. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to the Council Coordinator up to 30 days subsequent to the meeting.

    Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Council's Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the meeting and will be posted on the Council's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/sfbpc.

    Dated: October 25, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27042 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R8-ES-2016-N194]; [FXES11130800000-178-FF08E00000] Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing recovery permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Endangered Species Program Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (telephone: 916-414-6464; fax: 916-414-6486). Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Marquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; see ADDRESSES (telephone: 760-431-9440; fax: 760-431-9624).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We seek review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on the following permit requests

    Applicants Permit No. TE-04969C Applicant: Tara DeSilva, Livermore, California

    The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (Ambystoma californiense) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-06677C Applicant: Mercedes Gaffney, Sadie McGarvey, Brisbane, California

    The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (Ambystoma californiense) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-007520 Applicant: Julie Simonsen, San Diego, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, and release) the Casey's June beetle (Dinacoma caseyi); and take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-787644 Applicant: William Vanherweg, San Luis Obispo, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), and Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-810380 Applicant: Whitney Environmental Consulting, Rocklin, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-176209 Applicant: San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, transfer, hold for less than 24 hours, and release) the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) in conjunction with survey and habitat enhancement activities in lands on and near the San Francisco International Airport within San Mateo county, California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-97717A Applicant: Melissa Blundell, Oxnard, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate and monitor nests and remove brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) eggs and chicks from parasitized nests) the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus); and take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) in conjunction with survey and population monitoring activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-781220 Applicant: William Wagner, Hemet, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-081306 Applicant: Howard Clark, Clovis, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis), Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius), riparian woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia), Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-797267 Applicant: Triple HS, Inc., Los Gatos, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), giant kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ingens), and tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, measure, mark, collect fur samples, and release) the salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, collect tissue samples for genetic analysis, and release) the California tiger salamander ((central distinct population segment (DPS), Santa Barbara County DPS, and Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma californiense)); take (harass by survey using taped vocalization and collect sediment samples from occupied habitat) the California Ridgway's rail (California clapper r.) (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus) (R. longirostris o.); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey and research activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-06873C Applicant: Environmental Science Associates, San Diego, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-163017 Applicant: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, mark, collect biological samples, radio-collar, survey, translocate, and release) the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in conjunction with survey activities and collection of biological information throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-163017 Applicant: The Living Desert, Palm Desert, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (administer veterinary care for, house, and display for educational purposes) the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in conjunction with general husbandry activities at the Living Desert Zoological park in Palm Desert California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-022230 Applicant: Jeff Kidd, Murrieta, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) and take (harass by performing predator control activities within habitat) the California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) (Sterna a. browni) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-793645 Applicant: Donald Alley, Brookdale, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo Counties, California, in conjunction with survey activities for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-08276C Applicant: Shannon Brown, Encinitas, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-08288C Applicant: Robin Kinmont, Escondido, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-08293C Applicant: Travis Marella, Santa Paula, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-016591 Applicant: Condor Country Consulting, Inc., Martinez, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, collect branchiopod cysts, collection and translocation of inocula from dry vernal pools to created pools) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, and release) the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander ((central distinct population segment (DPS), Santa Barbara County DPS, and Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma californiense)) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-93072A Applicant: Joel Mulder, Ventura, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) and the unarmored threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-046262 Applicant: Blake Claypool, San Diego, California

    The applicant requests a new permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-221294 Applicant: Michael Galloway, San Diego, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); and take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) in conjunction with survey activities in San Diego County, California, for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-035336 Applicant: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Berkeley, California

    The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi); take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander ((central distinct population segment (DPS), Santa Barbara County DPS, and Sonoma County DPS) (Ambystoma californiense)); and remove/reduce to possession Amsinckia grandiflora (large-flowered fiddleneck) from lands under Federal jurisdiction in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Permit No. TE-048739 Applicant: Daniel A. Cordova of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California

    The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi); in conjunction with survey activities throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing the species' survival.

    Public Comments

    We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Karen A. Jensen, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27043 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLORW00000.L16100000.DF0000.LXSS1080000.17XL1109AF.HAG17-0030] Notice of Public Meeting for the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below:

    DATES:

    The MAC will hold a public meeting Monday, November 28th, 2016. The meeting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at San Juan Island Grange Hall in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island. Public comment periods will be available in the afternoon from noon until 12:30 and 3:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcia deChadenèdes, San Juan Islands National Monument Manager, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Pl., Suite 101, Lopez Island, Washington 98261, (360) 468-3051, or [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1 (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The twelve member San Juan Islands MAC was chartered to provide information and advice regarding the development of the San Juan Islands National Monuments Resource Management Plan. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory committee meetings are open to the public. At noon and at 3:00 p.m. members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the MAC during half-hour public comment periods. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by 11:00 a.m. or 2:00 p.m. respectively on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may send written comments to the MAC at San Juan Islands National Monument, Attn. MAC, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Pl., Suite 101, Lopez Island, Washington 98261. The BLM appreciates all comments.

    Linda Clark, Spokane District Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27038 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLAK930000.L13100000.EI0000.241A] Notice of the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and Notice of Availability of the Detailed Statement of Sale for the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Alaska State Office hereby notifies the public that it will hold an oil and gas lease sale bid opening for tracts in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The United States reserves the right to withdraw any tract from this sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid.

    DATES:

    The sealed oil and gas lease sale bid opening will be held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2016. Sealed bids must be received by 4:00 p.m., Monday, December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The oil and gas lease sale bids will be opened at the Anchorage Federal Building, Denali Room (fourth floor), 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Sealed bids must be sent to Carol Taylor (AK932), BLM-Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wayne Svejnoha, 907-271-4407. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Alaska State Office, under the authority of 43 CFR 3131.4-1(a), hereby notifies the public it will hold an oil and gas lease sale bid opening for tracts in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. All bids must be submitted by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions identified in the Detailed Statement of Sale. The bids must be received at the BLM-Alaska State Office, ATTN: Carol Taylor (AK932), 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 12, 2016.

    The Detailed Statement of Sale for the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska may be obtained from the BLM-Alaska Web site at www.blm.gov/ak, or by request from the Public Information Center, BLM-Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, telephone 907-271-5960.

    The Detailed Statement of Sale will include a description of the tracts to be offered for lease on December 14, 2016, the lease terms, conditions, special stipulations, required operating procedures, and how and where to submit bids for the lease tracts offered.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 3131.4-1 and 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740.

    Ted A. Murphy, Associate State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27059 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22297; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gettysburg Foundation has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Gettysburg Foundation. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Gettysburg Foundation at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Daniel Bringman, Gettysburg Foundation, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg, PA 17325, telephone (717) 339-2116, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PA. The human remains were reportedly removed by a private citizen from the Josiah Benner Farm, PA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the professional staff at the Gettysburg Foundation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

    Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.”

    History and Description of the Remains

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, a minimum, 1 individual were removed from an unknown location. In June 2014, an auction was posted that contained a human cranium, reportedly recovered by a private citizen from the Josiah Benner Farm, PA. The auction included a photograph, some battlefield objects, and an accompanying description that attributed the human remains and Civil War Era objects to the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. The Josiah Benner Farm served as a field hospital during and immediately following the Battle of Gettysburg from July 1 to July 4, 1863.

    Due to the public outcry and threat of a riot, the auction was cancelled. The human cranium and Civil War objects were donated to the Gettysburg Foundation. At the request of the Gettysburg Foundation, the human cranium was sent to the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History for analysis. Forensic analysis of the cranium was used to determine whether the human cranium represented the remains of a Civil War soldier.

    Forensic analysis indicates that the human cranium likely is the remains of a male, aged 22 to 25 years, whose ancestry is Native American and most closely associated with Indian tribes of the southwestern United States based on craniometrics measurements.

    Stable isotope analysis and a radiocarbon sample were extracted from a fragmented left maxillary third molar. Stable isotope analysis indicates a diet largely comprised of C4 plants, likely maize, with moderate to low levels of meat protein. The AMS radiocarbon dating yielded results of 700 BP + 20 years. Calibrated date ranges are calculated to Cal AD 1269-1299 (94.53%) and Cal AD 1370-1379 (5.47%), respectively. The Civil War Era objects in the auction with the human cranium are not associated funerary objects.

    Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the Secretary of the Interior may make a recommendation for a transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains. In July 2016, the Gettysburg Foundation requested that the Secretary, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, recommend the proposed transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in this notice to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico. The Review Committee, acting pursuant to its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(5), considered the request at its September 2016 meeting and recommended to the Secretary that the proposed transfer of control proceed. An October 20, 2016 letter on behalf of the Secretary of Interior from the National Park Service Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science transmitted the Secretary's independent review and concurrence with the Review Committee that:

    • The Gettysburg Foundation consulted with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations,

    • none of The Consulted Tribes objected to the proposed transfer of control, and

    • the Gettysburg Foundation may proceed with the agreed upon transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico.

    Transfer of control is contingent on the publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register. This notice fulfills that requirement. Determinations Made by the Gettysburg Foundation

    Officials of the Gettysburg Foundation have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the forensic analysis.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the disposition of the human remains will be to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel Bringman, Gettysburg Foundation, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg, PA 17325, phone 717-339-2116, email [email protected] by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico may proceed.

    The Gettysburg Foundation is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 31, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26979 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22252; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Omaha District, Omaha, NE., that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item(s)

    Cultural items consisting of seven unassociated funerary objects that were collected from 39WW7, the Swan Creek site, Dewey County, South Dakota, are presently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC), under the managerial control of the Omaha District.

    The Swan Creek site, 39WW2 was an earthlodge village and cemetery that was excavated between 1954 and 1956 prior to inundation by flood waters of the Oahe Reservoir. Over 125 sets of human remains were recovered, and 102 of these individuals are currently housed at SARC and reported under a separate Notice of Inventory Completion. Human remains of the other individuals were reburied in 1986 at site 39ST15.

    SARC currently holds seven funerary objects that were originally collected with individuals that were reburied. The excavation records clearly show these items as having been removed from the burial of a specific individual. These seven unassociated funerary objects are one lithic projectile point and six ceramic body sherds from the same ceramic vessel.

    Site 39WW7 is an earthlodge village and associated cemetery. Based on village organization, fortifications, geographic location and features, as well as the associated artifact assemblage, the site is believed to represent at least two major time periods, the Akaska Focus of the Extended Coalescent (A.D. 1500-1675) and the Le Beau Phase of the Post Contact Coalescent (A.D. 1675-1780) of the Plans Village tradition. Based on oral tradition, historic accounts, archaeological evidence, geographical location, and physical anthropological interpretations, both the Extended and Post Contact Coalescent variants are believed to be ancestral Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Consultation with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation indicates that these objects represent the kinds of objects that are placed with individuals at the time of death.

    Determinations Made by the Omaha District

    Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the seven cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email [email protected], by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.

    The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26975 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22251; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Albion College, Albion, MI AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Albion College, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Albion College. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Albion College at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Bille Wickre, Department of Art and Art History, Albion College, 611 East Porter Street, Albion, MI 49224, telephone (517) 629-0246, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of Albion College, Albion, MI, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item

    At an unknown date before 1973, one sacred object was removed from Zuni lands, most likely from a location in New Mexico. The sacred object is a cottonwood cylinder, 71 cm. long and 23.7 cm. in diameter. It is rounded at both ends and carved to resemble a human figure with a face, ears, hair and cap or helmet at one end and hands at the other end. There is a hole in the front center at a place where some scholars suggest is an umbilicus. The wood is significantly weathered and shows signs of aging. Based upon the form and condition, the object has been determined to be a Zuni Ahayu:da or war god.

    In 1973, the sacred object (Ahayu:da) was donated by an individual to Albion College. There is no further information regarding its origin or date. After the donor's death in 1990, Bille Wickre contacted the donor's children and grandchildren in an effort to find out more about the Ahayu:da, but no one remembered anything about it. Once the Ahayu:da was discovered in the collection, Bille Wickre and students of Albion College undertook a research project to authenticate the object. Written and visual evidence suggested the object is an Ahayu:da. Wickre telephoned the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, to initiate consultation. She spoke with Kurt Dongoske, RPA, Principal Investigator and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Zuni bow priests and tribal elders confirmed the authenticity of the object.

    Determinations Made by Albion College

    Officials of Albion College have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Bille Wickre, Department of Art and Art History, Albion College, 611 East Porter Street, Albion, MI 49224, telephone (517) 629-0246, email [email protected], by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the sacred object to the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, may proceed.

    Albion College is responsible for notifying the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26977 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22248; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of California, Berkeley. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University California, Berkeley at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Jordan Jacobs, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 103 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3712, telephone (510) 643-8230, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Adapting the notification procedures of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, notice is here given of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at the University of California, Berkeley. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Cardinal Site (CA-Sjo-154) in Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has physical custody of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the professional staff of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at the University of California, Berkeley in consultation with the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1976, 36 sets of human remains were removed from the Cardinal Site (CA-Sjo-154) in Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA, by Drs. Richard Hughes and James Bennyhoff. Michael Hoffman, then Curator of Human Osteology at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, was independently contracted by Hughes and Bennyhoff to conduct analysis, and the human remains were loaned to the Lowie Museum for the duration of the study. Subsequent transfers of the human remains occurred to researchers at Colorado College and Cornell University for study. Following the studies, the human remains were transferred to the physical custody of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (formerly Lowie Museum) in 1995.

    The 106 associated funerary objects are 49 lots of unsorted shell, lithic fragments, baked clay fragments, faunal remains, and plant matter; 29 lots of shell beads; 7 lots of lithic fragments; 7 lots of shell ornaments and fragments; 4 lots of fish spears and fragments; 2 lots of baked clay fragments; 2 lots of olivella shells; 2 stone pestles; 1 lot of polished bone fragments; 1 bone awl; 1 bone hair pin; and 1 bone harpoon.

    Determinations Made by the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology

    Officials of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on geographical, biological, archeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, and anthropological evidence.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent 36 sets of physical human remains of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 106 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Treaties, Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, evidence submitted via consultation, and anthropological sources indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jordan Jacobs, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 103 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3712, telephone (510) 643-8230, email [email protected], by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California, may proceed.

    The University of California, Berkeley assumes responsibility for notifying the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 18, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26981 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22250; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Lake County Discovery Museum has corrected a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on June 8, 2016. This notice corrects the list of The Consulted and Invited Tribes.

    ADDRESSES:

    Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register (81 FR 36948, June 8, 2016), column 1, paragraph 1 is corrected by substituting the following paragraph:

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Lake County Discovery Museum with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of the Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The following tribes were invited to consult but did not respond to the invitation: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rock Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota. All tribes listed above are hereafter referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

    The Lake County Discovery Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26980 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22249; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Lake County Discovery Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Lake County Discovery Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Lake County Discovery Museum at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from unknown locations.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Lake County Discovery Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The following tribes with aboriginal territory in Lake County, IL, were also invited to participate but were not involved in consultations: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota. All tribes listed are hereafter referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were placed in the Lake County Discovery Museum collection. The museum has no record of when these human remains were added to the collection or how they came to the museum. There is no additional information available about the human remains. No known individuals were identified. The human remains have been stored in the museum based on the type of bone fragment (i.e. vertebrae are stored together). Accession records indicate that some of the bone fragments are related to other bone fragments in the collection. The two associated funerary objects are one lot of pottery sherds and one bird skull.

    Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the Secretary of the Interior may make a recommendation for a transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects. In June 2016, the Lake County Discovery Museum requested that the Secretary, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, recommend the proposed transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The Review Committee, acting pursuant to its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(5), considered the request at its July 2016 meeting and recommended to the Secretary that the proposed transfer of control proceed. A September 9, 2016, letter on behalf of the Secretary of Interior from the National Park Service Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science transmitted the Secretary's independent review and concurrence with the Review Committee that:

    • The Lake County Discovery Museum consulted with appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations,

    • None of The Consulted and Invited Tribes objected to the proposed transfer of control, and

    • The Lake County Discovery Museum may proceed with the agreed upon transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.

    Transfer of control is contingent on the publication of a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register. This notice fulfills that requirement. Determinations Made by the Lake County Discovery Museum

    Officials of the Lake County Discovery Museum have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on accession records and consultation.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 2 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects will be to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email [email protected], by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan, may proceed.

    The Lake County Discovery Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26978 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22253; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from one site, 39WW7, in Walworth, SD. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by State Archaeological Research Center and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.

    History and Description of the Remains

    Between 1954 and 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, 125 individuals were removed from site 39WW7, also known as Swan Creek Site, in Walworth County, SD. The partial human remains of 102 of these individuals are currently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC), under the managerial control of the Omaha District.

    The human remains were originally reported to be all stored at the W. H. Over Museum, SD, but were transferred to SARC beginning in 1974. During the 1980s much of the collection was sent to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, to be inventoried. When returned to SARC, inventoried human remains were reburied at site 39ST15 in 1986. Since the reburial, however, additional fragmentary human remains of 102 individuals (mostly individual elements) and 31 associated funerary objects have been located in the collections. Human remains of 95 of these individuals were identified at SARC and seven of these individuals were identified in the collections at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The University of Wisconsin material was transferred to SARC in 2015. Currently SARC houses all known materials from 39WW7.

    Based on morphological characteristics, archaeological context, and associated funerary objects, the remains are determined to be Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 31 associated funerary objects are 1 basketry fragment, 17 beads, 1 ceramic body sherd, 3 projectile point fragments, 2 stone knives, 1 sandstone abrader, 1 piece modified shell, 1 piece unmodified shell, 1 squash seed, 1 faunal fragment, 1 lot of cedar wood fragments, and 1 lot of wood sticks.

    Site 39WW7 is an earthlodge village and associated cemetery. Based on village organization, fortifications, geographic location, and features, as well as the associated artifact assemblage, the site is believed to represent at least two major time periods, the Akaska Focus of the Extended Coalescent (AD 1500-1675) and the Le Beau Phase of the Post Contact Coalescent (AD 1675-1780) of the Plans Village tradition. Based on oral tradition, historic accounts, archaeological evidence, geographical location, and physical anthropological interpretations, both the Extended and Post Contact Coalescent variants are believed to be ancestral Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.

    Determinations Made by the Omaha District

    Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 102 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 31 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email [email protected], by December 9, 2016. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, may proceed.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: October 24, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26976 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Single-Molecule Nucleic Acid Sequencing Systems and Reagents, Consumables, and Software for Use With Same, DN 3182; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)) filed on behalf of Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. on November 2, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain single-molecule nucleic acid sequencing systems and reagents, consumables, and software for use with same. The complaint names as respondents Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. of the United Kingdom; Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. of Cambridge, MA; and Metrichor, Ltd of the United Kingdom. The complainant requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3182”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1 ). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): http://edis.usitc.gov

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 3, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27019 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1314 (Final)] Phosphor Copper from Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1314 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of phosphor copper from Korea, provided for in subheading 7405.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value.1

    1 For purposes of this investigation, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as master alloys of copper containing between five percent and 17 percent phosphor by nominal weight, regardless of form (including but not limited to shot, pellet, waffle, ingot, or nugget), and regardless of size or weight. Subject merchandise consists predominantly of copper (by weight), and may contain other elements, including but not limited to iron (Fe), lead (Pb), or tin (Sn), in small amounts (up to one percent by nominal weight). Phosphor copper is frequently produced to JIS H2501 and ASTM B-644, Alloy 3A standards or higher; however, merchandise covered by this investigation includes all phosphor copper, regardless of whether the merchandise meets, fails to meet, or exceeds these standards. Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under subheading 7405.00.1000. This HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: October 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Porscha Stiger (205-3241), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—The final phase of this investigation is being scheduled, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department of Commerce that imports of phosphor copper from Korea are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigation was requested in a petition filed on March 9, 2016, by Metallurgical Products Company, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of this investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigation need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of this investigation available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigation. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of this investigation will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 13, 2017, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of this investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before February 23, 2017. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on February 27, 2017, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is February 21, 2017. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 7, 2017. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigation, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before March 7, 2017. On March 24, 2017, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before March 28, 2017, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 3, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27016 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    On November 3, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Poor Charlie and Company, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00043.

    The proposed Consent Decree will resolve claims alleged under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Poor Charlie and Company (“Poor Charlie”) for costs incurred in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Twin Cities Iron and Metal Site (the “Site”) located in Bristol, Virginia. The Consent Decree is based on Poor Charlie's limited ability to pay. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Poor Charlie: (1) Consents to entry of judgment against it in the amount of $3,401,833.31, and (2) assigns the rights to any proceeds from its insurance policies to the United States. In addition, Poor Charlie commits to creating an environmental trust for the benefit of the United States and West Virginia, to which Poor Charlie and all of its assets will be transferred. Under the environmental trust, Poor Charlie will direct its assets toward remediating certain properties it owns in West Virginia, and then distribute any remaining assets as specified in the trust agreement and the Consent Decree.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Poor Charlie and Company, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10712/1. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected]. By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $26.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $8.00.

    Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27056 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilty Act

    On November 1, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled United States v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-08127.

    The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., WMI Liquidating Trust, and WMI Rainier LLC. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the BKK Sanitary Landfill Site in West Covina, California. All three defendants signed the consent decree. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. agrees to pay $1 million of the United States' response costs on behalf of all three defendants. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA or under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The consent decree provides that the United States' agreement not to sue the defendants is also conditioned on JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s payment of $85 million to be directed toward cleanup of the Site under a separate pending consent decree it signed with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in a separate case relating to the BKK Sanitary Landfill Site, California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Toxic Substances Control Account v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 05-cv-07746.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10782. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.

    During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $9.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27018 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Public Law 94-409) (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b)

    I, J. Patricia W. Smoot, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 11 p.m., on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss three original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Three Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.

    Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of the General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by votes of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: J. Patricia W. Smoot, Patricia Cushwa and Charles T. Massarone.

    In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public.

    Dated: November 4, 2016. J. Patricia W. Smoot, Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27182 Filed 11-7-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-91,257] Huntley Power LLC, A Subsidiary Of NRG Energy, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Pontoon Solutions, Inc. And Clean MD Tonawanda, New York; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 29, 2016, applicable to workers of Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Pontoon Solutions, Inc., Tonawanda, New York (TA-W-91,257). The Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9510).

    At the request of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 97, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of electrical generation, capacity and ancillary services. The Tonawanda facility is a coal-fired electric generation facility.

    The company reports that workers leased from Clean MD were employed on-site at the Tonawanda, New York location of Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.

    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by customer imports of electricity from a foreign country.

    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Clean MD working on-site at the Tonawanda, New York location of the subject firm.

    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-91,257 is hereby issued as follows:

    All workers from Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Pontoon Solutions, Inc. and Clean MD, Tonawanda, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 22, 2014 through January 29, 2018, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of September 2016. Hope D. Kinglock, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26997 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-91,027] Indiana Marujun, LLC, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Adecco, First Call And MS Companies Winchester, Indiana; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 12, 2015, applicable to workers of Indiana Marujun, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Adecco and First Call, Winchester, Indiana (TA-W-91,027). The Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2016 (81 FR 1228).

    At the request of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers firm is engaged in activities related to the production of automotive part components.

    The Department has determined that MS Companies was sufficiently under the operational control of Indiana Marujun, LLC, Winchester, Indiana to be considered leased workers.

    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in production of automotive part components or articles like or directly competitive to a foreign country.

    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from MS Companies working on-site at the Winchester, Indiana location of the subject firm.

    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-91,027 is hereby issued as follows:

    All workers from Indiana Marujun, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Adecco, First Call, and MS Companies, Winchester, Indiana who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 2014 through November 12, 2017 and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of September 2016. Hope D. Kinglock, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26998 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-85,742] General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Development Dimensions International, Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, Lake Orion, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 21, 2015, applicable to workers of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Lake Orion, Michigan, including on-site leased workers from Development Dimensions International. The Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8696).

    At the request of the State Workforce Office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in activities related to the production of mini/subcompact and compact automobiles.

    The company reports that workers leased from Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, were on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan location of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Lake Orion, Michigan. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.

    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, working on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan, location of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly.

    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,742 is hereby issued as follows:

    All workers of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, including on-site leased workers from Development Dimensions International, Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, Lake Orion, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 19, 2013 through January 21, 2017, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of September, 2016. Hope D. Kinglock, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-26999 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of August 8, 2016 through August 19, 2016.

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

    I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

    (2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and

    (3) One of the following must be satisfied:

    (A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;

    (B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;

    (C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;

    (D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and

    (4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or

    II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

    (2) One of the following must be satisfied:

    (A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;

    (B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and

    (3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

    (2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and

    (3) either—

    (A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

    (B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

    In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act must be met.

    (1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—

    (A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);

    (B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or

    (C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));

    (2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—

    (A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under section 202(f)(3); or

    (B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal Register; and

    (3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—

    (A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or

    (B) not withstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).

    Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 91,199 Gibson County Coal LLC, Alliance Resource Partners L.P., Custom Staffing Princeton, IN December 4, 2014. 91,454 Allegheny Ludlum, LLC, ATI Flat Rolled Products, Latrobe Operations, Allegheny Technologies Inc Latrobe, PA February 9, 2015. 91,512 Jaya Apparel Group LLC, 24 Seven Staffing Inc., SBH Fashion Inc. and Career Group Inc Vernon, CA February 24, 2015. 91,517 Encore Repair Services, LLC, Encore Repair Holdings, LLC, Select Staffing Simi Valley, CA February 3, 2015. 91,826 US Synthetic Corporation, Dover Corporation Orem, UT May 19, 2015. 91,851 TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, Action Electric, Adecco, Butler America, Tradesman International Lafayette, IN May 25, 2015. 92,020 American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc Mullins, SC July 15, 2015.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 90,288 Cartus Corporation, Realogy Services Group, LLC Memphis, TN January 1, 2014. 90,317 Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC, Nokia Solutions and Networks Holdings USA, Inc Arlington Heights, IL January 1, 2014. 91,212 Amdocs, Inc., Program and Business Services Division, Rose, Next Gen, etc Richardson, TX December 10, 2014. 91,413 First Advantage Background Services Corporation, STG-Fairway U.S., LLC St. Petersburg, FL January 29, 2015. 91,500 Orica USA, Accounts Payable/Receivable Department Georgetown, KY February 22, 2015. 91,548 Sensata Technologies, Incorporated, Industrial Sensing Business Division, Sensata Technologies Holding Company Everett, WA March 3, 2015. 91,700 Manitowoc FSG Operations, LLC, Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc., ABR Employment Services, etc Manitowoc, WI May 22, 2016. 91,810 National Oilwell Varco LP, Rig Systems, Offshore Division, iSymphony LLC Houston, TX May 13, 2015. 91,828 Waste Management National Services, Inc., Centralized Billing Center, Waste Management Holdings, Inc., Robert Half Phoenix, AZ May 19, 2015. 91,844 MediGain, LLC, Formerly Millennium Practice Management Associates Upper Saddle River, NJ May 24, 2015. 91,844A MediGain, LLC, Formerly Millennium Practice Management Associates, Randstad Plano, TX May 24, 2015. 91,857 Antenex, Inc., Intrastructure Antennas Systems Business Unit, Laird Technologies, Inc Schaumburg, IL May 25, 2015. 91,878 TRUMPF Photonics, Inc., Ultra-Precision Machining (UPM) Division, TRUMPF Group Cranbury, NJ May 31, 2015. 91,894 Brake Parts Inc., LLC, BPI Holdings International, Inc., Adecco, Select Staffing, and Cornerstone Chowchilla, CA June 8, 2015. 91,933 Panasonic Avionics Corporation, Dallas Repair Station, Aerotek Coppell, TX June 17, 2015. 91,971 InnoVista Sensors Americas, Inc., InnoVista Sensors Ltd, Custom Sensors and Technologies, Inc Thousand Oaks, CA June 28, 2015. 91,980 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Credit Fraud Risk Controllership Group, American Express Company Phoenix, AZ July 3, 2015. 91,999 Fluke Corporation, Pacific Laser Systems Division, Adecco San Rafael, CA July 7, 2015. 92,003 Hewlett Packard Enterprise, ES Applications Delivery Management Division Plano, TX July 8, 2015. 92,004 Atlas Copco Hurricane LLC, Atlas Copco Portable Energy Division Franklin, IN July 11, 2015. 92,007 DSI Underground Systems, LLC, Frank Calandra, Inc Martinsburg, WV July 11, 2015. 92,015 Mattel, Inc., Mattel Global Shared Service Solutions (MGSSS), Personnel Resources, etc East Aurora, NY July 13, 2015. 92,021 Sanford LP, Newell Brands, Lifestyle Temp Agency Shelbyville, TN July 18, 2015. 92,042 Shimadzu USA Manufacturing, Inc., Shimadzu America, Inc., Randstad USA, Selec-Temp Employment Services, etc Canby, OR July 21, 2015. 92,043 SeaChange International, Inc., In-Home Division Portland, OR July 21, 2015. 92,043A SeaChange International, Inc., In-Home Division, Tech Mahindra, Capstone Consulting, Progressive Solutions Milpitas, CA July 21, 2015. 92,044 Northwest Pipe Company, Aerotek Commercial Staffing Denver, CO July 21, 2015. 92,071 Caterpillar High Performance Extrusions Group, Industry Solutions, Components, and Distribution Division, etc Oxford, MS July 28, 2015. 92,071A Caterpillar High Performance Extrusions Group, Industry Solutions, Components, and Distribution Division, etc Memphis, TN July 28, 2015. 92,075 SONA BLW Precision Forge, Inc., SONA AUTOCOMP USA LLC, Executive Personnel Group Selma, NC July 29, 2015.

    The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.

    TA-W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 92,022 Indiana Tool Manufacturing Company, Inc Plymouth, IN July 19, 2015. Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.

    The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.